G.R. No. L-29320 - Segura vs. Segura

The disputed property, measuring 4,060 square meters, was originally registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 1994 in the name of Gertrudes Zamora.
Gertrudes Zamora died intestate in 1936, leaving behind four children who never divided the property.
The dispute did not involve the four sons (now deceased) but rather their progeny—Gertrudes’s grandchildren—entitled to equal shares in the property.

On April 6, 1941, three of the nine grandchildren (Nicolas, Santiago, and Gaudencio Segura) executed a deed of extrajudicial partition.
The partition arrogated the entire property to themselves as equal pro indiviso owners, deliberately excluding six other grandchildren (including some siblings of the partitioning parties).
The deed was not immediately registered but was finally recorded in 1946.

Prior to and after the registration of the partition, the land was sold for P50.00 to Emiliano Amojido, with a right of repurchase (which was never exercised).
On November 28, 1946, Emiliano Amojido executed an affidavit of consolidation of ownership and obtained Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 28336 with a reservation of the rights of the other heirs.
On March 31, 1953, Amojido sold the land to Mirope Mascarenas, who obtained TCT No. T-19396 in her name; notably, this title did not carry the previous annotation preserving the co-heirs’ rights.
Further subsequent transfers involved the sale by Mirope to Mildred Elison on February 14, 1957, and then from Mildred to Ernesto and Igmedio Amojido on January 15, 1958.
On July 23, 1961, the property was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara.

On May 20, 1956, the plaintiffs (the six excluded grandchildren) filed Civil Case No. 3941 for recovery of possession and ownership against the partitioning grandchildren.
The case was dismissed on January 16, 1958, when the plaintiffs’ counsel moved for its dismissal due to the plaintiffs’ temporary absence (without any indication of intent not to revive the case).
In a subsequent filing, on January 11, 1968, the plaintiffs refiled their complaint (Civil Case No. 7477) challenging that the partition and all subsequent transfers were null and void as they deprived them of their lawful shares.
The trial court, after joining the defendants, dismissed the 1968 complaint on the ground of prescription and, as an afterthought, on res judicata.

The defendants argued that the action was barred by prior judgment (res judicata) and prescription based on both the Rules of Court and the Civil Code.
The plaintiffs contended that the earlier dismissal was without prejudice and that the extrajudicial partition was invalid as it excluded them; hence, they retained the right to challenge all subsequent transfers founded on their lawful share.

Whether the dismissal of the earlier Civil Case No. 3941, filed by the plaintiffs’ counsel, was with or without prejudice and whether its dismissal could bar the present action by the plaintiffs on grounds of res judicata.
Whether the present complaint filed in 1968 is barred by prescription under:

The Rules of Court—specifically, Rule 74, Section 4, which requires any claim arising out of an extrajudicial or summary settlement be asserted within two years, and
The Civil Code provisions on ordinary prescription for actions over immovable property (a ten-year period).

Whether the extrajudicial partition, being void as to the excluded co-heirs, should be treated as a nullity that does not trigger the running of the prescriptive period against the rights of those excluded.