GR 127783; (June, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127783 June 5, 1998
BIENVENIDA SALANDANAN, CATALINA SALANDANAN, and HEIRS OF CONCEPCION SALANDANAN, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE LUIS TONGCO, Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna, REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BIÑAN & CALAMBA, LAGUNA, and HEIRS OF ELVIRA PANDINCO, respondents.
FACTS
On September 14, 1955, Edilberta Pandinco filed a petition for the settlement of the testate estate of Vicenta Alviar. The will of Vicenta Alviar was admitted to probate on July 8, 1957. A project of partition dated August 13, 1960, signed by all heirs and acknowledged before a notary public, was approved by the probate court on August 29, 1960. On September 17, 1966, the probate court approved and declared as valid the transfer of the petitioners’ shares to their co-heir, respondent Elvira Pandinco. On August 18, 1995, petitioners filed a “Motion To Reopen The Case and Set Aside Partition with Preliminary Injunction” before the Regional Trial Court, alleging they never signed the project of partition, never sold their shares, and only came to know of the Order of September 17, 1966 in 1990. The lower court denied the motion on the ground of estoppel by laches, noting the orders were final for 29 years. The Court of Appeals dismissed the subsequent petition for certiorari, ruling it could not substitute for a lost appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners’ long-delayed action in assailing the probate court’s orders is barred by finality of judgment and laches.
RULING
Yes. The petition is denied. The probate court’s orders approving the project of partition (August 29, 1960) and validating the transfer of shares (September 17, 1966) had already attained finality as no appeal was filed. A final decree of distribution vests title in the distributees and cannot be set aside by a mere motion after becoming final. Moreover, petitioners’ neglect to assert their supposed right for more than thirty years constitutes laches. 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 right has been abandoned. The doctrine is based on public policy which requires the discouragement of stale claims. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.