G.R. No. L-10843; May 31, 1960
Evangeline Wenzel, etc., et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Surigao Consolidated Mining Company, Inc., et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants, the heirs of Chester A. Wenzel, filed a complaint on March 27, 1953, against defendants-appellees. They sought: (1) the annulment of a confirmatory contract of sale (Annex A) dated September 28, 1935, executed by their mother and guardian, Balbina Baguio, which purported to sell the “Boston Placer” mining claim to the Surigao Mainit Mining Syndicate (predecessor of defendant Surigao Consolidated Mining Co., Inc.); (2) the recovery of ownership and possession of two mining claims (“Boston Placer” and “Mestiza Filipina Dacu Girl and Juanita”); and (3) damages based on alleged falsified letters presented as evidence by defendants Garcia and Weber in a prior case. The complaint alleged that Balbina Baguio had no authority to sell the claims, which were the exclusive property of Chester A. Wenzel, and that the sale was fraudulent and not approved in the guardianship proceedings. It also alleged that defendant company had staked overlapping lode claims (“Yes Sir” and “Siana”) on the same locations and operated them from 1935. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on grounds including res judicata, failure to state a cause of action, and prescription. The lower court dismissed the complaint, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint on the grounds of res judicata and prescription.

RULING

Yes, the order of dismissal is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the action is barred by res judicata and has prescribed.
1. Res Judicata: The matters and issues raised in the present complaint had already been adjudicated with finality in a prior case, Civil Case No. 113 of the Court of First Instance of Surigao, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-3832). That case involved the same parties, the same parcel of land, the same “Boston Placer Claim,” and the same deed of sale (Annex A). The Court in the prior case found the sale to be valid, made for valuable consideration, and approved in the guardianship proceedings. A party cannot escape the operation of res judicata by varying the form of action or method of presenting the case.
2. Prescription: The action to annul the deed of sale and recover the mining claims has prescribed. The deed was executed on September 28, 1935, and the complaint alleges the defendant company operated the overlapping claims from that year. The action was filed in 1953, more than 18 years after the cause of action accrued. Prescription ran against the plaintiffs despite their minority because, as alleged in their own complaint, there was a guardianship proceeding at the time of the sale, and the sale was approved by the court in those proceedings.