G.R. No. 134602 , August 6, 1999
RAMONA T. LOGRONIO, CONSUELO T. LEDUNA, PRESENTACION T. TORRES, EDITH MONTENEGRO, LITA S. TIÑA, and SEVERINO DUHAYLUNGSOD, petitioners, vs. ROBERTO TALESEO, LUCIO TALESEO JR., JOVITA TALESEO, CONCEPCION TALESEO, TEODORO TALESEO, RAMON GUINTUGAO, NILDA GUINTAGAO, JOSE GUINTUGAO, DOLORES GUINTUGAO, PERLA GUINTUGAO, ERNESTO TALESEO and RODORO T. PINANUNANG, respondents.

FACTS

Lucio Taliseo owned two parcels of land in Maninihan, Bayawan, Negros Oriental: Parcel No. 1 (44,672 sq.m.) and Parcel No. 2 (48,813 sq.m.). On May 3, 1922, Lucio Taliseo executed a document selling Parcel No. 1 to Basilio Tiña with a right to repurchase within four years. Basilio Tiña took possession of both parcels. Lucio Taliseo failed to repurchase Parcel No. 1 by May 3, 1926. The land was subsequently tax declared in Basilio Tiña’s name and, after his death in 1957, in his heirs’ (petitioners’) names. On January 12, 1957, Lucio Taliseo and his children (respondents) dispossessed the heirs of Basilio Tiña from both parcels. The widow of Basilio Tiña filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry. On March 15, 1960, the Justice of the Peace Court of Bayawan rendered a Decision ejecting the Taliseos from the two parcels. The appeal was dismissed on March 26, 1979, and a Writ of Execution was issued but never enforced. The Taliseos remained in possession. On January 18, 1985, the Taliseos filed a civil case for quieting of title against the heirs of Basilio Tiña. In their Second Amended Complaint, Parcel No. 2 was deleted. In their Answer, the heirs (petitioners) counterclaimed, asserting ownership of Parcel No. 2 and praying to be declared owners of both parcels. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring them owners of both parcels. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC Decision, declaring respondents the owners and possessors of Parcel No. 1 only, thereby sustaining the RTC’s award of Parcel No. 2 to petitioners. Petitioners filed the present Petition for Review, while respondents did not question the CA Decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioners are barred by laches from asserting ownership and possession of Parcel No. 1.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioners, through their inaction for 39 years from the finality of the forcible entry judgment in 1960 until the filing of the counterclaim in 1985, were barred by laches from asserting ownership and possession of Parcel No. 1. Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could have been done earlier. The Court found that petitioners slept on their rights; they did not pursue the execution of the forcible entry judgment after the appeal was dismissed, did not file an action to revive the judgment within the reglementary period, and did not file a suit for revindication or accion publiciana to recover the land. Respondents’ continuous, public, and adverse possession of Parcel No. 1 from 1957 onwards, a period exceeding 30 years, also gave rise to extraordinary acquisitive prescription under Article 1137 of the Civil Code. The Court further noted that the only subject of the appeal before the CA was Parcel No. 1, as respondents’ assignment of error pertained only to it, and the adjudication on Parcel No. 2 was undisturbed. The general rule that courts can take cognizance only of issues pleaded was applied, and the exception allowing consideration of closely related matters was not invoked as the ownership of Parcel No. 2 was not appealed by respondents and thus became final.