SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 200558, July 01, 2015
CONSUELO V. PANGASINAN AND ANNABELLA V. BORROMEO, Petitioners, v. CRISTINA DISONGLO-ALMAZORA, RENILDA ALMAZORA-CASUBUAN, RODOLFO CASUBUAN, SUSANA ALMAZORA-MENDIOLA, CARLOS MENDIOLA, CECILIO ALMAZORA AND NEN1TA ALMAZORA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
The present case demonstrates the legal principle that the law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. Vigilantibus, sed non dormientihus jura subverniunt.
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the July 28, 2011 Decision1 and the February 3, 2012 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV 84529, which affirmed the June 29, 2004 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, Paranaque City (RTC) in Civil Case No. 96-0206, a case for damages.
The Facts
The subject property is a parcel of land with an area of 572 square meters located in Brgy. Sto. Domingo, Binan, Laguna. It was registered in the name of Aquilina Martinez (Aquilina) under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-18729 by the Register of Deeds of Laguna on July 29, 1939.4redarclaw
After the liberation of Manila from the Japanese military occupation in 1945, Aquilina and her maternal grandmother, Leoncia Almendral (Leoncia), learned that their house on Zabala Street, Tondo, Manila, was ruined by the war. To rebuild their house, they borrowed money from their relative, Conrado Almazora (Conrado). Thus, their house was reconstructed. In return, Leoncia entrusted to Contrado the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-18729 covering the subject property in Binan, Laguna. Consequently, Conrado and his family remained in the said property.
Following the death of Aquilina on July 19, 1949, the title of the subject property was transferred to Aurora Morales-Vivar (Aurora), as her sole heir. Accordingly, TCT No. T-35280 was issued in the name of Aurora5 after TCT No. T-18729 was cancelled. On February 7, 1972, Conrado passed away.
Sometime in 1994, Aurora learned from Cristina Almazora (Cristina), the widowed spouse of Conrado, that the title of the subject property had long been transferred in the name of Conrado and that the subject property had been sold to Fullway Development Corporation (Fullway) by the heirs of Conrado in consideration of P4,000,000.00.6redarclaw
Aurora was shocked to learn that the subject property was already transferred to Conrado and sold for a meager amount. On October 30, 1995, she sent a letter to the heirs of Conrado demanding the delivery of the payment they received for the sale of the subject property; but it was unheeded.
On May 9, 1996, Aurora together with her husband, Arturo, filed a complaint for damages7 against Cristina and the other heirs of Conrado (respondents) before the RTC. They contended that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-18729 was only given to Conrado for safekeeping. The complaint, however, admitted that the family of Conrado had been staying on, and using, the subject property since 1912 with the permission and generosity of Aquilina and Leoncia.8redarclaw
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; that thereafter, Aurora asked Cristina for the copy of the title but the latter also ignored her request; that the subsequent sale of the subject property to Fullway was without Aurora's authorization, and, thus, the payment received by respondents for the sale of the subject property should be turned over to her; and that she prayed for moral and exemplary damages.9redarclaw
On June 24, 1996, respondents filed their answer with compulsory counterclaim. They countered that the subject property was properly transferred to Conrado under TCT No. 35282, and, thereafter, in the names of the heirs of Conrado under TCT No. T-114352. Respondents averred that the imputation of fraud on the part of Conrado in the registration of the subject property was baseless and this assertion of fraud was not transmissible from Conrado to his heirs, who merely acquired the property through succession.10redarclaw
Respondents raised some special and affirmatives defenses, among others, that the complaint stated no cause of action and was barred by prescription. A preliminary hearing for the said defenses was set by the RTC.11 In the Order,12 dated May 27, 1999, the RTC ruled that the complaint stated a cause of action.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari13 to assail the said interlocutory order of the RTC before the CA. In its Decision,14 dated February 24, 1999, the CA denied the same and held that the complaint stated a cause of action, which was an action for damages arising from fraud committed by Conrado, as trustee, against Aurora, as cestui que trust. The CA further held that the complaint, on its face, did not show that the action had prescribed.
Meanwhile, the RTC continued the proceedings and set the case for trial on the merits. After the parties adduced their respective pieces of evidence, the RTC required them to submit their memoranda. Only respondents filed a memorandum.15redarclaw
The RTC Ruling
In its Decision, dated June 29, 2004, the RTC dismissed the complaint. The trial court held that, after a thorough evaluation of the records, Aurora miserably failed to prove her right to the subject property. It explained that even if Aurora had a claim on the subject property, she was guilty of laches. For many years, Aurora slept on her right over the questioned property and failed to exhaust all means, legal or administrative, to retrieve what was rightfully hers at the earliest possible time.
