GR 92436; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92436 ; July 26, 1991
MARIA VDA. DE REYES, et al., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES DALMACIO GARDIOLA and ROSARIO MARTILLANO, respondents.
FACTS
Gavino Reyes owned a parcel of land in Carmona, Cavite. He died in 1921 during the pendency of his land registration application. In 1936, his heirs subdivided the property, allotting Lot No. 1-A-14 to Rafael Reyes, Sr. In 1941, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 255 for the entire estate was issued but kept by a relative, Juan Poblete, unbeknownst to the heirs. On December 3, 1943, Rafael Reyes, Sr. sold a parcel, corresponding to Lot No. 1-A-14, to respondent Dalmacio Gardiola. The vendee immediately took possession and paid taxes. In 1967, the heirs executed an Extrajudicial Settlement, adjudicating the lot intended for Rafael Reyes, Sr. to his son, Rafael Reyes, Jr., the petitioners’ predecessor. Consequently, TCT No. 27257 was issued in Rafael Reyes, Jr.’s name.
Petitioners, as successors of Rafael Reyes, Jr., filed an action for recovery of possession in 1983 against the respondents, who had been in continuous possession since 1943. They alleged they only definitively discovered their ownership in September 1969 after obtaining the TCT. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them the lawful owners and ordering the respondents to vacate.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners’ action for recovery of possession is barred by prescription or laches.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ reversal. The Court held that the action was barred by laches. The respondents acquired ownership through the 1943 sale from Rafael Reyes, Sr., the then rightful owner. Rafael Reyes, Jr., upon whose rights petitioners base their claim, never assailed this sale during his lifetime. Petitioners admitted they discovered their claimed ownership in September 1969, yet they waited approximately thirteen and a half years until March 1983 to file suit. This unreasonable delay, while the respondents remained in open and continuous possession, constitutes laches. The Court emphasized that the burden to act within a reasonable time was on the petitioners, not on the respondents to bring an action for reconveyance. Consequently, petitioners’ inaction precludes them from now asserting a claim to the property.