Pangasinan v. Almazora Case Digest

G.R. No. 200558

Facts:

• Subject Property: A parcel of land that is 572 square meters located in Laguna
  • This land is registered in the name of Aquilina Martinez under a TCT.
• In 1945, after the liberation of Manila from the Japanese occupation, Aquilina found out that their property was ruined by the war. In order to rebuild the house, they borrowed money from Conrado Almazora.
• Aquilina gave the owner’s duplicate copy to Conrado, and Conrado’s family remained in possession of the property.
• Upon Aquilina’s death, the TCT was cancelled and a new one was issued to Aurora Vivar, Aquilina’s only heir.
• In 1949, an Adjudication and Absolute Sale of a Parcel of Registered Land was signed by Aurora and her husband, in favor of Conrado.
  • Aurora said this was fraudulent.
• By virtue of this document, Conrado transferred the title in his name on June 17, 1965.
• In 1994, Aurora learned that the title had been transferred to Conrado and the same had been sold to Fullway Development Corporation for Php4 million.
  • She sent a letter to the heirs of Conrado in 1995, demanding the delivery of the payment received for the sale.
• Aurora contended that the owner’s duplicate copy was only given to Conrado for safekeeping.
• Aurora asserted that through the years, she had demanded from Conrado the return of the owner’s duplicate, but the latter refused to return it.
• In 1996, Aurora filed a complaint for damages against the heirs of Conrado.

Issue:

Who owns the property?

Ruling:

Conrado and his heirs own the property.

The action is barred by laches and prescription.

It took Aurora more than 50 years to file an action. Her allegations that she had repeatedly demanded the return of the owner’s duplicate is self-serving and thus cannot be given weight.

Aurora slept on her rights for more than 50 years, impervious in asserting her ownership of the subject property, thereby losing the same by laches.

There was also no proof of fraud. Even though Aurora could have challenged the validity of the Adjudication and Absolute Sale of a Parcel of Registered Land to check if the signatures were forged, she did not so.

Laches

Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

The principle of laches is a creation of equity which, as such, is applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon one’s right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation.

Four Elements of Laches

1. conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made for which the complaint seeks a remedy
2. delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice, of the defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit
3. lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit
4. injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred

In the case at bench, the CA correctly held that all the elements of laches were present.

Kinds of Prescription

There are two kinds of prescription provided in the Civil Code:

1. Acquisitive (a.k.a adverse possession or usucapcion)
   1. Article 1106, par. 1 of the CC
2. Extinctive (a.k.a. litigation of action)
   1. Article 1106, par. 2 and Article 1139

In the case at bar, it was extinctive prescription, not acquisitive, which barred the action of petitioners. Thus, the action must fail not because respondents occupied the property but because the petitioners failed to institute their suit within the prescriptive period under Article 1114.

Important Dates

• 1945
  • The owner’s duplicate was given to Conrado for safekeeping.
• 1949
  • Adjudication and Absolute Sale was executed in favor of Conrado
• June 17, 1965
  • Conrado transferred the title in his name.

Because the petitioners contended that fraud attended the circumstances, they had 10 years (according to Article 1456 in relation to Article 1144) to file the petition by virtue of the constructive trust created by operation of law. Thus, they had until June 17, 1975 to file the case. But they filed it only in 1996.