PRIMA G. CARRILLO AND LORENZO LICUP, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. FRANCISCA SALAK DE PAZ AND ERNESTO BAUTISTA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

This is an appeal from an order
of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac dismissing a
suit to recover ownership and possession of 2/3 of 1/2 of Lot No. 221 of the
Cadastral Survey of Tarlac.

Severino Salak
and Petra Garcia were the owners of Lot No. 221 of the Cadastral Survey of Tarlac, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 41543,
with an area of 1,334 square meters. Petra Garcia died on September 21,
1941. On
August 16,
1943,
Severino Salak sold to Honoria Salak for P812.00 his 1/2
portion of said lot. A year later, on December 5,
1944,
Severino Salak died.
Sometime in January 1945, Honoria Salak and other members of her family died – massacred by
the Japanese.

As a result, two settlement
proceedings were Instituted in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac: (1) Special Proceeding No. 3, to settle the estates
of Severino Salak and Petra
Garcia and (2) Special Proceeding No. 23, to settle the estates of the Salak family (parents Simeon Salak
and Isabel Carrillo; and children Adolfo, Honoria,
Consuelo and Ligaya).

On September 4,
1946, a
Project of Partition was submitted in Special Proceeding No. 3, which the court
approved on November 19,
1946.
Said project adjudicated inter alia Lot No. 221, which
was given thereunder to Francisca Salak de Paz (1/4 of it in her capacity as heir, and the
other 3/4 by purchase and/or exchange with her co-heirs, Rita Sahagun, Aurea Sahagun and Ernesto Bautista). From 1946 up to the present
Francisca Salak has possessed all of Lot No.
221.

On the other hand, in Special
Proceeding No. 23, on February 26,
1948, the
court a quo held that the heirs entitled to the estates of the Salak family were Agustina de
Guzman Vda. de Carrillo (3/4 share) and Ernesto
Bautista (1/4 share), applying the survivorship presumption [Rule 123, Sec.
69(ii), now Rule 131, Sec. 5(jj) of the Rules of
Court], thus: (1) Simeon Salak died first – his
properties went to the children Adolfo, Honoria,
Consuelo and Ligaya (1/4 each); (2) Honoria, Consuelo and Ligaya died
next – Honorias’s and Consuelo’s properties went to
their mother, Isabel; those of Ligaya went to her son,
Ernesto Bautista;^[1] (3) Isabel died
next – her properties went to her son Adolfo; and (4) Adolfo died last – his
properties went to his maternal grandmother, Agustina.
Agustina thereby succeeded to the properties that came
by intestate succession from Honoria Salak and Isabel Carrillo, Including 1/2 of Lot No.
221.

On
November 9,
1948, Agustina de Guzman Vda. de
Carrillo filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac (docketed therein as Case No. 351) against the heirs
in Special Proceeding No. 3 to recover 1/2 of Lot No. 221 which as
aforementioned has been possessed by Prancisca Salak de Paz.

On April
24, 1950,
Agustina died.

On June 8, 1950 the Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac in Special Proceeding No. 23, and further decreed
that the properties inherited by Agustina de Guzman
Vda. de Carrillo were subject
to reserva troncal.

On November 6,
1950,
Ernesto Bautista filed a. petition in Special Proceeding No. 23 for the
execution of the judgment therein. Said petition was heard on November 10,
1959,
after a copy was served on the lawyer of Prima Carrillo, the latter being a
party thereto as administratrix of the estate of her
deceased mother Agustina. Acting on said petition, the
lower court issued its order of November 14,
1950,
which reads in part:

“x x x the Court, in view of the
death of the reservista, Doña Agustina de Guzman Vda. de
Carrillo, declares all the interest of the said reservista Doña Agustina de Guzman Vda. de Carrillo as well as that of her heirs in the three-fourths
share adjudged to the reservista, definitely
terminated, and that the reservee, the minor Ernesto
Bautista, is entitled to the immediate delivery to him of the said three-fourths
share declared reserved to him in the decision of the Court of Appeals of
June 8,
1950. x
x x” (Record on Appeal, pp.
213-214)

On December 20,
1960, the
lower court dismissed Civil Case No. 351.’ The order of dismissal reads in
part:

“By virtue of the existence of
third-degree relatives of Adolfo Salak, the portion of
Lot No. 221, inherited by Agustina de Guzman was never
released from the reserva, so as to convert the
ownership of Agustina de Guzman into an absolute one.
Upon her death on April 24,
1950,
therefore, the property did not pass by inheritance to her legal heirs, but
rather reverted to the family trunk of the Isabel-Adolfo line. Such being the
case, the estate of Agustina de Guzman, the present
plaintiff in this case, has no cause of action against the
defendants.

