G.R. No. L-23072 November 29, 1968
SIMEON B. MIGUEL, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FLORENDO CATALINO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants, Simeon, Emilia, and Marcelina Miguel, and Grace Ventura, are the children and heirs of Bacaquio (also known as Bakakew), the original registered owner under Original Certificate of Title No. 31 issued on December 28, 1927, of a parcel of land in San Pascual, Tuba, Benguet. Bacaquio, an illiterate non-Christian resident of Mountain Province, died in 1943. In 1928, Bacaquio sold the land to Catalino Agyapao, father of the defendant-appellee Florendo Catalino, for P300.00. No formal deed of sale was executed, and the sale lacked the required approval of the provincial governor. Since 1928, Catalino Agyapao and later his son, Florendo Catalino, possessed the land openly, in the concept of owner, paid taxes, and introduced improvements. On February 1, 1949, plaintiff Grace Ventura, by herself, executed a Transferor’s Affidavit selling the same land to Florendo Catalino for P300.00. In 1961, Catalino Agyapao sold the land to his son, Florendo Catalino. The plaintiffs filed suit in 1962 to recover possession of the land, claiming the defendant unlawfully took possession. The trial court dismissed the complaint, declared the defendant the rightful owner, and ordered the cancellation of the original certificate and issuance of a new one in the defendant’s name. Plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs-appellants’ action to recover possession and title to the land is barred by laches, despite the invalidity of the original 1928 sale from Bacaquio to Catalino Agyapao due to lack of executive approval.

RULING

Yes, the action is barred by laches. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. While the 1928 sale was null and void ab initio for lack of the provincial governor’s approval as required by Section 145(b) of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, extended to Mountain Province by Act 2798, as amended, and Bacaquio’s title passed to his heirs upon his death, the equitable defense of laches applies. The vendor Bacaquio, and subsequently his heirs, the plaintiffs, took no action to assert their rights from 1928 until 1962—a period of 34 years—during which the defendant and his predecessor openly possessed, improved, and paid taxes on the land. This passivity and inaction, with knowledge of the sale, induced the defendant to believe he was the secure owner, especially after the 1949 transaction with Grace Ventura. The four elements of laches are present: (1) defendant’s conduct (possession under claim of ownership); (2) delay in asserting plaintiffs’ rights despite knowledge; (3) defendant’s lack of knowledge plaintiffs would assert their rights; and (4) injury or prejudice to defendant if relief is granted. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ right to recover has been converted into a stale demand. Regarding Grace Ventura, her situation is worse due to her 1949 affidavit of sale/quitclaim to the defendant. Since the plaintiffs are barred by laches, their ownership is completely divested, and the order to cancel the original certificate and issue a new one in the defendant’s name is justified.