G.R. No. 159571. July 15, 2005
DELFINA Vda. de RIGONAN and Spouses VALERIO LAUDE and VISMINDA LAUDE, Petitioners, vs. ZOROASTER DERECHO Representing the Heirs of RUBEN DERECHO, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The property in dispute, an unregistered parcel of land in Danao City, was originally owned by Hilarion Derecho. Upon his death, his eight children inherited it as pro indiviso co-owners. In 1921, five of these co-owners sold the property via a pacto de retro sale to Francisco Lacambra. The redemption period expired in 1926 without action. In 1928, one of the co-owners, Dolores Derecho-Rigonan, together with her husband Leandro, purchased the land from Lacambra and took possession. They and their successors, the petitioners, possessed the land openly and continuously thereafter.
Decades later, in 1980, Leandro Rigonan executed a fraudulent Affidavit of Adjudication claiming to be Hilarion’s sole heir, enabling the transfer of the tax declaration to his son Teodoro. In 1984, Teodoro sold the land to petitioner Valerio Laude. It was only in 1993 that the respondents, representing the other heirs of Hilarion, filed an action to recover the property and annul the Affidavit and Deed of Sale, arguing the land remained co-owned and the sales were void.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents’ action to recover the subject property is barred by prescription and laches.

RULING

Yes, the action is barred. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of the petitioners. The Court applied the principles of extinctive prescription under the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) and laches. The cause of action for recovery of the property accrued in 1928 when Dolores and Leandro Rigonan purchased and possessed the land from Lacambra, an act adverse to the other co-owners. Under Act No. 190, a real action prescribes after ten years. Respondents and their predecessors took no action for over six decades, sleeping on their rights.
Furthermore, the equitable defense of laches applies. 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, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned or declined to assert it. The respondents’ inaction from 1928 until 1993, a period of 65 years, is grossly unreasonable. They failed to assert their claim despite the petitioners’ open, continuous, and notorious possession, which included obtaining tax declarations and developing the land. The law protects the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. Thus, petitioners’ ownership by acquisitive prescription and the respondents’ loss of their right to recover through laches are affirmed.