FACTS:

The case revolves around a dispute between Albrando Abellana and Landbank of the Philippines regarding the ownership of a land in Puerto Princesa City. Abellana initially owned the property but then executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Landbank to secure a loan obtained by Ernesto Villaos. Since Abellana and Villaos defaulted on the loan, Landbank conducted an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage and successfully bid for the property. Abellana subsequently filed a complaint in an attempt to repurchase the land, claiming that he was unaware of the foreclosure and sale. However, the lower court dismissed Abellana's complaint, and this decision was upheld by both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

In 2014, Landbank sold the property to Joven Arzaga, prompting Abellana to file a new case seeking the nullity of the foreclosure proceedings and the subsequent sale. Landbank argued that the case was barred by prescription, laches, res judicata, and estoppel. The trial court denied Landbank's motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Landbank, unsatisfied, brought the matter before the Supreme Court through a petition for review, raising various issues pertaining to the dismissal of its motion to dismiss.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the grounds for a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court may be invoked after an answer has been filed.

2. Whether or not the present action for declaration of nullity is barred by prescription.

3. Whether the action for "Annulment of Title, Recovery of Possession and Damages" prescribed.

4. Whether the doctrine of laches is applicable in this case.

5. Whether res judicata applies in this case.

6. Whether there is identity of issues between the repurchase case and the present case.

7. Whether Abellana is estopped from challenging his own judicial admissions in the repurchase case.

8. Whether Abellana is estopped from raising the existence, validity, or regularity of the foreclosure proceedings in the present case.

9. Whether or not petitioner showed reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in upholding the dismissal of his complaint against Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for lack of cause of action.

10. Whether or not the complaint is a collateral attack on the certificate of title.

RULING:

1. Yes. There are two categories of motions to dismiss under the Rules of Court: those that must be filed ahead of an answer and those that may be entertained even after an answer has been filed. Motions to dismiss under the first category may plead any of the 10 grounds under Rule 16, Section 1. Meanwhile, those under the second category may only plead four of the 10 grounds, namely lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription. In addition to these grounds, motions to dismiss under the second category may also plead lack of cause of action and other grounds that may only be made known after the answer was filed.

2. No. An action to declare the nullity or inexistence of contracts is imprescriptible. Even if the action is filed beyond the 10-year prescriptive period for an action of reconveyance based on fraud, the action for declaration of nullity is not barred by prescription. This is based on Article 1410 of the Civil Code, which provides that the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.

3. The action for "Annulment of Title, Recovery of Possession and Damages" did not prescribe. The title of the subject property was only consolidated in Landbank's name after the lapse of the 1-year redemption period. Since the complaint was filed within 10 years from the end of the redemption period, there should still be no issue as to prescription.

4. The determination of whether the doctrine of laches is applicable is premature as it cannot be established by mere allegations. The elements of laches must be proven positively. The records show that it was the DBP's tactic which delayed the institution of the action.

5. Res judicata does not apply in this case. The complaint alleges a different and distinct cause of action from the repurchase case. There is no identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the two cases.

6. No, there is no identity of issues between the repurchase case and the present case.

7. Yes, Abellana is estopped from challenging his own judicial admissions in the repurchase case.

8. Yes, Abellana is estopped from raising the existence, validity, or regularity of the foreclosure proceedings in the present case.

9. The petition is denied for failure to show any reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in upholding the dismissal of petitioner's complaint against Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). The petitioner failed to substantiate his right to repurchase the property that LBP acquired through valid foreclosure proceedings.

10. The issue of whether the complaint is a collateral attack on the certificate of title is moot and academic because the petitioner has already recognized and admitted in a separate case the validity of the foreclosure proceedings and Land Bank's ownership of the property. Therefore, there is no actual controversy regarding ownership that would warrant further discussion on this issue.

PRINCIPLES:

• Motions to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court assert defenses that can be considered without touching on the merits of the case. These grounds can be considered with the hypothetical admission of the allegations in the complaint. (Alvarado v. Ayala Land)

• Actions to declare the nullity or inexistence of contracts are imprescriptible. (Article 1410 of the Civil Code)

• An action for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.

• Laches must be proven positively and cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings.

• Res judicata bars a new action when there is a final judgment rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and there is an identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second action.

• Conclusiveness of judgment applies when a fact or question was in issue in a former suit and was judicially passed upon and determined.

• Res judicata - A fact or question which was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with them are concerned, and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or different cause of action, while the judgment remains unreversed by proper authority.

• Identity of issues - In order for a judgment in one action to be conclusive as to a particular matter in another action between the same parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be identical. If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit.

• Judicial admissions - A party is bound by his or her judicial admissions, and these admissions are conclusive and no evidence is required to prove the fact admitted. A party cannot be allowed to repudiate his or her solemn declarations made in the course of a case.

• A judicial admission made by a party in the course of judicial proceedings constitutes a "deliberate, clear and unequivocal" statement that qualifies as a judicial admission. The party making such admission cannot later challenge that fact, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be ignored.

• A party cannot take a position contrary to or inconsistent with what was pleaded in the pleadings. Allegations, statements, or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader.

• A complaint may be dismissed outright for lack of cause of action if there is no actual controversy and there is no need to go to trial for a non-issue.

• The issue of whether a complaint is a collateral attack on a certificate of title may be moot and academic if the issue of ownership has already been settled in a separate case.