G.R. No. L-6459; April 23, 1954
CONSOLACION C. VDA. DE VERZOSA, PAZ VERZOSA, JOSE VERZOSA, VICENTE VERZOSA, CRISPULO VERZOSA, and RAYMUNDO VERZOSA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. BONIFACIO RIGONAN, SEGUNDO NACNAC, NEMESIO SEGUNDO, clerk of Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, and LUDIVICO RIVERA, Provincial Sheriff of Ilocos Norte, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs, heirs of Luis Verzosa, instituted an action to nullify various judicial and sheriff’s acts related to the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage executed by Luis Verzosa in 1931. The mortgage was foreclosed in Civil Case No. 3537, resulting in a judgment based on a compromise agreement. Subsequent writs of execution were issued by the clerk of court on April 20, 1934, December 12, 1934, and July 7, 1938, leading to sheriff’s sales of various parcels of the judgment debtor’s land in 1935 and 1936. On February 17, 1941, an assignee of the judgment creditor sold one parcel to defendants Rigonan and Nacnac, and on July 18, 1941, a court order was issued placing Rigonan in possession. The plaintiffs filed the present action on September 10, 1950, seeking annulment of these acts and damages. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of prescription, res judicata, and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court initially found the action prescribed but allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint. After plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and defendants reiterated their motion, the trial court dismissed the case. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals and later certified to the Supreme Court as involving pure questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the action for annulment of the clerk of court’s writs/decrees and the sheriff’s sales and actuations had prescribed.
2. Whether, on a motion to dismiss, the court could consider a copy of a prior judgment attached to the motion to establish the defense of res judicata.

RULING

1. Yes, the action had prescribed. The acts sought to be nullified (the writs, decrees, sales, and other sheriff’s actuations from 1934 to 1938, and the 1941 assignment and possession order) occurred more than ten years before the action was filed on September 10, 1950. Under Article 44 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure), such an action prescribes in ten years. Consequently, the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The nullification of the July 18, 1941 possession order followed as a legal consequence, as possession follows ownership.
2. Yes, the court could consider the copy of the prior judgment attached to the motion to dismiss. While the trial court initially ruled that res judicata involved a question of fact not appearing in the complaint, the Supreme Court held that under Section 3, Rule 8, in relation to Section 100 of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, a motion to dismiss based on facts not of record may be heard on affidavits or depositions. The undisputed copy of the decision attached to the motion constituted sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a prior judgment between the same parties, making the defense of res judicata available to test the complaint’s sufficiency. The order of dismissal was affirmed.