G.R. No. L-29320 September 19, 1988
FELIPE SEGURA, ANTONIA SEGURA, NICANORA SEGURA, BERNANDINA SEGURA, ALIPIO SEGURA and MONSERRAT SEGURA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. NICOLAS SEGURA, SANTIAGO SEGURA, GAUDENCIO SEGURA, EMILIANO AMOJIDO, MILDRED ELISON VDA. DE JAVELOSA, ERNESTO AMOJIDO, EPIFANIA DE AMOJIDO, IGMEDIO AMOJIDO, and THE RURAL BANK OF SANTA BARBARA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The land in question, originally owned by Gertrudes Zamora, was left undivided upon her intestate death in 1936 among her four children. The dispute involves her grandchildren. In 1941, three grandchildren (Nicolas, Santiago, and Gaudencio Segura) executed an extrajudicial partition claiming the entire property, excluding their siblings and cousins. This partition was registered in 1946. The land was subsequently sold with pacto de retro to Emiliano Amojido in 1941, who consolidated ownership in 1946, obtaining a title annotated with a reservation of the rights of the other heirs. Amojido sold the land to Mirope Mascareñas in 1953, and the new title issued to her omitted the previous annotation. The land was then sold to Mildred Elison vda. de Javelosa in 1957, and later to Ernesto and Igmedio Amojido in 1958. The excluded heirs initially filed a recovery case (Civil Case No. 3941) in 1956, which was dismissed upon their counsel’s motion in 1958. They filed the present action (Civil Case No. 7477) in 1968.

ISSUE

(1) Whether the present action is barred by res judicata due to the prior dismissal of Civil Case No. 3941. (2) Whether the action to recover their shares has prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court held the action was not barred by res judicata but was barred by prescription. On the first issue, the dismissal of the prior case was without prejudice. The plaintiffs’ counsel moved for dismissal due to his clients’ absence, and the court’s order did not specify it was with prejudice. Under Rule 17, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, such a dismissal is deemed without prejudice unless otherwise stated. Thus, the present action could be refiled. On the second issue, the Court ruled that prescription began to run against the excluded heirs from the registration of the title in the name of Mirope Mascareñas in 1953. The deletion of the annotation reserving the rights of the other heirs in her new title constituted an open and clear repudiation of their co-ownership. This repudiation started the ten-year prescriptive period for filing an action to recover their shares. The period was interrupted by the filing of the first complaint in 1956 but resumed after its dismissal in 1958. The ten-year period was completed by 1965. Since the present complaint was filed only in 1968, the action had already prescribed. The trial court correctly dismissed the complaint, albeit for a different starting point. The appeal was dismissed.