Title
Heirs of Arches vs. Vda. de Diaz
Case
G.R. No. L-27136
Decision Date
Apr 30, 1973
Maria Diaz executed a pacto de retro sale, later deemed an equitable mortgage. Heirs of Jose Arches sought repayment; trial court dismissed on res judicata, but Supreme Court reversed, allowing separate action for debt recovery.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-27136)

Case Background

The case arises from a complaint filed by the heirs of Jose A. Arches against Maria B. Vda. de Diaz regarding a parcel of land covered by Lot No. 2706 in the Cadastral Survey of Capiz. The plaintiffs alleged that Diaz executed a deed of sale with pacto de retro in favor of Arches in 1954 for P12,500. However, the transaction was contested by the defendant, who claimed that the agreement was merely a mortgage. Following a series of litigations, including the dismissal of Arches's petition to consolidate ownership based on the ruling that the transaction constituted an equitable mortgage, the heirs initiated their complaint in 1966.

Lower Court Proceedings

The trial court's order to dismiss the complaint stemmed from the defendant's argument that the claim for the recovery of the P12,500 was barred by the statute of limitations, while the second claim for reimbursement of expenses was deemed beyond the court's jurisdiction. The court initially ruled that the ten-year prescriptive period began after the resolution of the Supreme Court dismissing the certiorari petition, but later ruled in a subsequent order that the complaint was dismissed based on res judicata, asserting the plaintiffs were precluded from pursuing the current action because they had already chosen a different remedy.

Appeal Arguments

Plaintiffs contested the lower court’s rationale, asserting that the doctrine of res judicata was waived as it was not included in the initial motion to dismiss. They pointed out that adherence to the rules of court mandates that all objections be raised concurrently. Furthermore, they argued that the prior decision did not bar their right to seek foreclosure of the mortgage or collect the debt, as there had been no adjudication of ownership and the nature of the transaction remained ambiguous, allowing for the possibility of multiple remedies.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, determining that the lower court had erred in applying res judicata as grounds for dismissal. The Court emphasized that the dismissal of the petition to consolidate ownership did not preclude the heirs from enforcing their claims for the debt, as the adverse ruling merely classified the nature of the transaction. The Court highlighted t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.