Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82453:56326&catid=1575&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:16:44+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 190650, October 14, 2013 - ANTONIO JAMES, GERTRUDES JAMES, BEATRIZ JAMES, JERRY JAMES, CECILIA JAMES AND HEIRS OF GORGONIO JAMES, JR. NAMELY: BOND JAMES, SAINT JAMES AND MAY JAMES VARGAS, Petitioners, v. EUREM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
ANTONIO JAMES, GERTRUDES JAMES, BEATRIZ JAMES, JERRY JAMES, CECILIA JAMES AND HEIRS OF GORGONIO JAMES, JR. NAMELY: BOND JAMES, SAINT JAMES AND MAY JAMES VARGAS, Petitioners, v. EUREM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
This is a petition for review1 of the Decision2 dated January 29, 2009 and Resolution3 dated November 17, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 00119-MIN, which dismissed the petitioners’ appeal from the Resolution4 dated February 24, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City, Branch 6 in Civil Case No. 5877 for Declaration of Nullity of Title and Ownership of Real Property with Damages.
On February 24, 2004, the RTC sustained the respondent’s defenses and dismissed the complaint.7 According to the RTC, res judicata does not apply because the causes of action involved in Civil Case No. 2503 and Civil Case No. 5877 are different. As to the ground of prescription, however, the RTC agreed with the respondent that the petitioners’ action had already prescribed. The RTC noted that the title of the respondent’s predecessor-in-interest, Lopez, was issued on October 11, 1972 and has not been judicially declared null and void by any competent court up to the present, while the complaint for the declaration of nullity of the respondent’s title was filed only on September 26, 2003. Hence, more than 30 years have lapsed before the petitioners decided to question the legality of the respondent’s title over the property.
Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed to the CA contending that: (1) the RTC erred in dismissing the case on the ground of prescription; and (2) the RTC erred in not declaring TCT No. T-10713 covering Lot 1, Pcs-8080 in the respondent’s name as null and void.
In the Decision8 dated January 29, 2009, the CA dismissed the appeal. The CA ruled that the issues of res judicata and prescription, and the determination of the nullity of the respondent’s TCT No. T-10713 are questions of law that should have been raised via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court. The petitioners sought reconsideration9 but their motion was denied per Resolution10 dated November 17, 2009.
Given the mixed question of fact and law raised, the petitioners properly elevated the RTC decision to the CA on ordinary appeal under Rule 41, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.21 The CA, therefore, committed a reversible error in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal.
Parenthetically, there are two kinds of prescription provided in the Civil Code. One is acquisitive, i.e., the acquisition of a right by the lapse of time; the other is extinctive, whereby rights and actions are lost by the lapse of time.26 The kind of prescription raised by the respondent pertains to extinctive prescription.
An action to quiet title is a real action over immovables, which prescribes after thirty years.30 Thus, even assuming that the petitioners’ action is subject to extinctive prescription, it was error for the RTC to reckon the date when prescription began to run solely on the date of the issuance of Lopez’s title on October 11, 1972. The petitioners cannot be expected to file the action after the issuance of Lopez’s title since at that time, the appeal in Civil Case No. 1447, the case between their predecessor Gorgonio and his siblings as against their other sibling Primitivo, was still pending and was only resolved with finality by the CA only on November 7, 1978. The appeal in Civil Case No. 2503 between Lopez and Gorgonio, meanwhile, was dismissed by the CA with finality only on August 17, 1978. It should also be noted that what is being attacked is the respondent’s TCT No. T-10713, which was issued on March 2, 1992. Thus, reckoning the prescriptive period from said date, the 30-year period clearly has not yet lapsed since the complaint was filed only on September 17, 2003.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 56-66.
4 Issued by Judge Primitivo S. Abarquez, Jr.; records, pp. 109-113.
6 Id. at 24-27; Article 1141 of the New Civil Code states: Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years.
8 CA rollo, pp. 56-66.
12Tongonan Holdings and Development Corporation v. Escaño, Jr., G.R. No. 190994, September 7, 2011, 657 SCRA 306, 314.
13S.L. Teves, Inc./Hacienda Nuestra Señora Del Pilar and/or Teves v. Eran, 576 Phil. 570, 574 (2008), citing Aldovino v. NLRC, 359 Phil. 54, 61 (1998).
14 G.R. No. 161237, January 14, 2009, 576 SCRA 70.
15 Id. at 82, citing Crisostomo v. Garcia, Jr., 516 Phil. 743, 749 (2006).
17 CA rollo, pp. 9-10.
18Heirs of Nicolas S. Cabigas v. Limbaco, G.R. No. 175291, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 643, 652, citing Sps. Bautista v. Silva, 533 Phil. 627 (2006).
19Belle Corporation v. De Leon-Banks, G.R. No. 174669, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 351, 362, citing NM Rothschild and Sons, (Australia) Limited v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011, 661 SCRA 328; Magaling v. Ong, G.R. No. 173333, August 13, 2008, 562 SCRA 152, 169; Gubat v. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 167415, February 26, 2010, 613 SCRA 742, 757.
20 Supra note 14, at 82, citing Crisostomo v. Garcia, Jr., 516 Phil. 743, 749-750 (2006).
21 Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. (a) Ordinary appeal—The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
22Heirs of the Late Ruben Reinoso, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116121, July 18, 2011, 654 SCRA 1, 12.
23Heirs of Tomas Dolleton v. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., G.R. No. 170750, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 409, 428.
24Heirs of the Late Fernando S. Falcasantos v. Tan, G.R. No. 172680, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 411, 415, citing Gicano v. Gegato, 241 Phil. 139, 145 (1988).
25 Supra note 23, at 428-429, citing Pineda v. Heirs of Eliseo Guevarra, 544 Phil. 554, 563 (2007).
26 De Morales v. CFI of Misamis Occidental, Br. 11, Ozamis City, 186 Phil. 596, 598 (1980). See also Mercado v. Espinocilla, G.R. No. 184109, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 724, 730-732.
27 Spouses De Guzman v. Agbagala, 569 Phil. 607, 614 (2008).
28Green Acres Holding, Inc. v. Victoria P. Cabral, Sps. Enrique T. Moraga and Victoria Soriano, Filcon Ready Mixed, Inc., Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), and Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, Meycauayan, Branch, G.R. No. 175542, June 5, 2013.
30 Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 1141. See also Republic v. Mangotara, G.R. No. 170375, July 7, 2010, 624 SCRA 360, 455.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.