Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > October 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18589 October 31, 1962 - BALDOMERO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA CABLAY, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18589. October 31, 1962.]

BALDOMERO BAUTISTA, ANDRES BAUTISTA, ANGELO BAUTISTA, EUFEMIA BAUTISTA, VALERIANO BAUTISTA, and JOSE BAUTISTA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEJANDRA CABLAY, JUANA TUASON, FELISA TUASON, MAGDALENA TUASON, FILOMENA TUASON, JOSE TUASON, ALBERTO TUASON, DANIEL FRIANEZA, GRACIANO BARROSO, MARGARITA DE VEYRA and TEOFILO DE VEYRA, Defendants-Appellees.

Joaquin M. Trinidad for plaintiff-appellants.

Primicias & del Castillo for appellees Frianeza, Et. Al.

Fernando B. Ferrer for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; COMPLAINTS; DISMISSAL ON PLEA OF PRESCRIPTION. — A complaint may be ordered dismissed on a plea of prescription made in the answer, if the dismissal is warranted by the evidence introduced in support thereof.

2. ACTIONS; PRESCRIPTION; CONTINUOUS, PEACEFUL AND ADVERSE POSSESSION OF LAND FOR OVER 33 YEARS. — Inasmuch as in the present case one of the defendants and his predecessors in interest have been in possession of the land, continuously, peacefully and adversely to the whole world, for over 33 years, it is clear that independently of the final deed of sale executed by the Provincial Sheriff, plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dismissing this case with costs against the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Baldomero, Andres, Angelo, Eufemia, Valeriano and Jose, all surnamed Bautista, as well as the deceased Paula Bautista — who was survived by her children Margarita and Teofilo, both surnamed De Veyra, who should be joined as parties plaintiffs, but are named as defendants, because plaintiffs do not know their whereabouts, and have been unable, therefore, to contact them — allege, in their amended complaint, that they are the legitimate children of Alberto Bautista, deceased, from whom they inherited two (2) parcels of riceland, with an aggregate area of about 204,954 square meters, situated in the Barrio of Nantangalan, Municipality of Pozorubio, Province of Pangasinan, and more particularly described in said pleading; that the aforementioned riceland was mortgaged by said Alberto Bautista, during his lifetime, to secure the payment of a debt in the sum of P1,500, to Anastacio Tuason, who had held the aforementioned property and received the products thereof, netting about P2,000 a year, with the obligation to apply the same to the payment of said debt, which has thus been more than fully settled; that, upon the death of Anastacio Tuason, his widow, defendant, Alejandra CABLAY, their children, Defendants, Juana, Felisa, Magdalena, Filomena, Jose and Alberto, all surnamed Tuason, as well as defendants Daniel Frianeza and Graciano Barroso, succeeded the deceased in the aforesaid possession; and that, despite repeated demands, the defendants have refused and still refuse, without just cause, to surrender said possession to plaintiff herein, who, accordingly, prayed that judgment be rendered declaring that the said debt of Alberto Bautista in favor of Anastacio Tuason has been fully paid; that the entry of the aforementioned mortgage in the office of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan be ordered cancelled; and that the defendants be ordered to render accounts of the fruits of the property above referred to respectively received by them, and to turn over to plaintiffs the value of the said fruits, after deducting the sum of P1,500, representing the original debt of Alberto Bautista, as well as the possession of said property and to pay damages.

In due course, defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint admitting some of its allegations, denying other allegations thereof and alleging by way of affirmative and special defenses that plaintiffs have no cause of action and that their cause of action, if any, is barred by the statute of limitations. In view of these special defenses, the lower court set the case for preliminary hearing and the reception of evidence in connection with the said special defenses. Plaintiffs objected thereto, but the lower court overruled the objection and, after the reception of the aforementioned evidence, issued the order complained of upon the ground of prescription of action.

Hence, this appeal by the plaintiffs, who maintain that a dismissal upon said ground is proper only when it is borne out by the allegations of the complaint; that such is not the situation obtaining in the case at bar, and the lower court labored under the impression that the contract between Alberto Bautista and Anastacio Tuason was an ordinary mortgage, which is erroneous, because it is alleged in the amended complaint that the land was held by Anastacio Tuason with the obligation to apply its products to the payment of his credit against Alberto Bautista, and, hence, under a contract of antichresis; and that an action to recover a land held under such contract does not prescribe.

There is no merit in this appeal. It is not true that the special defense of prescription of action may be upheld only when borne out by the allegations of the complaint. Appellants’ pretense would have some color of validity had the order appealed from been issued upon a motion to dismiss, without taking any evidence on the plea of prescription. In the case at bar, the plea has been made in the answer and evidence has been introduced in support thereof.

Upon the other hand, and regardless of whether or not the allegations of the complaint amount to an averment of antichresis, it appears from the evidence on record that, in Civil Case No. 6410 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, entitled "Rufino Toralba and Anastacio Tuason v. Alberto Bautista", decision (Exhibit 7) was rendered on January 12, 1933, sentencing Alberto Bautista to pay to Rufino Toralba and Anastacio Tuason the sum of P1,500, with interest and costs; that, in compliance with a writ of execution (Exhibit 8) of said decision, issued on May 31, 1933, three (3) parcels of land of Alberto Bautista, including the property involved in this case, were, on July 26, 1933, sold at public auction to Anastacio Tuason and Rufino Toralba (see Exhibit 10) in whose favor the corresponding final deed of said (Exhibit 13) was executed by the Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan, on April 3, 1935; that no redemption having been effected within the reglementary period, Anastacio Tuason and Rufino Toralba were placed in possession of said land in pursuance of a writ of possession (Exhibit 12) dated May 7, 1935; and that Anastacio Tuason and Rufino Toralba remained in possession of said land since then up to December 5, 1941, when they sold the land to defendant Daniel Frianeza (Exhibit 14), who, in turn, conveyed the same, on January 12, 1950, to defendant Graciano Barroso (Exhibit 15).

