G.R. No. L-27451 February 28, 1969
PAZ ONGSIACO and the HEIRS OF THE LATE AUGUSTO ONGSIACO, namely, AUGUSTO ONGSIACO, JR. Y DIRIC, FERNANDO ONGSIACO Y DIRIC, JORGE ONGSIACO Y DIRIC, RODOLFO ONGSIACO Y GARCIA, PACITA ONGSIACO Y GARCIA, ANGELA ONGSIACO Y GARCIA, AUGUSTO ONGSIACO Y GARCIA, LILIA ONGSIACO Y GARCIA, the minor LYDIA ONGSIACO Y GARCIA represented by her judicial guardian ALICIA GARCIA, MELENCIO ONGSIACO Y DIZON, NORMA ONGSIACO Y DIZON, ALFREDO ONGSIACO Y DIZON, ESTRELLA ONGSIACO Y SANTOS, SOCORRO ONGSIACO Y SANTOS, ANGEL ONGSIACO Y SANTOS and the minors IMELDA ONGSIACO Y SANTOS, JOSEFINA ONGSIACO Y SANTOS NENITA ONGSIACO Y SANTOS, and JUANITO ONGSIACO Y SANTOS, represented by their judicial guardian SALUD SANTOS, petitioners, vs. ROMAN D. DALLO, MATIAS TIMOTEO, MARCELO RONQUILLO, CESARIO SERVANDO, DIONISIO ENRICO, ILADIO JULIAN, BRUNO S. TEJO, VICTORIANO DUPALE, GUALBERTO CORPUZ, MARCELO DELO, MARIANO MENDOZA, AGUEDA MENDOZA, VENANCIO DALLO, PEDRO D. DELIZO, ESTEBAN RIVERA, TRINIDAD ONGSIACO, LORENZO DOMINGO, JUAN AREOLA, NORBERTO NONO, CECILIO REPANGCOL, ESPERANZA ZAMORA, APOLONIO DELIZO, TORIBIO MORALES, CESARIO TEJERO, PAULO RONQUILLO, LIBERATA TEJERO, FAUSTINO DANO, LEODEGARIA SIMOS, CLAUDIO RONQUILLO, MANUEL CARRASCO, PURIFICACION DALLO, SINFOROSO SABATIN, VALENTIN TOMAS, JUAN PANGALILINGAN, MODESTO POSADAS, CLAUDIA DOMINGO, GREGORIO PANGALILINGAN, HIPOLITO RAFUET, INOCENCIO BERNARDINO, JUAN T. SUMALBAG, AMANDO BAUTISTA, PROCESO ESTONILO, AGUSTINA DIVINA, ENCARNACION MACARANG, JOSE BANES, HERMINIGILDO DAGDAG, FORTUNATO JACOBE, GREGORIO ADARNA, ADRIANO MANDAPAT, MELECIO TOMAS, MAXIMA DOCTOLERO, PERFECTO CABANTING, BENJAMIN DONA, Propietarios Interdictos Inc., THE HONORABLE JUDGE SALVADOR REYES of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Cabanatuan Branch) and THE HONORABLE JUDGE PLACIDO RAMOS of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Guimba Branch), respondents.

FACTS

The private respondents (plaintiffs below) filed a complaint against the petitioners (defendants below) alleging ownership of a parcel of land of about 255 hectares in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, described as “Lot X” on a survey plan. They prayed for the surrender of possession and damages. The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations (prescription) and by prior judgments (res judicata). The respondent Court, in its order of July 18, 1966, denied the motion to dismiss, ruling only on the grounds of bar by prior judgments and lack of cause of action, but omitted to resolve the plea of prescription. This omission is a key reason for the instant petition for certiorari. The petitioners’ adverse possession of the land since 1924 is admitted in the respondents’ pleadings.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss without resolving the ground of prescription, which is a decisive and meritorious defense.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari. The failure of the respondent Court to resolve the issue of prescription constituted a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The issue of prescription is decisive. It is admitted that the petitioners have been in adverse possession of the land in question since 1924. Applying the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) formerly in force, an action for recovery of title or possession of real property prescribed in ten years, regardless of the possessor’s good or bad faith. Since the complaint was filed in 1966, the ten-year prescriptive period had long elapsed. Even under the thirty-year prescriptive period for real actions under the new Civil Code (Article 1141), which applies pursuant to its transitory provision (Article 1116), the right of action had already prescribed. Therefore, the orders complained of were set aside and the complaint was ordered dismissed.