G.R. No. 155133 ; February 21, 2007
HEIRS OF ROSA DUMALIANG and CIRILA DUMALIANG, represented by NICANOR B. GUIAB, FELIPE D. GUMABON and FRANCISCO MARADDAG, Petitioners, vs. DAMIANO SERBAN, ERNESTO SERBAN, WILSON SERBAN, DOMINGA SERBAN, VIRGILIO SERBAN and MARIANO SERBAN, Respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners are the heirs of Rosa and Cirila Dumaliang, who owned a 76,804-square meter lot in Isabela. In 1965, some heirs sold a 20,000-square meter portion to respondent Damiano Serban. However, in 1965, a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued to Damiano covering the entire lot, based on a 1962 Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement and Sale. Petitioners alleged this 1962 deed was fraudulent, containing falsified signatures of deceased persons and a missing compulsory heir, and that they only intended to sell the 20,000-square meter portion. They filed a complaint in 1997 for declaration of inexistence of contract, reconveyance, and cancellation of title.
Respondents claimed that after the initial sale, petitioners offered to sell the remaining portion, leading to the 1962 deed. They asserted that Damiano had been in open, continuous possession of the entire lot since 1962, subsequently subdividing and transferring titles to his children. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground of laches, finding petitioners inexcusably delayed in asserting their rights for over 32 years. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners’ action is barred by laches.

RULING

Yes, the action is barred by laches. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, warranting a presumption that the party has abandoned their right or acquiesced to the situation. The Court emphasized that the 1965 issuance of TCT No. 26676 in Damiano Serban’s name was a constructive notice to the whole world. From that point, petitioners were charged with knowledge that the entire lot had been registered in his name.
Petitioners failed to exercise due diligence in safeguarding their property rights. Their inaction for over three decades—during which respondents openly possessed, cultivated, and even subdivided the land—constitutes gross negligence. The Court found no valid justification for this prolonged delay. While the action to declare a void contract does not prescribe, the equitable doctrine of laches can still apply to bar it. The petitioners’ failure to assert their claim within a reasonable time, coupled with the respondents’ established possession and changes in the property’s condition, led the Court to conclude that allowing the suit would be unjust and inequitable. Thus, the petition was denied.