Insurance of Phil. Islands Corporation v.

Spouses Gregorio Issue/s + Held :

GR No. 174104,
February 14, 2011 27 yrs na ang nakalipas, ngayon ka lang nagreklamo ng WoN petitioners cause of action are already barred by prescription and laches
fraud! prescription v. laches NO.
Summary:
Ratio:
Loans were obtained by Sps Gregorio from Insurance of Phil. Islands Corp. They
executed real estate mortgages as security. In 1969: they failed to pay their loans,
so the properties were extrajudicially foreclosed. A sale was conducted where Petitioners cause of action accrued at the time it discovered the alleged fraud
petitioner was the highest bidder and obtained possession of such properties. In committed by respondents. It is at this point that the 4-year prescriptive period
1996: 27 yrs after, petitioner filed a complaint for damages upon discovery that the should be counted. Hence, petitioners suit for damages is well within the
properties were already registered in the names of third persons, claiming that the prescriptive period.
spouses acted fraudulently in misrepresenting ownership. The spouses contended
that petitioners cause of action are already barred by prescription and laches.
The documents provided by the spouses to petitioner as evidence of their
Petitioners cause of action accrued at the time it discovered the alleged fraud
committed by respondents in 1995. It is at this point that the 4- year prescriptive ownership of the subject properties at the time that they mortgaged the
period should be counted. Hence, petitioners suit for damages in 1996 is well same are not certificates of title but tax declarations, in the guise that the
within the prescriptive period. Neither may the principle of laches apply in this case. said properties are unregistered. On the basis of the tax declarations alone
and by reason of respondents misrepresentations, petitioner could not
Facts:
have been reasonably expected to acquire knowledge of the fact that said
properties were already titled.
Three loans were obtained by Spouses Gregorio from the Insurance of the
Philippine Islands Corporation. By way of security for the said loans,
Neither may the principle of laches apply in this case.
spouses executed real estate mortgages in favor of petitioner over
different parcels of land. The essence of laches or stale demands is the failure or neglect for an
1969: The spouses failed to pay their loans, as a result of which the unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by
mortgaged properties were extrajudicially foreclosed. The extrajudicial exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus
foreclosure sale was conducted where petitioner was the highest bidder giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
1996: 27 years after, petitioner filed a complaint for damages against the abandoned or declined to assert it.
spouses alleging that in 1995, when it was in the process of gathering
documents, it discovered that the said lots were already registered in the
names of third persons and transfer certificates of title were issued to
them. Claiming that the spouses acted in a fraudulent and malevolent
manner in enticing it to grant their loan applications by misrepresenting
ownership of the subject properties, petitioner prayed for the grant of
damages.
The spouses contended that petitioners cause of action and right of
action are already barred by prescription and laches.
 Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. CA G.R. No. 112519 November 14, 1996 laches nephew, Amando de Leon (private respondent) who had been living with
inapply e di naman inassign as error yun Prescription vs. Laches her. The latter immediately took possession of the property in the concept
of owner, built his house thereon and, through the years, declared the land
Summary: for taxation purposes as well as paid the taxes due thereon.
Amando de Leons possession of the subject property was never disturbed
The original owner a parcel of land located in the municipality of Balanga, Bataan
by anybody until Catholic Bishop of Balanga filed the instant complaint
was the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. It was transferred to the Catholic
Bishop of Balanga. The Catholic Bishop of Bataan donated the subject land to Ana against him on 5 November 1985 or more than 49 years after the deed of
de Los Reyes and her heirs as a reward for her long and satisfactory service to the donation was executed.
church. After Anas death, the land was given to her nephew, Amando de Leon
As his defense, Amando de Leon maintains that by virtue of the deed of
(private respondent) who built his house thereon and, declared the land for
taxation purposes as well as paid the taxes. 49 years after the deed of donation, donation executed in favor of his predecessor-in- interest, he is the lawful
Catholic Bishop of Bataan now claims ownership of the land in dispute. On appeal, owner of the subject property and the complaint states no cause of action
respondent de Leon assigned prescription as an error in the previous ruling of the as it was filed only to harass him.
lower court but the CA ruled using the doctrine of laches. Petitioner now argues Petitioner contends that CA should not have applied the doctrine of laches
that this was not proper. The Court ruled that the general rule that 'matters not
because respondent did not assign the same as an error on appeal.
assigned as errors on ppeal may not be subject to the review of the appellate court
admits exceptions. One of which is that matters not assigned as errors on appeal
Issue:
but closely related to an error assigned. Therefore, CA did not err in applying the
1. W/N CA properly applied the doctrine of laches in its
doctrine of laches. (see ratio #2 onwards for the discussion on laches)
ruling when in fact it was not assigned as an error in the appeal -> YES. As an
Facts: exception, matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error
assigned (prescription) may be applied in the ruling.
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila was the owner of a parcel of
land situated in the Barrio of Puerto Rivas, Municipality of Balanga, 2. W/N Catholic Bishop of Balanga can still recover the subject property. -> NO. It
Bataan. With respect to its rights over its properties in Bataan, the said lost its right to recover by reason of laches.
Ratio:
church was succeeded by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Fernando,
Pampanga which was, likewise, succeeded by Catholic Bishop of Balanga
1. The general rule that 'matters not assigned as errors on appeal may not be
registered as a corporation.
subject to the review of the appellate court admits exceptions. Respondent
By virtue of the authority given him by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of
assigned prescription as an error.
Manila to donate a portion of the lot, the then parish priest and
administrator of all the properties of the said church in the Municipality of One exception is Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely
Balanga Bataan, Rev. Fr. Mariano Sarili, executed an Escritura De Donacion related to an error assigned
donating 265.36 sq. m to Ana de los Reyes and her heirs, as a reward for A just, fair and complete resolution of the present case necessitates the
her long and satisfactory service to the church. consideration and the application of the doctrine of laches, which is not
Her acceptance of the donation, as well as her possession of the subject the same as but is undoubtedly closely related to the issue of prescription,
property, is indicated in the deed of donation, which deed, for unknown which was properly raised by private respondent before the respondent
reasons, was refused registration by the Register of Deeds. Six (6) years Court of Appeals.
later, or in 1939, Ana de los Reyes died without issue.
Nevertheless, before her death, she had given the subject property to her A registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession of his
registered property by reason of laches. petitioner's non- recognition of such donation, he was secure in his
possession of the subject property in the concept of owner.
Laches means the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained (Fourth Element) Amando de Leon will suffer irreparable injury under the
length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or most unfair circumstances, were we to disregard petitioner's inaction for
should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right more than 40 years in asserting its rights.
within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it. Courts cannot look with favor at parties who, by their silence, delay and inaction,
The principle of laches is a creation of equity which, as such, is applied not knowingly induce another to spend time, effort, and expense in cultivating the
really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon one's right, but rather to avoid land, paying taxes and making improvements thereon for an unreasonable period
recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable only to spring an ambush and claim title when the possessor's efforts and the rise
situation. of land values offer an opportunity to make easy profit at their own expense.

