Case Digest: Carillo vs. de Paz, G.R. No. L-22601, October, 28, 1966

 Succession | Art. 891, Prescription

Article 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property came.

Ponente:

Bengzon, J.:

Facts:

Severino Salak and Petra Garcia jointly owned Lot No. 221 in Tarlac.

In 1941, Petra died.

In 1943, Severino sold his ½ portion to Honoria Salak.

In 1944, Severino died.

In 1945, Honoria and her family were massacred.

Two settlement proceedings were initiated before CFI-Tarlac:

1. Special Proceeding No. 3 for Severino Salak and Petra Garcia's estates.
2. Special Proceeding No. 23 for the Salak family (parents Simeon Salak and Isabel Carrillo; and children Adolfo, Honoria, Consuelo and Ligaya).

In 1946, Project of Partition in Special Proceeding No. 3 adjudicated Lot No. 221 to Francisca Salak de Paz. She has possessed all of Lot No. 221 since then.

While Special Proceeding No. 23 determined heirs' shares based on the survivorship presumption.

1. Simeon Salak died first — his properties went to the children Adolfo, Honoria, Consuelo and Ligaya (1/4 each);
2. Honoria, Consuelo and Ligaya died next — Honoria's and Consuelo's properties went to their mother, Isabel; those of Ligaya went to her son, Ernesto Bautista;
3. Isabel died next — her properties went to her son Adolfo; and
4. Adolfo died last — his properties went to his maternal grandmother, Agustina.

Agustina de Guzman Vda. de Carrillo inherited ½ of Lot No. 221 through this process.

In 1948, Agustina filed a case against Francisca to recover her share of Lot No. 221.

In 1950, Agustina died.

Court of Appeals: Affirmed that the properties inherited by Agustina de Guzman Vda. de Carrillo were subject to reserva troncal. The court declared Agustina's interest in the property terminated due to her death, ordering its immediate delivery to Ernesto Bautista.

In 1960, the lower court dismissed the cased against Francisca due to the existence of third-degree relatives of Adolfo Salak, thus maintaining the property under reserva.

In 1963, Prima Carrillo and Lorenzo Licup filed a suit to recover 2/3 of 1/2 of Lot No. 221 against Francisca Salak de Paz and Ernesto Bautista.

Plaintiff Prima Carrillo claims to be a reservatario (as sister of Isabel Carrillo and aunt of propositus Adolfo), while plaintiff Lorenzo Licup is the surviving husband of Luz Carillo (likewise a sister of Isabel Carrillo and aunt of prepositus Adolfo). Prima and Lorenzo claim to be heirs of Luz.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case citing prior judgment and the statute of limitations.

Court: Dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata, finding the suit barred by the order of delivery dated in 1950 in Special Proceeding No. 23.

Issue: WoN the cause of action is barred by prior judgment and by the statute of limitations. YES

Held:

At any rate, this Court can resolve this appeal on the issue of prescription. As ruled in the cases of Garcia Valdez vs. Soterana Tuazon, 40 Phil. 943 and Relativo v. Castro, 76 Phil. 563, when the trial judge decides a case in favor of a party on a certain ground, the appellate court may uphold the decision below upon some other point which was ignored or erroneously decided in favor of the appellant by the trial court.

Reserva troncal in this jurisdiction is treated in Article 891 of the new Civil Code and Article 811 of the old Civil Code, which states:

The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree and who belong to the line from which said property came.

The reserva troncal arose — as had been finally decided by the Court of Appeals in Special Proceeding No. 23 — when Agustina acquired by operation of law all the properties of her descendant Adolfo (grandson), who acquired them by gratuitous title from another ascendant, Isabel (Adolfo's mother).

According to Manresa, the reserva is extinguished upon the death of the reservista, as it then becomes a right of full ownership on the part of the reservatarios, who can bring a reivindicatory suit therefor. Nonetheless, this right, if not exercised within the time for recovering real properties, can be lost by prescription:

Plaintiffs-appellants herein, as reservatarios, had the right to claim the property 2/3 of 1/2 of Lot No. 221 — from Francisca Salak de Paz, who has been possessing it in the concept of an owner, from April 24, 1950 when Agustina died. And the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the existence of reserva troncal, promulgated on June 8, 1950, rendered it all the more doubtless that such right had accrued in their favor from the time Agustina died. It is clear, therefore, that the right or cause of action accrued in favor of the plaintiffs-reservatarios herein on April 24, 1950.

Section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure fixes 10 years as the period of prescription for actions to recover real property, counted from the time the cause of action accrued. This is the applicable law because Article 1116 of the New Civil Code provides that "Prescription already running before the effectivity of this Code [August 30, 1950] shall be governed by laws previously in force."

Plaintiffs-appellants' suit herein, having been filed only on April 22, 1963, or more than ten (10) years from April 24, 1950, has prescribed.

And having reached such conclusion, We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the question of whether the suit is also barred on the ground of res judicata.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed on the ground of prescription, with costs against appellants. So ordered.