January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 191334 : January 18, 2012]
ERNESTO FIGUEROA, ARMANDO FIGUEROA, THE HEIRS OF LEONILA FIGUEROA, NAMELY, SARAH JANE COBB-ESTEVIS, RUBY ANGELINE COBB-AGUILAR, HELEN GRACE COBB-CAMPOS, ALLAN FRANK F. COBB AND JAMES ARTHUR F. COBB, ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN FACT, ATTY. JULIO H. OZAMIZ; AND PURIFICACION FIGUEROA-TIONGSON AND AMELIA FIGUEROA ANGELES, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JAIME F. TIONGSON VS. SPOUSES LEONARDO B. FIGUEROA AND JULIANA V. FIGUEROA, INSULAR BAKERY ENTERPRISES, INC. AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY
G.R. No. 191334 - ERNESTO FIGUEROA, ARMANDO FIGUEROA, THE HEIRS OF LEONILA FIGUEROA, namely, SARAH JANE COBB-ESTEVIS, RUBY ANGELINE COBB-AGUILAR, HELEN GRACE COBB-CAMPOS, ALLAN FRANK F. COBB and JAMES ARTHUR F. COBB, all represented by their Attorney-in Fact, ATTY. JULIO H OZAMIZ; AND PURIFICACION FIGUEROA-TIONGSON AND AMELIA FIGUEROA ANGELES, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, JAIME F. TIONGSON vs. SPOUSES LEONARDO B. FIGUEROA AND JULIANA V. FIGUEROA, INSULAR BAKERY ENTERPRISES, INC. AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY
RESOLUTION
After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the appellate court in upholding the dismissal of petitioners' complaint on the ground of laches. Laches has been defined as the "failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it."[1] It has the following elements: "(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom a claim is made, giving rise to a situation for which a complaint is filed and a remedy sought; (2) delay in asserting the rights of the complainant, who has knowledge or notice of defendant's conduct and has been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant will assert the right on which the latter has based the suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event that the complainant is granted a relief or the suit is not deemed barred."[2] All of the foregoing elements are present in this case, to wit: (1) the subject lots were sold to respondents-spouses as early as 1961 and 1963; (2) petitioners knew about the said sale but for some unexplained reason, they only acted upon it after the lapse of 37 years; (3) having enjoyed the properties for more than 3 decades, respondents-spouses certainly did not expect that petitioners would still assert their rights therein; and (4) there is no doubt that respondents-spouses, who already spent for the improvement of the subject properties, would suffer damages if petitioners will be allowed to reclaim their purported shares. Thus, while laches is not strictly construed between near relatives, the facts and circumstances of this case dictate otherwise.cralaw
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED and the November 19, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Delfina Vda. De Rigonan, et al, v. Zoroaster Derecho, et al., G.R. No. 159571, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA 627.[2] Ibid at p. 649.