G.R. No. L-11754; April 29, 1960
SATURNINO D. VILLORIA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On June 26, 1923, plaintiff Saturnino D. Villoria purchased Lot No. 89, a Friar Land, from the Government, payable in installments. He paid the first installment but failed to pay the succeeding ones. Consequently, on April 5, 1935, the Director of Lands unilaterally cancelled the sale certificate. Over two years later, on August 10, 1937, the same lot was purchased from the Government by Susana Villoria under Commonwealth Act No. 32 . On September 24, 1945, Nicanor, Edilberta, and Emiliana Villoria filed a joint petition with the Bureau of Lands claiming preferential right to purchase portions of the lot they occupied. The Director of Lands denied their petition on June 24, 1947, but the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reversed this decision on January 2, 1948, ordering the subdivision and sale of the occupied portions to the petitioners, with a refund to Susana Villoria. Susana Villoria’s subsequent judicial actions to challenge this order were unsuccessful. It was only on June 30, 1953, that Saturnino D. Villoria, upon learning the lot was about to be subdivided and deeds issued to the other Villorias, sent a telegram to the Director of Lands requesting suspension, followed by a letter from his counsel. On July 27, 1953, he filed the present action for injunction to restrain the defendants from subdividing the lot and executing deeds in favor of the other Villorias, arguing the cancellation of his contract and subsequent adjudication were illegal. The trial court declared the unilateral cancellation null and void but dismissed the complaint on the grounds of prescription and/or laches.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff-appellant’s action for injunction is barred by laches.

RULING

Yes, the action is barred by laches. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. While the Court agreed that the unilateral cancellation of the sale certificate by the Director of Lands on April 5, 1935, was illegal and null and void under the Friar Lands Act (Act No. 1120), which did not grant such cancellation power but only authorized suit to recover unpaid installments or foreclosure, the plaintiff’s claim was nonetheless stale. The plaintiff first asserted his claim only on June 30, 1953, via telegram, and filed his complaint on July 27, 1953. This was more than 18 years after the cancellation of his contract and about 15 years after the lot was sold to Susana Villoria in 1937. During this prolonged period, the lot was the subject of extensive administrative and judicial controversy among the other Villorias. The plaintiff, being related to Susana Villoria, must have known of these claims and the apparent invalidity of the cancellation. His inaction misled the authorities and subsequent buyers into believing he had acquiesced. All four elements of laches were present: (1) conduct by the defendants (the cancellation and subsequent sales) giving rise to the complaint; (2) delay in asserting his rights despite knowledge or notice; (3) lack of knowledge by the defendants that the plaintiff would assert his right; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendants (the other Villorias) who faced the rigors and expenses of long litigation. Furthermore, the other Villorias had been in actual occupation and possession of their respective portions since 1937 or earlier, and there was no record the plaintiff maintained possession after the cancellation. Therefore, the plaintiff’s right to bring the action had been converted into a stale demand by his inaction and neglect.