“In resume, the adjudication in
Special Proceeding No. 23, Intestate Estate of the late Simeon Salak and Isabel Carrillo, which included Lot No. 221, has
become res judicata which
cannot be disturbed in this case.” (Record on Appeal, p.
209)

On April
22, 1963,
Prima Carrillo and Lorenzo Licup filed the present
suit for recovery of 2/3 of 1/2 of Lot No. 221 against Prancisca Salak de Paz and Ernesto
Bautista.^[2]

On June
20, 1963,
defendants Francisca Salak de Paz and Ernesto Bautista
filed a motion to dismiss upon the grounds that the cause of action is barred by
prior judgment and by the statute of limitations.

On November 19,
1963, the
court a quo dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata, finding the suit
barred by the order of delivery dated November 14,
1950 in
Special Proceeding No. 23.

Plaintiffs Prima Carrillo and
Lorenzo Licup thereupon appealed to Us upon questions of law.

Several grounds were advanced to
support the motion to dismiss: that the cause of action is barred by prior
judgment and by the statute of limitations. Although the action was dismissed by
the lower court expressly upon the ground of res judicata, it
did not totally disregard the defense of prescription. Thus, said court pointed
out that:

“Prima Carrillo being then the
administratrix of the estate of her mother, she is
also deemed to have been notified of the petition for execution of judgment in
Special Proceeding No. 23, and of the order of November 14,
1950. As
of then, therefore, Prima Carrillo (even though as administratrix)
personally knew that Ernesto Bautista claimed to be the sole reservee of all the properties inherited “by Da Agustina from the Salak Family, among which was Lot No. 221 in question, but
she did not file any opposition thereto. It was her opportunity to assert her
right as reservee by opposing the petition or, failing
in this, to contest or to ask to be relieved from the order of November 14,
1950.
Instead, she allowed about
thirteen (13) years before
she commenced the present action.” (Decision, Record on Appeal, pp.
214-215; emphasis supplied)

At any rate, this Court can
resolve this appeal on the issue of prescription. As ruled in the cases of
Garcia Valdez v. Soterana Tuazon, 40
Phil. 943 and Relativo v. Castro, 76 Phil. 563, when the
trial judge decides a case in favor of a party on a certain ground, the
appellate court may uphold ‘the decision below upon some other point which was
ignored or erroneously decided in favor of the appellant by the trial
court.

Reserva troncal in this jurisdiction is treated
in Article 891 of the new Civil Code and Article 811 of the old Civil Code,
which state:

“The ascendant who inherits from
his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous
title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such
property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of
relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which
said property came.”

The reserva troncal arose – as had been finally decided by
the Court of Appeals in Special Proceeding No. 23 – when Agustina acquired by operation of law all the properties of
her descendant Adolfo (grandson), who acquired them by gratuitous title from
another ascendant, Isabel (Adolfo’s mother).

According to
Manresa, the reserva is extinguished upon the death of the reservista, as it then becomes a right of full ownership on
the part of the reservatarios, who can bring a reivindicatory suit therefor.
Nonetheless, this right, if not exercised within the time for recovering real
properties, can be lost by prescription:

“Pero
extinguida la reserva por la muerte
del reservista, cambian por completo las relaciones y condiciones juridicas de las personas y de las cosas, como ya se
ha indicado. La obligacion
de reservar se convierte en
la de entregar los bienes a quien correspondan, obligacion que pasa a la herencia del reservista fallecido y deben cumplir sus herederos, Y el derecho a la reserva se convierte en el derecho al dominio pleno de esos bienes. Si a la muerte del reservista se cumple la condicion resolutoria de existir parientes dentro del tercer grado que pertenezcan a la linea de donde los bienes proceden, a estos parientes pasa desde aquel momento por ministerio de la ley el dominio absoluto de aquellos bienes, y, por consiguiente, el derecho para reclamarlos, pudiendo disponer libremente de aquellos o de este, y transmitirlos a sus herederos, puesto que la ley no lo prohibe. Y si no sobrevive al reservista ninguno de dichos parientes, queda extinguida la obligacion de reservar, por no haberse cumplido aquella condicion resolutoria impuesta por la ley, y en su virtud vuelven los bienes al-pleno dominio
del ascendiente, y pertenecen a su herencia conforme al art. 651. Y como nada
ordena la ley en sentido contrario, tenemos por tndudable que no tiene el caracter de personalisimo ninguno de esos derechos, que nacen con la extincion de la reserva, pertenecen a la herencia y se
transmiten a los herederos, aunque el causante no los hubiere ejercitado por si mismo, salvo los casos de renuncia, incapacidad o prescription.” x x
x x x

