FACTS:

The petitioners, heirs of Gorgonio James, filed a case against Eurem Realty Development Corporation (respondent) for the declaration of nullity of title and ownership of a property in Dipolog City. The petitioners claimed to be the registered owners of the said property, while the respondent claimed ownership of a portion of the same property. The respondent's title was derived from Eufracio Lopez, who acquired it from Primitivo James, Gorgonio's brother. An annotation was made on the title of Primitivo, declaring it null and void, but this annotation was not carried over to the respondent's title. The petitioners sought to have the respondent's title declared null and void and to be declared as the lawful owners of the entire property.

The respondent argued that the complaint is barred by res judicata and prescription. It claimed that a previous case involving the same parties already declared Lopez as the lawful and absolute owner of the property. The respondent also argued that the complaint was filed more than 30 years after its predecessor-in-interest acquired the property, thereby rendering it barred by prescription.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, ruling in favor of the respondent's defenses of res judicata and prescription. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but their appeal was dismissed. The CA deemed the issues raised by the petitioners to be questions of law that should have been raised before the Supreme Court through a petition for review. The petitioners filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, raising the issues of whether their action is barred by prescription and whether the summary dismissal of the case constitutes a denial of due process.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the issues raised by the petitioners in their appeal are purely questions of law or mixed questions of facts and law;

2. Whether or not petitioners' action is barred by prescription;

RULING:

1. The issues raised by the petitioners in their appeal are purely questions of law that should have been raised via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.

2. The petitioners' action is barred by prescription because they filed the complaint more than thirty (30) years after the respondent's predecessor-in-interest bought the property. Under Article 1141 of the New Civil Code, a real action involving an immovable property has a 30-year prescriptive period.

PRINCIPLES:

• Questions of law should be raised via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.

• A real action involving an immovable property has a 30-year prescriptive period under Article 1141 of the New Civil Code.