G.R. No. L-13828; February 25, 1960
ELADIA RAPATAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ELPIDIO CHICANO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Samar to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of land and to claim damages for dispossession. The defendants-appellees moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription, arguing that the action, being based on fraud, had prescribed. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. However, the court proceeded to hear the defendants’ counterclaim for moral damages and attorney’s fees. After receiving evidence, the trial court rendered judgment ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendants P5,000.00 as moral damages and P500.00 as attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs appealed, contesting both the dismissal of their complaint and the award on the counterclaim.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were the absolute owners of the land by virtue of a prior court decision. In 1946, when the land became tax delinquent, they approached Escolastico Chicano to pay the taxes under an oral agreement that they would share the produce and administration until reimbursement. A written document was prepared, which the plaintiffs thumbmarked without reading, relying on assurances that it reflected their oral agreement. They discovered the fraud only in November 1950, after Escolastico Chicano’s death, when they were forcibly dispossessed. They filed the action on February 11, 1957.
The plaintiffs argued that their action to recover real property prescribes in 10 years from accrual (1950), so it was timely. The defendants contended that, as an action based on fraud, it prescribes in 4 years from discovery (1950), making it barred by 1957. The trial court agreed with the defendants and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

The main issue raised on appeal was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription. Additionally, the appeal challenged the trial court’s factual findings and award of moral damages and attorney’s fees on the counterclaim.

RULING

The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the prescription issue or the counterclaim. Instead, it held that the appeal involved questions of fact, particularly the trial court’s evaluation of evidence regarding the alleged fraud and the award of damages on the counterclaim. Since the resolution of these factual matters falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ordered the case certified to the Court of Appeals for adjudication in accordance with law. The decision of the trial court was not affirmed or reversed; the case was transferred for appropriate review.