Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27451)
Facts:
Paz Ongsiaco, and the heirs of the late Augusto Ongsiaco, et al. v. Roman D. Dallo, et al., G.R. No. L-27451, February 28, 1969, Supreme Court En Banc, Makalintal, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiffs below (respondents here) filed Civil Case No. 113-G in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Guimba Branch) alleging ownership of a parcel described as "Lot X" containing about 255 hectares in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, and prayed for restitution of possession, damages, attorney’s fees and costs. The complaint alleged that defendants (petitioners here) had been in illegal possession and cultivation of Lot X since 1924, that such possession was without just title and not within the bounds of their registered property covered by O.C.T. No. 139 issued in 1910.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds: prescription (statute of limitations), lack of jurisdiction because the action effectively sought to annul Supreme Court decisions, failure to state a cause of action, and that the claim was barred by prior judgments and resolutions (res judicata). The trial court (Court of First Instance, Guimba Branch) denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated July 18, 1966, ruling that the complaint on its face appeared to present a different cause of action than the prior cases and that res judicata should be proven by defendants; the order, however, expressly resolved only the pleas of res judicata and lack of cause of action and did not rule on the plea of prescription.
Petitioners challenged the trial court’s order (and its subsequent denial of reconsideration) by filing the instant petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending that the trial court gravely abused its discretion by failing to decide the dispositive plea of prescription. The parties filed voluminous pleadings contesting identity of the land vis-à-vis prior litigations (including Government of the Philippine Islands v. Leoncio Abad, 47 Phil. 573; Feliciano Abad v. Government of the Philippines, 103 Phil. 247; and Cad. Case No. 19), but the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to determine identity because the prescription issue was dispositive.
Respondents’ memoranda and pleadings admitted that petitioners had been in adverse possession of Lot X since about 1924 — a period far in excess of ten years — and asserted that such possessio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion by denying the motion to dismiss without ruling on the dispositive plea of prescription?
- Was the action to recover title or possession of the land (Lot X) barred by prescription such that the complaint ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)