182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 264, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 181 Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals

Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals

granted as a matter of right and therefore of due process by the
*
G.R. No. 112519. November 14, 1996. Rules of Court.‰
Same; Same; The appellate court is accorded a broad
CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BALANGA, represented by CRIS- discretionary power to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors
PULO TORRICO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF and to consider errors not assigned.·Guided by the foregoing
APPEALS and AMANDO DE LEON, respondents. precepts, we have ruled in a number of cases that the appellate
court is accorded a broad discretionary power to waive the lack of
proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned. It
Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; While the appealing party is
is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are
legally required to indicate in his brief an assignment of errors, and
not assigned as errors in the appeal. Inasmuch as the Court of
only those assigned shall be considered by the appellate court in
Appeals may consider grounds other than those touched upon in the
deciding the case, the purpose of review is still prevention quite as
decision of the trial court and uphold the same on the basis of such
much as correction of mistakes.·True, the appealing party is legally
other grounds, the Court of Appeals may, with no less authority,
required to indicate in his brief an assignment of errors, and only
reverse the decision of the trial court on the basis of grounds other
those assigned shall be considered by the appellate court in deciding
than those raised as errors on appeal.
the case. However, equally settled in jurisprudence is the exception
to this general rule. „x x x Roscoe Pound states that Âaccording to Same; Same; An appellate court may reverse the decision of the
Ulpian in JustinianÊs Digest, appeals are necessary to correct the trial court on the basis of grounds other than those raised as errors
unfairness or unskillfulness of those who judge.Ê Pound comments on appeal.·We have applied this rule, as a matter of exception, in
that Âthe purpose of review is prevention quite as much as the following instances: (1) Grounds not assigned as errors but
correction of mistakes. The possibility of review by another affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) Matters not
tribunal, especially a bench of judges x x x is an important check assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical
upon tribunals of first instance. It is a preventive of unfairness. It is errors within contemplation of law; (3) Matters not assigned as
also a stimulus to care and thoroughness as not to make mistakes.Ê errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving
Pound adds that Âreview involves matters of concern both to the at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the
parties to the case and to the public x x x. It is of public concern interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (4)
that full justice be done to [e]very one.Ê This judicial injunction Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in
would best be fulfilled and the interest of full justice would best be the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the
served if it should be maintained that x x x appeal brings before the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower
reviewing court the totality of the controversy resolved in the court ignored; (5) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
questioned judgment and order apart from the fact that such full- closely related to an error assigned; and (6) Matters not assigned as
scale review by appeal is expressly errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question
properly assigned, is dependent.
Same; Same; Laches; Prescription; Consideration and
_______________
application of the doctrine of laches, even if not raised, may be had
* FIRST DIVISION. where it is necessitated for a just, fair and complete resolution of the
case since it is undoubtedly closely related to the issue of prescription Same; Essential Elements of Laches.·The following are the
which was properly raised.·The instant controversy falls squarely essential elements of laches: (1) Conduct on the part of the
under the exception to the general rule that only assigned errors defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the
may be passed upon by the appellate court. A just, fair and complete situation complained of; (2) Delay in asserting complainantÊs right
resolution of the present case necessitates the consideration and the after he had knowledge of the defendantÊs conduct and after he has
an opportunity to sue; (3) Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of
183
the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which
he bases his suit; and (4) Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the
event relief is accorded to the complainant.
VOL. 264, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 183
184
Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

