FACTS:

A Civil Case No. C-7496 was filed in 1979 alleging that respondents defaulted on their loan amortizations resulting in an infraction of the mortgage terms. The Court of First Instance (CFI) took cognizance of the case, but it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter since the infraction had already occurred before the case was filed. The lack of jurisdiction rendered the CFI's decision void. Petitioners' right to enforce the mortgage arose in 1977 when respondents defaulted.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the CFI had jurisdiction over the case.

2. Whether the action to enforce the mortgage was barred by prescription.

RULING:

1. The petition is denied. The CFI lacked jurisdiction as the infraction had taken place before the filing of the case. Therefore, the CFI's decision was void. Additionally, an action to enforce a mortgage prescribes after ten years. Petitioners' right of action accrued in 1977 when respondents defaulted, and the ten-year prescriptive period started to run from that time. The period was interrupted by the filing of Civil Case No. C-6329 but recommenced when the case was dismissed. The subsequent filing of Civil Case No. C-7496 did not interrupt the prescriptive period since the court lacked jurisdiction over the action. As a result, petitioners' right to enforce the mortgage, including foreclosure, was already barred by prescription. Consequently, the foreclosure, public auction, consolidation of title, and issuance of the new certificate of title were all void.

PRINCIPLES:

• The want of jurisdiction by a court over the subject matter renders its judgment void and a mere nullity. A void judgment cannot constitute a bar to another case by reason of res judicata.

• An action to enforce a right arising from a mortgage should be enforced within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. Failure to do so would result in the action being barred by prescription, and the mortgage creditor will lose their rights under the mortgage.