ELADIA RAPATAN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. ELPIDIO CHICANO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants before the Court
of First Instance of Samar to recover the ownership and possession of a
parcel of land and the damages which they claimed to have suffered as a
result of their dispossession. Defendants answered the complaint
setting up the defense that plaintiffs’ cause of action has already
prescribed. They also set up a counterclaim for moral damages and
attorneys’ fees in the total sum of P25,000.00.

When the case was called for trial, counsel for defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action of plaintiffs,
being based on fraud, has already prescribed, and finding the same well
taken, the court dismissed the complaint, but allowed defendants to
present evidence on their counterclaim. Thereafter, the court rendered
judgment condemning plaintiffs to pay, jointly and severally,
defendants the amount of P5,000.00 as moral damages and the amount of
P500.00 as attorneys’ fees. From this decision plaintiff’s appealed to
this Court alleging as main error that the lower court dismissed the
complaint on the ground of prescription.

The complaint alleges that plaintiffs are the exclusive and absolute
owners of a parcel of land situated in Taft, Samar, by virtue of a
decision rendered in their favor in a civil case; that sometime in
1946, the land became tax delinquent and so plaintiffs approached one
Escolastico Chicano to request him to pay the same on condition that
they will mutually share its produce and administration until after he
is reimbursed of what he would pay; that having Chicano agreed to the
proposal, he had a written agreement prepared which purportedly
contained their understanding and in this belief the same was
thumb-marked by plaintiffs who were not given a chance to read its
contents nor given any copy of the document because they were assured
that everything was in order; that plaintiffs affixed their signatures
on said document relying on the good faith of defendants and on their
assurance that what was orally agreed upon between them was embodied in
that document; that plaintiffs, however, learned and discovered the
fraud committed against them only in November, 1950, after the death of
Escolastico Chicano, when they were driven by force and intimidation
from the possession of the land; and that they repeatedly demanded from
defendants that they be restored to its possession and when they
refused they brought the present action. Plaintiff instituted the
action on February 11, 1957.

Appellants’ theory is that inasmuch as the purpose of their action
is to recover the ownership and possession of real property, the same
can be brought within 10 years after the cause of action accrues, which
period has not yet expired considering that they were dispossessed of
the property in 1950. Appellees, on the other hand, contend that since
their right to recover the property is based on fraud, the same should
be brought within 4 years from its discovery. The trial court sustained
this theory of appellees and dismissed the complaint.

But the trial court did not merely dismiss the complaint but
proceeded to receive evidence on the counterclaim of defendants. In
this respect, the trial court said: “With respect to the counterclaim
alleged in the amended answer of the said defendants, the preponderance of evidence discloses
that the imputations contained in the complaint that the late
Escolastico G. Chicano, husband of Coleta de Chicano and father of
Elpidio Chicano had .acquired the land in question from the plaintiffs
through fraud and that the said defendants’ taking advantage of the
ignorance of the plaintiffs herein managed fraudulently to transfer the
tax declaration of the land in question in the name of the plaintiffs
to the name of defendants are false, malicious and defamatory to the
memory of the late Escolastico Chicano and the reputation of his heirs,
Elpidio Chicano and Coleta de Chicano, thus causing the latter mental
anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shocks and
similar injuries”, and accordingly, ordered plaintiffs to pay the sum
of P5,000.00 as moral damages.

Considering that the foregoing finding is a question of fact which
involves an evaluation of the evidence, and the same is now assigned as
error, we are of the opinion that this case comes within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

Wherefore, it is ordered that this case be certified to the Court of Appeals for adjudication in accordance with law.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.