ENCARNACION BACANI AND VIRGILIO BACANI, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. FELICISIMA PAZ SAMIA GALURA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. The case is
before us only questions of law being raised in appellants’ brief.

The main purpose of this case is to establish title to Lots Nos. 1470 and
1481-D of the Cadastral Survey of Concepcion, province of Tarlac, more
particularly described in Original Certificate of Title No. 4499 of said
province, in the name of Manuel Bacani. The latter was a widower who, for
several years, had lived maritally, although without the benefit of clergy, with
Monica Vargas, a widow who begot him two (2) children, namely, plaintiffs
Encarnacion Bacani and Virgilio Bacani. Admittedly, these plaintiffs grew up
with their aforementioned parents and were supported and sent to school by
Manuel Bacani as his acknowledged natural children, with the knowledge of
defendants Leonides, Paz and Angelina, all surnamed Samia, and hereafter
referred to as the Samias.

Manuel Bacani died in Manila, on August 7, 1931, leaving no legitimate
ascendants or descendants. His nearest relatives were his aforementioned
acknowledged natural children, a sister, Josefa Bacani, and the children of a
deceased sister, Candida Bacani—namely, the aforementioned Samias. On May 31,
1938, the Samias and defendant Anastacia Dizon, acting as administratrix of the
estate of the late Josefa Bacani executed a deed of extrajudicial partition
(Exhibit A) adjudicating to themselves, as the alleged heirs of the deceased
Manuel Bacani, all of his properties, including the two lots af or mentioned.
This deed of extrajudicial partition having been approved, on June 23, 1938, by
the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in Special Proceeding No. 5695 thereof,
entitled “In Re Testate Estate of Josefa Bacani”, upon ex-parte motion of
said Anastacia Dizon, the above mentioned Original Certificate of Title No.
4499, covering said two (2) lots, was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 14121 was issued in favor of the Samias and the estate
of Josefa Bacani, on December 6, 1938.

Soon thereafter, or on March 13, 1939, Encarnacion Bacani filed, with the
Court of First Instance of Manila, a petition, docketed as Special Proceeding
No. 54677 of said court, for the settlement of the estate of Manuel Bacani. By
an order, issued in that case on November 6, 1939, she was appointed
administratrix of said estate and authorized to take appropriate measures to set
aside the proceedings by which his properties had been disposed of in favor of
persons who were not his heirs. Hence, on November 9, 1939, she caused to be
annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14121 of Tarlac, a notice of
lis pendens in favor of the heirs of Manuel Bacani. On January 15, 1940,
she filed in the Special Proceeding (No. 5695 of the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga) for the settlement of the estate of Josefa Bacani, a petition praying
that the aforementioned extra judicial partition be declared null and void ab
initio and that the properties covered by said extrajudicial partition be
ordered delivered to her (Encarnacion Bacani) for her administration and
subsequent distribution among the true and legitimate heirs of Manuel Bacani.
This petition was denied in an order of said court dated February 14, 1940.

On March 7, 1940, Encarnacion Bacani instituted Civil Case No. 817 of the
Justice of the Peace Court of Concepcion, Tarlac, for forcible entry and
unlawful detainer, against the Samias. The record does not show the outcome of
the case in said court, but on appeal to the Court of First Instance of Tarlac
(Case No. 4909), it was dismissed on June 21, 1944, for non-appearance of the
parties.

Meanwhile, or sometime before July 25, 1940, Encarnacion Bacani, likewise,
commenced Civil Case No. 4878 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, for the
purpose of compelling the Samias and Anastacia Dizon to convey the lots in
question to her, as Administratrix of the estate of Manuel Bacani. However, in a
decision rendered on November 26, 1943, the case was dismissed, upon the ground,
among others, that it had been filed prematurely, for Encarnacion Bacani and
Virgilio Bacani had not as yet been declared heirs of Manuel Bacani in Special
Proceeding No. 54677 of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

In a resolution issued in said Special Proceeding No. 54677 on June 30, 1954,
which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA-G. R. No. 13949-R) on May 16,
1956, Encarnacion and Virgilio Bacani were eventually declared the acknowledged
natural children of Manuel Bacani, and, as such, the heirs entitled to inherit
his estate. When the records of said proceeding were remanded to the Court of
First Instance of Manila, Encarnacion Bacani moved therein that defendants
herein be ordered to render account of the products of the lots in question and
to deliver said lots and the products thereof to her. The Samias opposed the
motion, which was denied on November 23, 1956, without prejudice to the
institution of the corresponding action for revindication. Hence, on July 12,
1957, Encarnacion Bacani and Virgilio Bacani instituted the present action (Case
No. 3154 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac) against the Samias and
Anastacia Dizon. In the complaints plaintiffs prayed that they be declared
owners of the lots referred to above and that the defendants be sentenced to
convey the same to the plaintiffs, to render accounts of the products thereof,
and to pay exemplary and moral damages, as well as attorney’s fees.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that plaintiffs’
cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations and by a prior judgment,
and that the court has “no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and over
the subject-matter thereof.” The court having deferred action on the motion
“until the trial” of the case on the merits, the grounds relied upon by the
movants not appearing to be indubitable, the defendants filed their answer
admitting some allegations of the complaint, denying other allegations thereof,
alleging several special defenses—reproducing the grounds of said motion to
dismiss, in addition to asserting ownership over the lots in dispute and denying
the existence of plaintiffs’ cause of action—and setting up a counterclaim for
moral damages and attorney’s fees on account of this litigation.