The RTC determined that Conrado was able to transfer the title of the subject property in his name on June 17, 1965 by virtue of a document denominated as "Adjudication and Absolute Sale of a Parcel of Registered Land,"16 dated January 9, 1949, signed by Aurora and her husband. The signatures of Aurora and her husband, affixed on the deed of sale, were not properly controverted by her. The trial court found that her allegations of repeated pleas to Conrado to return the copy of the title deserved scant consideration. It concluded that Aurora was not entitled to damages because there were no clear and cogent grounds to award the same. The decretal portion of the decision reads:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs having failed to prove its case for damages, the same is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit.Aggrieved, Aurora appealed to the CA. On June 4, 2009, the children of Aurora, namely, Consuelo V. Pangasinan, Lucio M. Vivar and Annabella V. Borromeo (petitioners), filed a motion for substitution of party18 after her death on March 26, 2008. In its Resolution,19 dated July 15, 2010, the CA granted the motion.
SO ORDERED.17
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED and the Decision dated June 29, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City, Branch 259 in Civil Case No. 96-0206 is hereby AFFIRMED.Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but their motion was denied by the CA in the assailed Resolution, dated February 3, 2012.
SO ORDERED.20
Petitioners assert that they are not guilty of laches. When Aurora was told that the subject property was already in the name of Conrado in April 1994, she immediately filed a complaint for damages on May 2, 1996. Petitioners also claim that prescription is not a valid defense to defeat the title of Aurora. Section 47 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 states that no title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.ISSUES
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FILED BY AURORA MORALES-VIVAR, WHICH DECISIONS ARE ALL CONTRARY TO LAW;II
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE ACQUISITION OF CONRADO ALMAZORA, RESPONDENTS' PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST, OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IS INVALID AND PRODUCED NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER BECAUSE NOT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF LACHES, AS TO DEPRIVE AURORA MORALES-VIVAR OF HER OWNERSHIP, ARE PRESENT IN THE CASE AT BAR.21
(i) 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;In the case at bench, the CA correctly held that all the elements of laches were 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 1912.30Second, 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) 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.29
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 2079, dated June 29, 2015.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; rollo, pp. 17-24.
2 Id. at 26-27.
3 Penned by Judge Zosimo V. Escano; CA rollo, pp. 55-63.
4 Records, Vol. I, p. 7.
5 Records, Vol. II, p. 673.
6 Id. at 663.
7 Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-5.
8 Id. at 2.
9 Id. at 3-5.
10 Id. at 18-28.
11 Id. at 74.
12 Id. at 192-194.
13 Id. at 379-398.
14 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., with Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr. and Associate Justice Mariano M. Umali, concurring; id. at 399-423.
15 Records, Vol. II, p. 791.
16 Id. at 667-668.
17 CA rollo, p. 63.
18 Id. at 132-133.
19 Id. at 173-174.
20Rollo, p. 23.
21 Id. at 10.
22 Id. at 36-49.
23 Id. at 65-68.
24Spouses Salvador v. Spouses Rabaja, G.R. No. 199990, February 4, 2015.
25Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Centro Development Corporation, G.R. No. 180974, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 325, 338, citing Municipality of Carcar v. CFI Cebu, 204 Phil. 719, 723 (1982).
26Salandanan v. CA, 353 Phil. 114, 120 (1998).
27Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Mingoa, Sr., 623 Phil. 303, 327 (2009), citing Isabela Colleges, Inc. v. Heirs of Nieves Tolentino-Rivera, 397 Phil. 955, 969 (2000).
28 96 Phil. 622, 637 (1954), citing 19 Am. Jur. 343-344.
29Vda. De Tirona v. Encarnacion, 560 Phil. 650, 666 (2007).
30 Records, Vol. I, p. 2.
31 TSN, August 16, 1999, p. 13.
32 Id. at 38-39.
33 Records, Vol. II, pp. 619-620.
34 Section 47. Registered land not subject to prescriptions. No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
35 Art. 1106. By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law.
In the same way, rights and conditions are lost by prescription.
36 Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.
37Virtucio v. Alegarbes, G.R. No. 187451, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 412, 421.
38DBT Mar-Bay Construction, Inc. v. Panes, 612 Phil. 93 (2009); Feliciano v. Spouses Zaldivar, 534 Phil. 280 (2006); and Spouses Ragudo v. Fabella Estate Tenants Association, Inc., 503 Phil. 751 (2005).
39 Records, Vol. II, pp. 667-668.
40 Id. at 678-679.
41Juan Tong v. Go Tiat Kun, G.R. No. 196023, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 623, 635.
42Heirs of Narvasa, Sr. v. Victoriano, G.R. No. 182908, August 06, 2014, 732 SCRA 171, 182.
43Spouses Crisostomo v. Garcia, Jr., 516 Phil. 743, 753 (2006).
44 See Estate of Margarita Cabacungan v. Laguio, 655 Phil. 366, 389 (2011)
45Brito Sr. v. Dinala, 653 Phil. 200, 211 (2010).
46ECE Realty and Development, Inc. v. Mandap, G.R. No. 196182, September 1, 2014, 734 SCRA 76, 83.
47Manalo v. Roldan-Confesor, 215 Phil. 808, 819 (1992).
48Tankeh v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171428, November 11, 2013, 709 SCRA 19.
49 CA rollo, p. 62.
50 Records, Vol. II, pp. 665-666.