G.R. No. 33626 ; March 2, 1931
ANA CALLEJON SALINAS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FELISA ROMAN TUASON and JOSE MORENO ROMAN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiffs, heirs of Francisco Callejon Salinas, sued defendants, heirs of Jose Moreno Lahaba, to recover P30,000, the proceeds from the sale of two parcels of land in Nueva Ecija owned by their predecessor. Lahaba was the attorney-in-fact and administrator of Callejon Salinas’s properties. After Callejon Salinas died in 1911, Lahaba sold the lands in 1918 but did not account for the proceeds to the heirs. Lahaba died in 1920. Plaintiffs initially claimed and were paid P2,500 from Lahaba’s estate, based on Lahaba’s statement to the Spanish Consul that this was the only amount in his possession belonging to Callejon Salinas. Later, plaintiffs discovered the 1918 sale for P30,000 and filed this action. The trial court ordered defendants to pay P30,000, deducting P3,491.60 for legitimate expenses incurred by Lahaba (survey, registration, taxes, attorney’s fees). Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter.
2. Whether the prior claim for P2,500 constituted res judicata.
3. Whether the action had prescribed.
4. Whether the deduction of P3,491.60 for expenses was proper.
5. Whether legal interest should run from the date of the sale (1918) or the filing of the complaint.

RULING

1. Jurisdiction: The court had jurisdiction. The action was for the recovery of a sum of money based on an implied trust arising from Lahaba’s fiduciary duty as an agent. It was a personal action, not one affecting title to real property.
2. Res Judicata: The prior claim for P2,500 did not constitute res judicata. That claim was based on Lahaba’s representation of only holding P2,500. The present action is based on the newly discovered fact of the P30,000 sale, which Lahaba concealed. The causes of action and subject matter are different.
3. Prescription: The action had not prescribed. The defense of prescription does not apply as Lahaba was a trustee under an express trust. The statute of limitations does not run against a beneficiary until the trust is clearly repudiated and the beneficiary has knowledge of such repudiation. Here, there was no clear, open repudiation by Lahaba; instead, there was concealment. The heirs only learned of the sale after Lahaba’s death.
4. Deduction of Expenses: The deduction of P3,491.60 was proper. The amount represented legitimate and proven expenses (survey, registration, taxes, attorney’s fees) incurred by Lahaba for the benefit of the land, which the estate was obligated to reimburse.
5. Interest: Legal interest was correctly computed from the date of the filing of the complaint, not from the 1918 sale. Interest from the latter date was not warranted as the defendants, as heirs, were not in bad faith and only became liable upon judicial demand.

The decision of the trial court was affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.