Pangasinan v.

Disonglo-Almasora
G.R. No. 200558 | July 1, 2015
J. MENDOZA

A person, endowed with properties and entitlements, but chose to lie quietly as decades
passed by, watching his property wither away, allowing innocent bystanders to pick the
fruits of his unguarded trees, instead of safeguarding his rights through the accessibly and
necessary legal means, does not deserve the protection of equity. The law aids the vigilant,
not those who slumber on their rights.

FACTS
Petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse CA decision, which affirmed RTC
Paranaques decision in a case for damages.
In 1939, Aquilina Martinez registered a parcel of land located in Brgy. Sto. Domingo,
Bian, Laguna under TCT No. T-18729, through RD of Laguna.
In 1945 (context: Japanese occupation), Aquilina and her grandmother Leoncia
Almendral learned that their house in Tondo, Manila was ruined by the war.
o They borrowed money from their relative, Conrado Almazora, in order to rebuild
the house.
o In return, Leoncia entrusted to Conrado the duplicate copy of TCT Np. T-18729.
o Conrado and his family remained in the said property.
Following Aquilinas death, the title of the property was transferred to Aurora Morales-
Vivar as her sole heir.
o TCT No. T-18729 was cancelled, and accordingly, a new TCT (No. T-35280) was
issued in Auroras name.
In 1994, Aurora learned from Cristina Almazora (Conrados widow) that the subject
property has been sold to Fullway Development Corporation for Php.4,000,000.
o Prior to the sale, the title has already been transferred in the name of Conrado.
Aurora demanded from the heirs of Conrado the payment they received for the sale,
without avail.
RTC case in favor of respondents
o Aurora together with her husband Arturo filed a complaint for damages against
Cristina (widow) and other heirs of Conrado before the RTC.
o They contended that the duplicate copy of TCT No. T-18729 was only given for
safekeeping.
o They admitted that Conrados family has been staying on the subject property
since 1912, with permission and generosity of Aquilina and Leoncia.
o Aurora asserted that, through the years, she repeatedly asked Conrado to return
the owner's copy of the title but the latter procrastinated, giving all kinds of
excuses, until he died in 1972
o Respondents raised some special and affirmatives defenses, among others, that the
complaint stated no cause of action and was barred by prescription.
o NOT THAT IMPORTANT: Upon preliminary hearing, RTC declared there was a
cause of action, Respondents appealed said interlocutory order to CA, CA
affirmed RTCs order. which was an action for damages arising from fraud
committed by Conrado, as trustee, against Aurora, as cestui que trust. The CA

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 1
 further held that the complaint, on its face, did not show that the action had
prescribed. (Preliminary pa lang, no decision yet)
o RTC required parties to submit their memoranda but only Conrados family did.
o RULING: RTC dismissed complaint and held that Aurora failed to prove her right
to the subject property. Even if Aurora had a claim on the subject property, she
was guilty of laches.
CA case affirmed RTC decision.
o Denied Auroras appeal and held that it took her more than 50 years to act on
Conrados withholding of title of the property.
o Ruled that petitioners were barred by laches as Aurora should have been
impervious in asserting her ownership and made judicial demands to return the
title and the property.
o Even on the aspect of prescription of actions, the case would not prosper either. It
explained that the prescriptive period to recover property obtained through fraud
or mistake giving rise to an implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code
was 10 years, pursuant to Article 1144. This 10-year prescriptive period began
from the time the land was registered on June 17, 1965. Accordingly, Aurora had
only until June 17, 1975 within which to file her action. (She only filed in 1996)
o Also denied petitioners MR.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. Whether Aurora is barred by virtue of laches. YES.

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 time-honored rule anchored on public policy is that relief will be denied to a litigant whose
claim or demand has become "stale," or who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time,
or who has not been vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly or
inattention.

The four (4) elements of laches, as first prescribed by this Court in Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho are:
(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; and
(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.

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 2
All elements are present. First, Aurora and her family entrusted to Conrado the owner's
duplicate of the certificate of title of the subject property in 1945. In their complaint, petitioners
even admitted that Conrado's family had been staying in the subject property since 1912.
Second, it took five decades, from 1945 to 1996, before Aurora and petitioners decided to
enforce their right thereon. Third, respondents who lived all their lives in the disputed property
apparently were not aware that Aurora would one day come out and claim ownership thereon.
Fourth, there was no question that respondents would be prejudiced in the event that the suit
would be allowed to prosper.

2. Whether the action has prescribed. YES.

What concerns this case is extinctive prescription. As the CA correctly held, the action must fail,
not because respondents adversely occupied the property, but because petitioners failed to
institute their suit within the prescriptive period under Article 1144 of the Civil Code.

It is now well-settled that the prescriptive period to recover property obtained by fraud or
mistake, giving rise to an implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, is 10 years pursuant
to Article 1144. The prescriptive period to enforce the constructive trust shall be counted from
the alleged fraudulent registration or date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property.
The ten-year prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey the property
as when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property.

In this case, the ten-year prescriptive period is squarely applicable because Conrado and his
family, not petitioners, were in possession of the property. The subject property was registered in
the name of Conrado on June 17, 1965, and this should be the starting point of the ten-year
period. Petitioners, thus, had until June 17, 1975 to enforce the implied trust and assert their
claim over the land.

Petition DENIED. CA decision and resolution are AFFIRMED in toto.

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 3