G.R. No. L-10909; April 30, 1962
ADELAIDA TABOTABO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. AGUEDO TABOTABO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Gaudencio Tabotabo died in 1908, survived by his widow Rafaela Gallarde but no legitimate children. In his will, he mentioned having a natural son, Vicente Tabotabo, but in a subsequent clause expressly disinherited Vicente and a daughter Juana should they claim recognition as his natural children. The will was probated in Special Proceedings No. 256. In 1909, the ten legitimate children of Vicente (the herein appellants), then minors, filed a motion in the probate proceedings asking to be declared Gaudencio’s sole heirs based on their father’s alleged acknowledgment. The probate court denied their motion in a 1909 order, expressly finding that Vicente was not acknowledged in the will and that the testator firmly intended not to recognize him. No appeal was taken, and the estate was settled. Decades later, in 1954, Vicente’s children initiated new intestate proceedings, which were dismissed upon discovery of the prior probate. They then filed the present action in 1955 for partition, accounting, and recovery of properties against the parties in possession.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint states a cause of action, or is instead barred by res judicata and prescription.

RULING

The complaint was correctly dismissed. The foundational claim of the appellants is that their father Vicente was a duly acknowledged natural child of Gaudencio, granting them successional rights. This precise issue was already adjudicated with finality in the 1909 order from the probate proceedings. The court therein directly ruled that Vicente was not acknowledged, interpreting the will as a whole to show the testator’s firm intention not to recognize him. The appellants participated in that proceeding through their motion, and the order became final for lack of appeal. The principle of res judicata therefore bars the relitigation of Vicente’s status and any derivative inheritance claims. Furthermore, the action is barred by prescription. The complaint alleges that Rafaela and Daniel Tabotabo took possession of the properties upon Gaudencio’s death in 1908, and that Rafaela died in 1939 after which the properties were distributed. The filing of the present case in 1955, seeking recovery of real property, occurred far beyond the applicable prescriptive period. The alleged prior demands and a lost civil case did not effectively interrupt this period. Having no legal right to inherit from Gaudencio, the appellants lack a cause of action. The order of dismissal is affirmed.