G.R. No. L-27451. February 28, 1969
PAZ ONGSIACO, AND THE HEIRS OF THE LATE AUGUSTO ONGSIACO, NAMELY, AUGUSTO ONGSIACO, JR. Y DIRIC, FERNANDO ONGSIACO Y DIRIC, JORGE ONGSIACO Y DIRIC, RODOLFO ONGSIACO Y GARCIA, PA…
MAKALINTAL, J.:
The plaintiffs below
(respondents here) filed a complaint[1] against herein petitioners alleging ownership of a parcel of land situated in the municipality of
Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, with an area of 255 hectares, more or less, and praying
that the defendants be ordered to surrender possession to the plaintiffs and to
pay damages, attorney’s fees and costs.
The said parcel is described in the complaint as follows:
“A PARCEL OF LAND ADJOINED
IN MASSE
INDICATED “LOT X”
“(Between the red and
green lines) on the plan S.W.O. 24137, portion of our actual
LANDHOLDINGS. Bounded on the North,
North-west, West, South-west and South by the property of the defendants,
registered in 1910 in their registration case 5550 covered in O.C.T. 139 and on
the East are numerous individual lots owned by the plaintiffs; containing an
area of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE (255) hectares, more or less, situated in the
aforesaid barrios of the municipality of Cuyapo, Province of Nueva Ecija. This property is assessed for the amount of
P76,500.00, at P300.00 per hectare, as per schedule of values in the municipality
of Cuyapo, Province of Nueva Ecija.”
The defendants moved to
dismiss on the following grounds:
“1. That the cause of action if any is already
barred by the statute of limitations.
2. The
Court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action as in effect it seeks
to annul or revoke decisions and resolutions of the Supreme Court considering
that a court of first instance is not authorized to do this even assuming that
the decisions or resolutions of the Supreme Court are wrong.
3. The
complaint states no cause of
action.
4. The
cause of action is already barred by two prior judgments and several
resolutions.”
Respondent Court denied
the motion to dismiss in its order of July 18, 1966, which
states:
“One of the grounds of the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendant Paz Ongsiako thru her
counsel on June 8, 1966 is that the cause of action is already
barred by two prior judgments and several resolutions. However, the complaint on its face appears
to have a different cause of action than the two prior cases and it is up to
the defendants to prove their defense of res judicata. Furthermore, the allegation of the
plaintiffs that the defendants are encroaching upon the boundaries of their
property is also a matter of evidence.”
It may be noted that the foregoing order of denial ruled merely
on two of the grounds alleged in the motion to dismiss, namely, bar by prior
judgments and lack of cause of action.
It did not resolve the plea of prescription. This omission is now relied upon, among other
reasons, in the instant petition for certiorari to set aside the order
aforequoted, as well as a subsequent order denying petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration.
The voluminous pleadings, motions and memoranda filed here deal
largely with the plea of res judicata, particularly with the
question of identity between the land claimed by respondents as an integral
portion of the lands involved in the previous litigations between the parties
and/or their predecessors-in-interest, namely:
Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Leoncio Abad, et al., (47 Phil.
573); Feliciano Abad, et al., vs. Government of the Philippines, (103 Phil.
247); Luis Antonio et al., vs. Jose Mariano de Santos, et al., Cad. Case No. 19
of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, and the resolutions of the
Supreme Court of October 19, 1965 and December 3, 1965, dismissing the appeal
in the last mentioned case.
For the resolution of the
present petition it is not necessary to go into identity of the land as a point
material to the question of res judicata. The issue of prescription is decisive, and
the failure of respondent Court to resolve it constitutes a grave abuse of discretion
correctible by certiorari.
Paragraph 7 of the complaint below contains the following
allegation:
“That the defendants are illegally in possession, occupation
and cultivation of the land indicated “LOT X” on plan SWO 2437, since
1924 after the cadastral Court’s decision in 1924 and benefited on the crops
raised thereon, to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. Such possession and cultivation by the
defendants over the land in question are without just title, for it was not
within the bounds of their registered property in 1910, covered by O.C.T. No.
139, issued by virtue of DECREE 4485-A in their Registration Case No.
5550.”
Elaborating on the matter
of possession, respondents state in their memorandum of September 18, 1967:
“x x x Notwithstanding
the fact that plaintiffs’ predecessors-in?interests were the
original occupants over the land (Lot “X”) since time immemorial, who
cleared and introduced improvements thereon, such as the pilapils, dams, fruit
trees, coconut plants and others on the land (Lot “X”) and became productivity and cultivable
(sic). However, on or before 1924 during
the cadastral survey of Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, they (defendants-petitioners)
moved their monuments 450 meters, more or less, from their respective permanent
places according to the technical description specified in the notice of
publication in the Official Gazette of their Registration case 5550 in
1910. Thereafter, their Overseers,
Encargados or Catiwalas informed to the people, (our predecessors-in-interests)
that their boundary is up to the RED LINES, thus in 1924, our
predecessors-in-interests left the premises (Lot “X”) and stayed
up to the RED LINE appearing on plan SWO-24137.
However, such possession of the defendants-petitioners over the land
(Lot “X”) is possession in bad faith, which it would not ripen into
ownership.”
It is thus admitted that
since 1924 or for a period of forty-two years before the basic complaint was
filed in 1966, petitioners had been in possession of the land claimed by
plaintiffs below, now respondents, and that such possession was adverse, or in
concept of owner, although allegedly in bad faith. Under the Code of Civil Procedure formerly in
force, good or bad faith was immaterial for purposes of acquisitive
prescription. Adverse possession in
either character ripened into ownership after the lapse of ten years.[2]
In the same manner, an action to recover title to or possession of immovable
property prescribed in the same period.[3]
There can be no doubt
that the former laws on prescription apply here, pursuant to Article 1116 of
the Civil Code.[4] Even the thirty-year period fixed in
the new Civil Code for the acquisition of ownership by extraordinary
prescription,[5]
or for the extinction of the right of action (real) over immovables,[6]
had expired when the present action was filed.
Wherefore, the writ prayed for is granted. The orders complained of are set aside and
the complaint filed by private respondents below is ordered dismissed, with
costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Capistrano, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.
Fernando, J., did not take
part.
[1]
Civil Case No. 113-G, CFI, Nueva Ecija (Guimba Branch).
[2]
“SEC. 41. Title to land by
prescription. – Ten years actual adverse
possession by any person claiming to be the owner for that time of any land or
interest in land, uninterruptedly continued for ten years by occupancy, descent,
grants, or otherwise, in whatever way such occupancy may have commenced or
continued, shall vest in every actual occupant or possessor of such land a full
and complete title …..” (Act No. 190)
[3]
“SEC. 40. Period of prescription as
to real estate. – An action for recovery
of title to, or possession of, real property, or an interest therein, can only
be brought within ten years after the cause of such action accrues.”
[4]
“ART. 1116. Prescription already
running before the effectivity of this Code shall be governed by laws
previously in force, but if since the time this Code took effect the entire
period herein required for prescription should elapse, the present Code shall
be applicable even though by the former laws a longer period might be
required.”
[5]
“ART. 1137. Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe
through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need
of title or of good faith.”
[6]
“ART. 1141. Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years.
This provision
is without prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership
and other real rights by prescription.”