MARIA TEVES VDA. DE BACANG, MILAGROS TEVES VDA. DE ACEBRON, BENITA TEVES VDA. DE CORDOVA, LICERIA MONTESA VDA. DE SANTOS, MENAS CABANAG MARRIED TO BEDE LASMARIAS, ANTONIA CABANA…

The issue in this case is whether a 1975 action to recover the alleged hereditary
shares in Hacienda Nuestra Señora
del Pilar, Lots Nos. 275 and 276 of the Bais, Negros Oriental cadastre,
with an area of 671 hectares, originally belonging to Manuel Abella, who died in 1890, is barred by prescription and res judicata.

Manuel Abella died intestate, survived by two children,
named Emilio and Joaquin, begotten with his first wife Enriqueta
Teves, and three other children named Manuela, Hermenegildo and Carmen, begotten with his second wife,
Leona Teves. All the five children carried the
surname Teves. Manuel Abella
had another son named Manuel Abella y Regulo who was left in Spain
and who died as a soldier during the Cuban war.

Before his death, he
transferred his said hacienda to his children by means of a simulated
sale to Joaquin for his share and another simulated deed of sale to the other
four, Emilio, Carmen, Hermenegildo, and Manuela, for
their shares but this second sale was in Emilio’s name only because the other
three children were still minors who lived with Emilio in the family home.

Emilio died in 1911, survived by his wife Pilar Lajato, and five children
named Serafin, Julian, Manuel, Rosa and Maria. On September
26, 1912, the
three children by the second wife, Manuel, Carmen, and Hermenegildo, sold their hereditary shares in the said
hacienda for P10,500 to Pilar
Lajato and her children. That sale is known in the
record as Exhibit A.

Intestate proceedings for
the settlement of Emilio Teves‘ estate were pending
in the lower court from 1912 to 1919. No claim against the said estate or its
administrator was filed during that period by the said three children.

In 1920, the same
three children in Civil Case No.
576 sued the vendees, Pilar Lajato
and her children for the annulment of the said deed of sale and the recovery of
their shares in the hacienda. The trial court sustained the validity of the
sale and dismissed the action. This Court dismissed the appeal of the three
children on February 1, 1924 (Annex G of Petition in CA).

In the cadastral proceeding, the hacienda was claimed by the five
children of Emilio Teves. Original Certificates of
Title Nos. 9162 and 13742 were issued in their names on February 16 and December 19, 1931. Later, Rosa and
Maria sold their shares to their brothers, Serafin,
Julian and Manuel, all surnamed Teves.

More than forty-three (43) years after the issuance of those titles,
or on October 3, 1975, the instant case was filed by the children of
Carmen Teves and the children and grandchildren
of Manuela Teves (Carmen and Manuela were children of the second
wife of Manuel Abella) against Serafin
L. Teves and the children of the deceased Manuel L. Teves and Julian L. Teves.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds, inter
alia, of res judicata, prescription, laches
and estoppel. The lower court denied the motion.

The order of denial was
assailed by certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals. In its
decision of November 6, 1978, the Appellate Court reversed the order of
denial of Judge Alejandro R. Boncaros and dismissed
the action.

The plaintiffs appealed
to this Court. They contend that the Appellate Court erred (1) in entertaining
the petition for certiorari, appeal in due time being the remedy;
(2) in not declaring void the decision in Civil Case No. 576 and the deed of
sale (Exh. A) and (3) in holding that the action was
barred by res judicata,
prescription, estoppel and laches,
since it made six erroneous findings on these grounds.

We hold that the appeal
is palpably bereft of merit. Petitioners’ 1975 action is clearly barred by
valid prior judgments and prescription (See Ramos vs. Ramos, L-19872, December
3, 1974, 61 SCRA 284; Gallanosa vs. Arcangel, L-29300,
June 21, 1978, 83 SCRA 676; Sinco vs. Longa, 51 Phil. 507). Private respondents’ Torrens
titles over the hacienda have long become indefeasible.

Since the grounds for dismissal are indubitable, the defendants had the right to resort to the
more speedy and adequate remedies of certiorari and prohibition to
correct a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction,
committed by the trial court in not dismissing the case.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
affirmed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., and De Castro, JJ., on leave.