After due trial, during which the parties merely agreed on most of the
pertinent facts and some documents were introduced in evidence, the lower court
rendered a decision denying the motion to dismiss and: (a) declaring that
plaintiffs are the only forced heirs of the late Manuel Bacani and, as such, the
owners in equal shares of the two (2) lots in questions; (b) declaring the
aforementioned extrajudicial partition as “non-existent or void”; (c) ordering
the defendants to surrender to the Register of Deeds of Tarlac—within fifteen
(15) days from the date on which the decision shall become executory—Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 14121, for its cancellation, with the warning that,
should the defendants fail to comply with this directive within the said period,
the transfer certificate of title would be considered ipso facto null and
void; (d) ordering said officer to cancel the aforementioned transfer
certificate of title, and to issue a new one in the name of plaintiffs herein,
in equal shares; (e) sentencing the defendants to pay to plaintiffs the sum of
P4,640, as rentals of said lots, from February 1940 up to the time of the
rendition of said decision, at the rate of 80 cavanes a year, as well as to
deliver to plaintiffs the rentals of said lots, at the same rate, from the
agricultural year 1959-1960; (f) ordering the defendants to vacate said lots in
order that its possession could be delivered to plaintiffs; (g) dismissing
defendants’ counterclaim; and (h) sentencing the defendants to pay P1,000.00 as
exemplary damages and the costs.

Hence, this appeal by the defendants, who maintain that the lower court
erred:

1. “* * * in not holding that the order of the Court of First Instance of
   Pampanga, rendered in Sp. Proc. No. 5695, entitled ‘Testate estate of Josefa
   Bacani’, approving the extrajudicial partition executed by the defendants over
   the properties in question as heirs of the deceased Manuel Bacani, and the
   decision rendered by the trial court itself in Civil Case No. 4878, constitute
   res judicata to the present case, their being identity of parties, of the
   subject-matter, and of cause of action;”

2. “* * * in not declaring that plaintiffs’ cause of action is barred by the
   statute of limitations;”

3. “* * * in not declaring that it has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter
   involved in the case;”

4. “* * * in imposing exemplary damages against the defendants;”
5. “* * * in denying the motion to dismiss.”

We find no merit in the appeal. The order of the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga, dated June 23, 1938, approving the extra judicial partition made by
the defendants herein cannot bar the present action under the principle of
res judicata. Said order was issued in the special proceeding (No. 5695)
for the settlement of the estate of Josefa Bacani, in which the court had
no jurisdiction to determine who were the heirs of Manuel Bacani and who
should inherit his estate. The right of the plaintiffs herein to the lots in
dispute was not settled in the decision of the court of First Instance of Tarlac
in Civil Case No. 4878, said case having been dismissed upon the ground that
Encarnacion Bacani, as administratrix of the estate of Manuel Bacani, appointed
in Special Proceeding No. 54677 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, could
not “prior to the determination of his heirs in that case, maintain” said
Civil Case No. 4878 “in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac”. Upon the other
hand, the issue of res judicata pressed by defendants herein was raised
by them in Civil Case CA-G. R. No. 13949-R—on appeal from the resolution dated
June 30, 1954, of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in Special Proceeding
No. 54677 thereof—and, in a decision promulgated on May 16, 1956, the Court of
Appeals rejected the claim of said defendants. Accordingly, they are the ones
barred by the principle of res judicata, from insisting in their
aforementioned pretense.

Neither is plaintiffs’ right to assail the aforementioned extrajudicial
partition and the order approving the same, barred by the statute of
limitations, the plaintiffs having contested both since March 30, 1939, when
Special Proceeding No. 54677 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, for the
settlement of the estate of Manuel Bacani, was instituted, apart from the fact
that said order was null and void ab initio, for want of jurisdiction,
and consequently, as good as non-existent, insofar as it implied a determination
of the persons entitled to succeed Manuel Bacani and entailed the transmission
to them of the title to his properties. Again, the same plea of prescription was
set up by defendants herein in CA-G. R. No. 13949-R and, likewise, overruled by
the Court of Appeals in its decision therein.

It is urged that, in the absence of a previous judicial declaration of
nullity of the deed of extrajudicial partition and of the judicial order
approving the same, the lower court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter
of this case. Suffice it to say that the existence or absence of said previous
declaration of nullity can not affect the jurisdiction of the court over the
subject matter of this case, the same being conferred by law. Besides, it was
sufficient, insofar as the case at bar is concerned, that the requisite
allegations of fact showing the aforementioned nullity were made in the
complaint herein and that the corresponding declaration of nullity was made in
the decision appealed from, to justify the same. It may not be amiss to note,
also, that in said decision in CA-G. R. No. 13949-R, rendered prior to the
institution of the case at bar, the Court of Appeals explicitly declared that,
as far as the heirs of Manuel Bacani are concerned, “said extrajudicial
partition made in the estate proceedings of Josef a Bacani of the properties of
Manuel Bacani is null and void.”

The imposition of exemplary damages—in the sum of P1,000, which is almost
nominal—is fully justified, not only by the number of litigations plaintiffs had
to institute, the many years they had to wait, and the expenses they must have
incurred, but, also, by the fact that defendants well knew the status of
plaintiffs herein, and, hence their right to the property in question.

The foregoing, likewise, shows that the motion to dismiss was properly
dismissed.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
the defendants. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L.,
Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.