G.R. No. L-30310 October 23, 1984
SATURNINO MEDIJA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ERNESTO PATCHO, LAURIANA PATCHO, TARCILA BATILONA, TEODORO BARORO, DONATA BALURAN, MARCELINO BALURAN, and SANTOS MA. DELGADO, as Provincial Sheriff of Misamis Occidental, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

This appeal stems from the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2665 for quieting of title and damages. The antecedent case, Civil Case No. 1884, was an action for partition and damages filed by the herein defendants-appellees (heirs of Lorenzo Morante) against their uncle Agripino Morante and Saturnino Medija, among others. The Court of Appeals, in a 1963 decision, reversed the trial court and ordered the partition of unpartitioned lands and payment of damages. Subsequently, on April 17, 1967, the trial court issued an order approving a stipulation for partition agreed upon by all parties, including Medija through counsel, and adjudged specific sums as damages against the defendants, including Medija.
In 1968, Medija filed the present complaint (Civil Case No. 2665) seeking to quiet title over two parcels of land, claiming he acquired them through sale from the defendants and from Agripino Morante between 1948 and 1952. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of res judicata and laches.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed Medija’s complaint for quieting of title on the grounds of res judicata and laches.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was proper, primarily on the ground of laches. The legal logic is anchored on equitable principles. Medija’s claim of ownership based on alleged sales from 1948-1952 was a matter that should have been raised in the earlier partition case (Civil Case No. 1884) filed in 1956. He failed to assert this claim during the trial, the appeal to the Court of Appeals, and even during the execution proceedings where he actively participated in the stipulation of partition. His conduct of acquiescing to the partition order, which implicitly recognized the co-ownership of the heirs, and then belatedly asserting exclusive ownership only when execution was imminent, constitutes inexcusable delay prejudicial to the defendants. Equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. Laches applies irrespective of the registration of the land in his name, as it is an equitable defense that can bar even a registered owner’s action when there is unreasonable delay in asserting rights. His strategy to relitigate ownership after final judgment in the partition case makes a mockery of judicial processes and is correctly barred.