G.R. No. L-6745; August 31, 1954
NARCISO VICENTE and SINFOROSA LUCAS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FERMIN LUCAS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On October 2, 1935, plaintiffs Narciso Vicente and Sinforosa Lucas filed Civil Case No. 4050 to compel defendants Fermin Lucas and Leocadia Bautista to convey a parcel of land. The action was based on a 1928 document (Exhibit “A-1”) written in Ilocano, translated into Spanish, wherein the defendants acknowledged mortgaging the property to plaintiffs for P75.00, with the stipulation that if the amount was not returned within 1929, plaintiffs could appropriate the lot. Defendants contested the instrument as a prohibited pacto comisorio. On April 2, 1938, the court rendered judgment for plaintiffs, holding the contract was a pacto de retro sale. This decision became final. Later, on July 11, 1939, defendants filed Civil Case No. 4413 to annul the decision in Case No. 4050 as contrary to law, but this was dismissed on October 29, 1942, and no appeal was taken. Meanwhile, on February 14, 1941, Fermin Lucas and his children obtained a decision in a cadastral case directing registration of the same lot in their names. After liberation, plaintiffs demanded possession, and upon refusal, filed the present action on June 26, 1950, to compel reconveyance and surrender of the land. The case was submitted on an “agreement of facts.” Defendants contended the instrument was an illegal pacto comisorio and the decision in Case No. 4050 was null and void ab initio. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, as more than twelve years had elapsed from the 1938 decision.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription of action.
RULING
Yes. The judgment appealed from is reversed. The defense of prescription was deemed waived because it was not pleaded by the defendants in their answer or in a motion to dismiss, as required under Section 10, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. The issues raised by defendants, as per the agreement of facts, were solely the nullity of the instrument and the decision in Civil Case No. 4050. The nature of the instrument (whether a pacto de retro sale or an illegal pacto comisorio) constitutes res adjudicata, having been settled by the final and executory decisions in Civil Cases No. 4050 and No. 4413. Since a final judgment declared plaintiffs entitled to the lot before defendants obtained its registration, the decree was fraudulently obtained. Defendants are ordered to execute a deed of reconveyance within thirty days, deliver the property and owner’s duplicate certificate of title to plaintiffs, and pay the costs.