Inasmuch as the latter and his predecessors in interest have been in possession of said land, continuously, peacefully and adversely to the whole world, from May 7, 1935 to November 5, 1958, when the original complaint herein was filed, or for over 33 years, it is clear that, independently of the title transmitted to them by virtue of the final deed of sale executed by the Provincial Sheriff on April 3, 1935, plaintiffs’ cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against plaintiffs-appellants. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10614 October 22, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TUAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE V. BAGTAS

  • A.C. No. 57 October 30, 1962 - HERMENEGILDO U. ABSALUD v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-48922 October 30, 1962 - AMPARO M. VDA. DE ROYO v. N. T. DEEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12919 October 30, 1962 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS HOSPITAL v. U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15183 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: PAULINO P. GOCHECO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO T. ESTACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15548 October 30, 1962 - JOSE KABIGTING v. ACTING DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-16096 October 30, 1962 - C. N. HODGES v. DY BUNCIO & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16174 October 30, 1962 - RUBEN O. SANGALANG v. BRIGIDA VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-16519 October 30, 1962 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, ET AL. v. PEDRO PALISOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16705 October 30, 1962 - ANTONIO E. QUEROL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17053 October 30, 1962 - GAVINO LAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17176 October 30, 1962 - ROSENDO RALLA v. MATEO L. ALCASID, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17207 & L-17372 October 30, 1962 - U.S.T. PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17399 October 30, 1962 - BONIFACIO SY PIÑERO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17530 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAUSIANO ENOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17570 October 30, 1962 - ROSALINA MARTINEZ v. AURELIA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17645 October 30, 1962 - JULIANA ZAPATA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-17784 October 30, 1962 - MARIANO GARCHITORENA v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17822 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO DOMENDEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17924 October 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18008 October 30, 1962 - ELISEA LAPERAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18066 October 30, 1962 - JUANITA NAIRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18068 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: ANTONIO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18112 October 30, 1962 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK v. HAMILTON DISTILLERY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18216 October 30, 1962 - STOCKHOLDERS OF F. GUANZON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-18235 October 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. KIN SAN RICE AND CORN MILL COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18239 October 30, 1962 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18622 October 30, 1962 - LIM SON v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-18953 October 30, 1962 - EMILIO ARZAGA v. FRANCISCO BOBIS, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-20010 October 30, 1962 - FRANCISCO BOIX, ET AL. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13486 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN BAGSICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13968 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14366 October 31, 1962 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14542 October 31, 1962 - MANUEL A. CORDERO v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14848 October 31, 1962 - COLUMBIAN ROPE COMPANY OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. TACLOBAN ASSOC. OF LABORERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15201 and L-15202 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO G. TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15310 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO ABLOG

  • G.R. No. L-15605 October 31, 1962 - URSULA FRANCISCO v. JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15983 October 31, 1962 - MAXIMO ACIERTO, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16587 October 31, 1962 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE, ET AL. v. RUFINO P. HALILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16708 October 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-16789 October 31, 1962 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17008 October 31, 1962 - ALLISON J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17062 October 31, 1962 - MARIANO S. RAMIREZ v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17168 October 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. AMBROSIO CABILDO

  • G.R. No. L-17429 October 31, 1962 - GLICERIA RAMOS, ET AL. v. JULIA CARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17560 October 31, 1962 - VICENTE GARCIA, ET AL. v. JOSE FENOY

  • G.R. No. L-17619 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCA GATCHALIAN v. GORGONIO PAVILIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17439 October 31, 1962 - JOSE IRA, ET AL. v. MARINA ZAFRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17760 October 31, 1962 - RAMCAR, INC. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17772 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17898 October 31, 1962 - PASTOR D. AGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17914 October 31, 1962 - ROSARIO MARTIN VDA. DE MALLARI v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17991 October 31, 1962 - JOSE MA. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18006 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: CUAKI TAN SI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18030 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESMAEL SUSUKAN

  • G.R. No. L-18078 October 31, 1962 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING CORP. v. GOYENA LUMBER CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18231 October 31, 1962 - MIGUEL R. SOCCO, ET AL. v. SALVADORA G. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18253 October 31, 1962 - WENCESLAO PLAZA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18285 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: TOMASA V. BULOS v. VICENTE TECSON

  • G.R. No. L-18338 October 31, 1962 - KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA v. RICARDO TANTONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18379 October 31, 1962 - AMANDA V. CABIGAO v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18588 October 31, 1962 - INES R. DE PAGES, ET AL. v. MATEO CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18589 October 31, 1962 - BALDOMERO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA CABLAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19968-69 October 31, 1962 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. FILOMENO B. YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20131 October 31, 1962 - MACO STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20141-42 October 31, 1962 - JOAQUIN CUATICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20389 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO B. BAUTISTA v. PRIMITIVO A. GARCIA