G.R. No. 172671 April 16, 2009
MARISSA R. UNCHUAN, Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA, ANITA LOZADA and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU CITY, Respondents.

FACTS

Sisters Anita Lozada Slaughter and Peregrina Lozada Saribay, registered co-owners of Lot Nos. 898-A-3 and 898-A-4 in Cebu City and based in the United States, sold the lots to their nephew Antonio J.P. Lozada under a Deed of Sale dated March 11, 1994. Antonio’s uncle, Dr. Antonio Lozada, advanced the purchase price. The deed was notarized and authenticated, and upon registration, new TCTs were issued in Antonio’s name. Pending registration, petitioner Marissa R. Unchuan caused the annotation of an adverse claim on the lots, alleging Anita had donated an undivided share to her under an unregistered Deed of Donation dated February 4, 1987. Antonio and Anita filed a case for quieting of title against Marissa, who in turn filed an action to declare the Deed of Sale void and cancel the new TCTs. The cases were consolidated. At trial, respondents presented evidence including Anita’s sworn statement and videotape denying the donation, and testimony that the lots were intended for capitalization of a corporation. Marissa presented the Deed of Donation and a witness who testified that Peregrina’s medical condition made it impossible for her to have signed the Deed of Sale on March 11, 1994. The RTC initially declared Antonio the absolute owner and the donation null and void, but on reconsideration, declared the sale void and the donation valid. On respondents’ motion for reconsideration, the RTC reinstated its original decision but disallowed damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, restoring an award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to respondents.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC Decision declaring Antonio J.P. Lozada the absolute owner of the properties.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals violated petitioner’s right to due process.
3. Whether petitioner’s case is barred by laches.

RULING

1. The Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court found no reason to overturn the factual findings of the lower courts. The notarized and authenticated Deed of Sale enjoys the presumption of regularity. The sale did not violate the constitutional prohibition on alien landownership, as the lots were registered in Antonio’s name (a Filipino citizen) and were intended for infusion into a corporation qualifying as a Philippine National. Petitioner’s evidence on Peregrina’s incapacity to sign was insufficient to establish total impossibility. The Deed of Donation in favor of Marissa was correctly declared void for being an incomplete or imperfect donation (donatio manda) as the donor, Anita, did not part with dominion over the property, and Marissa failed to register it or take possession.
2. There was no violation of due process. The Court of Appeals’ decision contained the necessary findings of fact to warrant its conclusions. The appellate court resolved the issues collectively, and its failure to specify all contentious issues raised does not render the decision constitutionally infirm.
3. Petitioner’s case is barred by laches. Marissa failed to assert her claim under the donation for over nine years, despite knowledge of the sale and the issuance of new titles to Antonio. Her inaction constitutes neglect to assert a right, warranting a presumption that she has abandoned her claim.