MACARIO MALLARI, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. MACARIA SUÑGA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

On October 20, 1948, the plaintiffs filed in the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga a complaint against defendants for the partition of a
parcel of land situated in barrio Batasan, municipality of Macabebe, province of
Pampanga, containing an area of about 19,527 square meters, and for the
liquidation and accounting of the fruits thereof from 1940. On November 23,
1948, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for partition and reconveyance
and for liquidation and accounting. In this amended complaint the land is
admitted to be lot No. 50 of cadastral case No. 21, G. L. R. O. No. 981 of the
Court of First Instance of Pampanga.

The defendants, who had already filed a motion to dismiss the
original complaint, also moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds
that there is no cause of action and that the same is barred by a prior judgment
and by the statute of limitations. On July 19, 1949, the Court of First Instance
of Pampanga issued an order dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the
land had previously been judicially adjudicated in favor of the defendants and
that plaintiffs’ right of action, if any, has prescribed. From this order the
plaintiffs have appealed.

It appears from the amended complaint that lot No. 50 was
awarded to the spouses Francisco Bartolo and Macaria Suñga in cadastral case No.
21, G. L. R. O. No, 981 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, by decision
of January 22, 1930; that on March 29, 1930, said court ordered the issuance of
the corresponding decree of registration; that in said cadastral case Francisco
Bartolo (predecessor in interest of the defendants) claimed ownership of the lot
through purchase from Jose Meneses; that since the year 1929, the defendants
have been in possession of the land, enjoying the fruits thereof exclusively,
without giving the plaintiffs any share thereof. Assuming, therefore, that the
plaintiffs had once been co-owners of the land, the defendants have acquired
title by prescription over the property by reason of their adverse and exclusive
possession from the year 1929, or very much longer than ten years before the
filing of the complaint on October 20, 1948. (Bargayo vs. Camumot, 40 Phil.,
857; Solla vs. Ascueta et al., 49 Phil., 333.)

The appealed order is therefore hereby affirmed, without costs.
So ordered.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista
Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.