“C) Extincion de la reserva. – Las mismas condicones exigidas para el naclmiento de la reserva son necesarias para su existencia. Al faltar una de ellas, la reserva muere. Tres son, por tanto, las principales causas de extincion:

“1.a Muerte
del ascendiente. – Sea el que qulera el destino definltlvo de los bienes, en virtud de la naturaleza condicional de los derechos que crea el art. 811, es lo cierto que la reserva, como tal,
una vez nacida, acompaña al ascendiente obligado a ella hasta su muerte. Muerto el ascendiente, cesa toda obligacion de reservar; falta el sujecto paslvo de la reserva. x x x x x
x

“Ademas de las tres causas expresadas, pueden señalarse otras que expondremos a continuacion. x x
x x x x

“Y 5.a La prescripcion, si se
disfrutan como libres
los bienes por los herederos del ascendiente durante el tiempo y con las condiciones marcadas per la ley.” (Manresa, Comentarios Al Codigo Civil Español, Vol. 6, 1911 Ed., pp. 288-289,
316-318)

Scaevola also states the view that
prescription can apply against the reservatarios to
cut off their right to the reservable
property:

“f) Prescripcion. – Este
modo extintivo de los derechos tiene solo aplicacion a los parientes
del tercer
grado del descendiente, porque no habiendo reserva si no acepta el ascendiente, no hay que hablar de prescripcion extintiva respecto de
el.

“Tocante a los parientes con derecho a la reserva, es aplicable la doctrina, porque pueden no ejercer su derecho por ignorar la rauerte
del descendiente o por otra causa.

“Dada esta posibilidad, entendemos que, tratandose de un derecho real
sobre bienes inmuebles, prescribira a los treinta años (art. 1.693; (1), contados desde la aceptacion de la herencia por el ascendiente, momento deterrainante del derecho al ejercicio de la reserva (art. 1.969); transcurridos, pues, treinta años desde la aceptacion sin que los parientes favorecidos por la ley hayan solicitado la constitucion de la reserva, se
extinguira esta, y el ascendiente o sus derecho-habientes adquiriran el
pleno dominio de los bienes reservables por su naturaleza, pero que no fueron objeto, de reserva.” (Scaevola, Codlgo Civil Comentado, Vol. 14, 1944 Ed.,
p.360).

Plaintiffs-appellants herein, as
reservatarios, had the right to claim the property –
2/3 of 1/2 of Lot No. 221 – from Francisca Salak de
Paz, who has been possessing it in the concept of an
owner, from April 24,
1950 when
Agustina died. And the Court of Appeals’ decision
affirming the existence of reserva troncal, promulgated on June 8,
1950,
rendered it all the more doubtless that such right had accrued in their favor
from the time Agustina died. It is clear, therefore,
that the right or cause of action accrued in favor of the plaintiffs-reservatarios herein on April 24,
1950.

Section 40 of the Code of Civil
Procedure fixes 10 years as the period of prescription for actions to recover
real property, counted from the time the cause of action accrued. This is the
applicable law because Article 1116 of the new Civil Code provides that
“Prescription already running before the effectivity
of this Code [August 30,
1950]
shall be governed by laws previously in force.”

Plaintiffs-appellants’ suit
herein, having been filed only on April 22, 1963, or more than 10 years from
April 24, 1950, has prescribed.

And having reached such
conclusion, We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the
question of whether the suit is also barred on the ground of res judicata.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed
from is hereby affirmed on the ground of prescription, with costs against
appellants.

SO
ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J. B. L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez
and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.

 Barrera, J., on leave.

^[1] Thus, Ernesto Bautista was an
heir- in both Special Proceeding No. 3 and Special Proceeding No.
23.

^[2] Plaintiff Prima Carrillo claims
to be a reservatario (as sister of Isabel Carrillo and
aunt of propositus Adolfo), while plaintiff Lorenzo
Licup is the surviving husband of Luz Carrillo
(likewise a sister of Isabel Carrillo and aunt of prepositus Adolfo) Prima and Lorenzo claim to be heirs of
Luz.