G.R. No. 168960 ; July 5, 2010
AMELIA B. HEBRON, Petitioner, vs. FRANCO L. LOYOLA, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

This case involves a suit for partition and damages over two parcels of land owned by the spouses Januario Loyola and Remigia Baylon. Upon their deaths, the properties were left to their seven children: Conrado, Jose, Benjamin, Candida, Soledad, Cristeta, and Encarnacion. Administration was entrusted to Encarnacion and, upon her death, to her daughter, petitioner Amelia B. Hebron. Petitioner later withheld the shares of Candida and the heirs of Conrado, prompting a formal demand for partition and the subsequent filing of a complaint.
In her defense, petitioner claimed that Candida and Conrado’s heirs had relinquished their shares in consideration of financial support extended by her mother, Encarnacion. The respondents conceded receiving support but maintained they had adequately compensated Encarnacion through unpaid labor and, in one instance, by surrendering earnings. The trial court limited the issue to the veracity of the alleged waiver.

ISSUE

Whether the defense of laches and prescription bars the action for partition, and whether the alleged waiver of hereditary shares by some heirs is valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings ordering partition. The defense of laches and prescription was unavailing. For laches to apply, there must be unjustified delay that prejudices the defendant. The evidence showed that during Encarnacion’s administration and for some years after her death, all heirs received their shares. Petitioner’s own book entries, which started only in 1986, demonstrated her non-recognition of the other heirs’ rights. The formal demand was made in 1990, and the complaint was filed in 1993. Given the close familial relations and the number of heirs involved, some residing abroad, the delay of four to six years was not unreasonable and did not constitute laches.
On the claim of waiver, the Court found petitioner’s evidence insufficient. The alleged deeds of assignment were not presented, and the self-serving entries in her book of accounts were inadequate to prove a valid and intentional renunciation of hereditary rights. The respondents’ receipt of financial support did not, by itself, establish a contractual waiver of their inheritance. Consequently, no valid waiver was proven, and all heirs remained entitled to their respective shares. The action for partition, which is imprescriptible as long as co-ownership is recognized, was properly granted.