FIRST DIVISION
[UDK 17127. April 26, 2022.]
THE HEIRS OF MARTINIANA ISRAEL BULAWAN, NAMELY: NATIVIDAD B. POLIQUIT, ROBERTO B. POLIQUIT AND JOSEFINA POLIQUIT, REPRESENTED BY VIRGILIO R. BULAWAN; THE HEIRS OF ARSENIO ISRAEL BULAWAN, NAMELY: VIRGILIO, RICARDO, DOMINGO AND ROMEO, ALL SURNAMED BULAWAN, REPRESENTED BY VIRGILIO R. BULAWAN; AND THE HEIRS OF CRESENCIA ISRAEL BULAWAN, NAMELY: MARIANO AND CORNELIO, BOTH SURNAMED VITUALLA, REPRESENTED BY VIRGILIO R. BULAWAN, petitioners, vs.LEONORA LABNAO, SERVILLANA ISRAEL, PEDRO ISRAEL, SPOUSES LAZARO BENGALAN AND ANITA BENGALAN, SPOUSES JESUS ABENOJA AND MAGDALENA ABENOJA, SPOUSES MANUEL BERONGA AND VICTORINA BERONGA, SPOUSES MARCELINO POLIQUIT, SR. AND EMERITA POLIQUIT, FLORA MIÑOZA, AND BRGY. PATAG, BAYBAY CITY, LEYTE, REPRESENTED BY BRGY. CAPTAIN ALLAN GUMBA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 26, 2022which reads as follows:
"UDK 17127 — The Heirs of Martiniana Israel Bulawan, namely: Natividad B. Poliquit, Roberto B. Poliquit and Josefina Poliquit, represented by Virgilio R. Bulawan; the Heirs of Arsenio Israel Bulawan, namely: Virgilio, Ricardo, Domingo and Romeo, all surnamed Bulawan, represented by Virgilio R. Bulawan; and the Heirs of Cresencia Israel Bulawan, namely: Mariano and Cornelio, both surnamed Vitualla, represented by Virgilio R. Bulawan, petitioners, versus Leonora Labnao, Servillana Israel, Pedro Israel, Spouses Lazaro Bengalan and Anita Bengalan, Spouses Jesus Abenoja and Magdalena Abenoja, Spouses Manuel Beronga and Victorina Beronga, Spouses Marcelino Poliquit, Sr. and Emerita Poliquit, Flora Miñoza, and Brgy. Patag, Baybay City, Leyte, represented by Brgy. Captain Allan Gumba, respondents.
Before the Court is a Rule 45 certiorari Petition 1 assailing the Court of Appeals' 2 (CA) Decision 3 dated October 29, 2019 and Resolution 4 dated May 28, 2021 in CA-G.R. CV No. 06469. The CA Decision denied the appeal of herein petitioners and affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) Order 5 dated January 27, 2016 in Civil Case No. B-14-05-13, which dismissed their complaint for recovery of real property against respondents.
Petitioners assail the CA Decision and Resolution on two grounds: (1) the CA erred in ruling that there must be a prior determination of the rights of petitioners as heirs of Martiniana Israel Bulawan (Martiniana) in a special proceeding before a civil action for recovery of property allegedly inherited from her can be properly filed; and (2) the CA erred in affirming the dismissal of the complaint by the RTC on the ground of prescription.
While there is merit in the first ground raised by petitioners, the CA correctly affirmed the dismissal of their complaint by the RTC on the ground of prescription. Thus, the denial of their Petition is nonetheless in order.
Anent the first ground, petitioners properly invoked the recent Decision of the Court en banc in Treyes v. Larlar, 6 wherein the rule laid down in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario, 7 and other similar cases, which requires a prior determination of heirship in a separate special proceeding as a prerequisite before one can file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession has been abandoned. Accordingly, petitioners correctly filed their complaint for recovery of real property based on their claim of ownership as heirs of Martiniana, and the lower courts erred in their finding that petitioners are not real parties in interest. 8 CcSTHI
Regarding the second ground, petitioners argue that the RTC was not correct in summarily dismissing the case on the ground of prescription because the action must undergo trial on the merits first before the issue of prescription can be resolved. 9
Petitioners' argument is untenable. As noted by the CA, a dismissal of a claim is warranted when it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the action is barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SECTION 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
The CA explains:
Under the afore-cited provision, the court may dismiss a case even if no motion to dismiss is filed when any of the four (4) grounds referred to therein is present. These are: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata; and (d) prescription x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
x x x In addition, it is clear from the allegations in the Complaint[, petitioners admitted] that the action for recovery of [real property], assuming it is proper, had already prescribed. In their Complaint, [petitioners] admitted that the subject property was registered in the name of Anatolia 10 Ballebas[, respondents' predecessor-in-interest,] way back in 1955 per [Original Certificate of Title] No. P-839. However, the record shows that the Complaint was filed only in 2014, or about 59 years after the property was registered to Anatolia Ballebas. The applicable statute on prescription of action for the recovery of a real property is Article 1141 of the Civil Code, which provides that real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years. As the case was filed beyond the 30-year period and the subject property had been in the possession of Anatolia Ballebas and her successors-in-interest during the same period of time, then the action is already barred by prescription. Prescription, when apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record, is one of the grounds upon which a motu proprio dismissal of a case is warranted.
Furthermore, it is important to note that a Torrens title can be attacked only for fraud within one year after the date of the issuance of the decree of registration. After the expiration of the one-year period, the Torrens title becomes indefeasible. 11
Consequently, despite the tenability of petitioners' first ground, their complaint for recovery of real property was correctly dismissed by the RTC and the CA on the ground of prescription pursuant to Article 1141 of the Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."Gaerlan, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-26, excluding Annexes.
2. Eighteenth (18th) Division and Special Former Eighteenth (18th) Division.
3.Rollo, pp. 38-48. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (retired Member of the Court) and Alfredo D. Ampuan concurring.
4.Id. at 27-29. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, with Associate Justices Roberto P. Quiroz and Nancy C. Rivas-Palmones concurring.
5.Id. at 49-57. Rendered by the RTC of Baybay City, Leyte, Branch 14 and penned by Presiding Judge Carlos O. Arguelles.
6. G.R. No. 232579, September 8, 2020.
7. 363 Phil. 393 (1999).
8.Rollo, pp. 14-18.
9.Id. at 19.
10. "Anatolla" in some parts of the records; id. at 39.
11.Rollo, pp. 45-47. Citations omitted.