Essential Elements of Laches: (1) Conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one Considerable delay in asserting one's right before a court of justice is strongly
under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of; (2) Delay in persuasive of the lack of merit of his claim, since it is human nature for a person
asserting complainant's right after he had knowledge of the defendant's conduct to enforce his right when same is threatened or invaded; thus, it can also be said
and after he has an opportunity to sue; (3) Lack of knowledge or notice on the that petitioner is estopped by laches from questioning private respondent's
part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he ownership of the subject property.
bases his suit; and (4) Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is
accorded to the complainant.

Under the present circumstances, all of the aforegoing elements are attendant in
this case.

(First Element) The act of Catholic Bishop of Balanga that culminated in the
filing of the present action is thus clearly his occupation since 1945 of the
subject property in the concept of owner in continuation of the occupation
of the same nature regarding the same property by the donee Ana de los
Reyes starting in 1936.
(Second Element) Notwithstanding such opportunity available to
petitioner, however, 40 years had to first pass by for petitioner to finally
institute the appropriate court proceedings. As such, the
second element of knowledge, opportunity to file suit, and delay in filing
such suit, is undoubtedly present in the instant controversy. (Third
Element) Amando de Leon manifestly had every reason to believe that,
with the passing of almost half a century since his predecessor-in- interest
accepted the donated property and without unambiguous intimation of