G.R. No. L-22761 - Malig vs. Bush

Parties and nature of the case
Rose Bush Malig and Joe, Thomas, and John all surnamed Bush, represented by attorney-in-fact Rose Bush Malig (plaintiffs-appellants) filed an action against Maria Santos Bush (defendant-appellee).
The plaintiffs were alleged to be the acknowledged natural children and only heirs in the direct line of the deceased John T. Bush.
The action sought relief against the defendant-appellee for alleged fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the settlement and partition of the deceased’s estate.

Allegations in the complaint
The plaintiffs alleged that they were born of the common-law relationship between their father John T. Bush and Apolonia Perez from 1923 up to August 1941.
The plaintiffs alleged that during the conception of the plaintiffs, John T. Bush and Apolonia Perez were not suffering from any disability to marry each other.
The plaintiffs alleged that they lived with their alleged father during his lifetime and were considered and treated by him as his acknowledged natural children.
The plaintiffs alleged that at the time of his death, John T. Bush left several real and personal properties.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant falsely alleged that she was the legal wife of the deceased, which enabled her to obtain her appointment as administratrix of the estate of the deceased in Testate Proceedings No. 29932 of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant submitted for approval a project of partition purporting to show that the deceased left a will bequeathing the estate to Maria Santos Bush, Anita S. Bush, and Anna Berger.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant knew that the plaintiffs were the acknowledged natural children of the deceased.
The plaintiffs alleged that they discovered the fraud and misrepresentation only in July 1962.

Relief prayed for in the complaint
The plaintiffs prayed that the project of partition be annulled.
The plaintiffs prayed that the defendant be ordered to submit a complete inventory and accounting of all properties left by the deceased and submit another project of partition adjudicating their legal participation in the estate.
The plaintiffs prayed that in the event the defendant disposed of all or part of the estate, she be ordered to pay them the market value thereof.
The plaintiffs prayed that the defendant be ordered to pay the value of fruits received, damages, and attorney’s fees.

1) lack of cause of action; 2) res judicata; and 3) statute of limitations.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.
The defendant filed a reply to the opposition.
On January 10, 1963, the trial court denied the first motion to dismiss, stating that the grounds relied upon were not indubitable.
The defendant later filed her answer, specifically denying all material averments of the complaint, and invoking laches, res judicata, and statute of limitations as affirmative defenses.
After issues were joined, the case was set for hearing.
On the date of the scheduled hearing, it was postponed because the defendant manifested that she would file a written motion to dismiss.
The second motion to dismiss challenged the court’s jurisdiction, asserting that since the action sought to annul a project of part...(Subscriber-Only)

Proper grounds for dismissal and required motion practice
Whether the trial court could dismiss the action on the ground of prescription when the second motion to dismiss raised only jurisdiction.

Whether prescription was “indubitable” from the face of the complaint
Whether the trial court properly held that the action had prescribed based solely on the pleadings, given that the first dismissal based on statute of limitations had been denied because the grounds were not indubitable.

Applicability of the Civil Code limitation and whether the complaint fell within it
Whether Article 137 of the Civil Code barred the action because it was filed after the death of the putative parent.
Whether Article 137 was of indubitable application where the plaintiffs allegedly did not seek acknowledgment but instead alleged as a matter of fact that they were the acknowledged natural children and only heirs in the direct line.

Jurisdiction/venue in probate-related matters
Whether the trial court correctly rejected the defendant’s jurisdictional argument invoking Rule 75, Section 1 (for...(Subscriber-Only)