G.R. No. 128576 ; August 13, 2002
MARIANO A. VELEZ, SR. (deceased), ATTY. PURO M. VELEZ, ATTY. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, ENGR. PLUTARCO M. VELEZ and SARAH VDA. DE VELEZ (for herself and her children by the late HOMER M. VELEZ, namely PATRICIA, HAYDEE, HOMER, JR., RUBY, FE VAL and HANAH, all surnamed VELEZ), petitioners,

vs.
REV. FRANCISCO DEMETRIO (deceased), CELERINA DEMETRIO FIANZA, TARCILO DEMETRIO, LEVITA FERNANDEZ DEMETRIO JUAN (for herself and her children), ANGELA, VALDEHUEZA RADAZA, FELECITO RADAZA and JOSE RADAZA, JR., respondents.

FACTS

The spouses Felix Radaza and Estefania Abrogar owned a ten-hectare agricultural land in Cagayan de Oro City. Upon their death, ownership passed to their children Ramona, Severo, Filomeno, and Jacoba, and grandchildren by their son Jose, Sr. (Vicente, Felicito, Rosario, and Jose, Jr.). The land was registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 76781 on March 12, 1938, in their names. On April 14, 1975, respondents (heirs of Ramona Radaza-Demetrio and Jose Radaza, Sr.) filed a complaint for Partition of Real Estate with Damages against petitioners (heirs of Mariano Velez, Sr.). Respondents alleged they discovered in 1947 that Mariano Velez, Sr. had claimed and fenced the property, denying them entry, and they tried extra-legal means to recover it before filing the case. Petitioners claimed the property had been partitioned and that Mariano Velez, Sr. purchased the shares of Severo and Jacoba in 1936, Filomeno’s and Ramona’s shares on May 30, 1947, and the share of Jose’s heirs through his wife Ciriaca Bacarro Radaza, and that they had been in open, notorious, and uninterrupted possession as owners. The trial court dismissed the complaint, declared petitioners as absolute owners, and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering partition of the property, with 2/5 to respondents and 3/5 to petitioners.

ISSUE

1. Whether the shares of Ramona Radaza and Jose Radaza were sold to Mariano Velez, Sr.
2. Whether respondents are guilty of laches.

RULING

1. The Court of Appeals held that the alleged sales of Ramona Radaza’s share to Filomeno and subsequently to Mariano Velez, Sr., and the sale of the shares of Jose Radaza, Sr.’s heirs by Ciriaca Radaza to Mariano Velez, Sr., were of no force and effect due to lack of evidence. The testimonies offered by petitioners, including those of Francisco Radaza and Isabelo Tabian, were hearsay and insufficient to prove the transactions. Francisco Radaza could not have had personal knowledge of Ramona’s alleged sale to Filomeno due to his absence during the relevant period, and there was no evidence Ciriaca was authorized to sell her children’s shares.
2. The principle of laches does not apply. Laches is an equitable doctrine requiring failure to assert a right for an unreasonable time. The Court of Appeals found that the specific act of repudiation of the co-ownership occurred only on March 27, 1974, when petitioners registered an affidavit of adverse claim annotated on respondents’ title for the 3/5 portion, starting the prescription period. Since the case was filed on April 14, 1975, no prescription ran for the remaining 2/5. The land is registered under the Torrens system, and prescription and laches cannot apply against registered land. Article 494 of the Civil Code states prescription does not run against a co-owner who recognizes the co-ownership, which petitioners did by annotating their claim without transferring the title. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, denying the petition and upholding the order for partition.