G.R. No. L-29330 December 14, 1987
FILOMENA ARROYO VDA. DE BUNCIO et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ESTATE OF THE LATE SPOUSES ANITA DE LEON and SERAFIN VILLANUEVA, SR., et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Andres Arroyo died in 1901, survived by three compulsory heirs: Felix Arroyo (son from first marriage), and Filomena Arroyo and Simplicio Arroyo (children from second marriage). Felix administered the estate. In 1964, Filomena, then 84 years old, and her children filed a complaint to recover her alleged one-third share in her father’s estate from the defendants, who are successors-in-interest of Felix. She claimed her share had been held in trust and she was deprived of it through fraud, also praying for an accounting of fruits.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds including failure to state a cause of action, res judicata, laches, estoppel, release, and prescription. The Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed the action. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the dismissal deprived them of their day in court and that res judicata was inapplicable due to lack of identity in subject matter and cause of action with a prior case. They also contended their consent to a prior compromise agreement was vitiated by fraud.

ISSUE

Whether the Trial Court correctly dismissed the complaint on the grounds of res judicata and prescription.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was proper. The defense of res judicata is justified. A prior action (Civil Case No. 7862) involving the same estate was filed by Filomena and others in 1938. That case was terminated by a judgment based on a compromise agreement (Convenio de Transaccion) executed on February 19, 1940, wherein Filomena and her co-plaintiffs sold and conveyed all their rights over the litigated properties to the defendant spouses. A final judgment was rendered on February 20, 1940. Although Filomena later moved to vacate that judgment in 1946, alleging fraud, that motion was denied and the denial became final for failure to perfect an appeal. Therefore, the 1940 judgment constitutes a bar to the present action under the doctrine of res judicata, as there is identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action concerning Filomena’s claim to the estate.
Furthermore, the action is barred by prescription. Assuming a constructive trust existed, an action for reconveyance based on such trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. The record shows that the appellants filed the present suit more than ten years after titles were obtained by the appellees or their predecessor-in-interest. Thus, even if the claim were not barred by res judicata, it is independently barred by the statute of limitations. The order of dismissal is affirmed.