application of the doctrine of laches which is not the same as but is
undoubtedly closely related to, the issue of prescription which was Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals
properly raised by private respondent before the respondent Court
of Appeals. Same; Donations; Actions; Where a party files its complaint in
Laches; Words and Phrases; „Laches,‰ Defined.·Laches means court only after forty nine (49) years had lapsed since the donation
the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of in its behalf of the subject property, with nary an explanation for the
time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should long delay, that inaction for an unreasonable and unexplained
have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right length of time constitutes laches; A party cannot claim nullity of the
within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the donation as an excuse to avoid the consequences of its own
party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert unjustified inaction and as a basis for the assertion of a right on
it. It has also been defined as such neglect or omission to assert a which it had slept for so long.·In this case, petitioner filed its
right taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other complaint in court only after forty nine (49) years had lapsed since
circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate the donation in its behalf of the subject property to private
as a bar in equity. respondentÊs predecessor-in-interest. There is nary an explanation
for the long delay in the filing by petitioner of the complaint in the
Same; Doctrine of Stale Demands; The principle of laches is a
case at bench, and that inaction for an unreasonable and
creation of equity which, as such, is applied not really to penalize
unexplained length of time constitutes laches. As such, petitioner
neglect or sleeping upon oneÊs rights, but rather to avoid recognizing
cannot claim nullity of the donation as an excuse to avoid the
a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation.
consequences of its own unjustified inaction and as a basis for the
·The principle of laches is a creation of equity which, as such, is
assertion of a right on which they had slept for so long. Courts
applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon oneÊs right,
cannot look with favor at parties who, by their silence, delay and
but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in
inaction, knowingly induce another to spend time, effort, and
a clearly inequitable situation. As an equitable defense, laches does
expense in cultivating the land, paying taxes and making
not concern itself with the character of the defendantÊs title, but
improvements thereon for an unreasonable period only to spring an
only with whether or not by reason of the plaintiff Ês long inaction or
ambush and claim title when the possessorÊs efforts and the rise of
inexcusable neglect, he should be barred from asserting this claim
land values offer an opportunity to make easy profit at their own
at all, because to allow him to do so would be inequitable and unjust
expense.
to the defendant. „The doctrine of laches or of stale demands is
based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Stale Demands; A partyÊs right
society, the discouragement of stale claims and x x x is principally a to recover possession of a property from another party may, by the
question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim latterÊs long period of possession and by the formerÊs inaction and
to be enforced or asserted.‰ neglect, be converted into a stale demand.·Considerable delay in
asserting oneÊs right before a court of justice is strongly persuasive of the land covered by said title for 49 years, by virtue of a
of the lack of merit of his claim, since it is human nature for a duly accepted donation, although unregistered, will private
person to enforce his right when same is threatened or invaded; respondent, under this circumstance, prevail over the titled
thus, it can also be said that petitioner is estopped by laches from owner?
questioning private respondentÊs ownership of the subject property. Thus,1 we have before us this 2petition for review of a
At any rate, petitionerÊs right to recover the possession of the decision of the Court
3
of Appeals reversing the 4
Regional
subject property from private respondent has, by the latterÊs long Trial Court (RTC) which rendered judgment in favor of
period of possession and by petitionerÊs inaction and neglect, been petitioner
converted into a stale demand. Such passivity in the face of what
might have given rise to an action in court is visited with the loss of ____________________________
such right, and ignorance resulting from inexcusable negligence
does not suffice to explain such failure to file seasonably the 1 In CA-G.R. CV No. 25683, dated October 29, 1992, penned by
necessary suit. Associate Justice Luis A. Javellana and concurred in by Associate
Justices Alfredo L. Benipayo and Fermin A. Martin, Jr., Rollo, pp. 28-34.
185 2 Seventh Division.
3 Branch I, Balanga, Bataan, Third Judicial Region, presided over by
Judge Romeo G. Maglalang.
VOL. 264, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 185 4 Dated November13,1989 in Civil Case No.5324.
Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals
186

Same; Ownership; Land Titles; A registered landowner maylose

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
his right to recover the possession of his registered property by
reason of laches.·Finally, we agree with the respondent Court of Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals
Appeals that, while petitioner is admittedly still the registered
owner of the donated property, and jurisprudence is settled as to the and ordered private respondent to vacate the subject
imprescriptibility and indefeasibility of a Torrens Title, there is property and surrender possession thereof to petitioner and
equally an abundance of cases in the annals of our jurisprudence to pay rent from the finality of the RTC judgment until the
where we categorically ruled that a registered landowner may lose said property is actually vacated.
his right to recover the possession of his registered property by We quote, as the herein parties have done so in their
reason of laches. pleadings, the following narration of facts rendered by the
respondent appellate court:
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Court of Appeals. „The parties do not dispute that the Roman Catholic Archbishop
[sic] of Manila was the owner of a parcel of land (Lot No. 1272,
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Balanga Cadastre) situated in the Barrio of Puerto Rivas,
Navarro, Ortiguera, Zuniga Law Office for Municipality of Balanga, Bataan, having an area of 3,368 sq. m.,
petitioners. more or less covered by OCT No. 14379 of the Registry of Deeds for
Ricardo M. Sagmit, Jr. for private respondent. the province of Bataan. With respect to its rights over its properties
in Bataan (inclusive of Lot No. 1272), the said church was
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.: succeeded by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Fernando,
Pampanga which was, likewise, succeeded by x x x Catholic Bishop
It is the cardinal principle in Land Registration that a
of Balanga·registered as a corporation on 15 December 1975.
torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible.
Prior thereto, or on 23 August 1936, by virtue of the authority
Considering that private respondent in this case, by
given him by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila to donate a
himself and through his predecessor-in-interest, had been
portion of Lot No. 1272, the then parish priest and administrator of
in uninterrupted, open and adverse possession of a portion
all the properties of the said church in the Municipality of Balanga, On 27 and 30 October 1986, 10 months after he filed his answer
Bataan, Rev. Fr. Mariano Sarili, executed an Escritura De Donacion on 10 December 1985 and almost 3 months after plaintiff-appellee
donating an area of 12.40 meters by 21.40 meters or 265.36 sq. m. [petitioner] rested its case x x x defendant-appellant [private
(the subject property) of Lot No. 1272 to Ana de los Reyes and her respondent] filed his motions [sic] to dismiss the complaint on the
heirs, as a reward for her long and satisfactory service to the ground that x x x the instant action is barred by the statute of
church. Her acceptance of the donation, as well as her possession of limitations. Plaintiff-appellee [petitioner] filed on 3 November 1986
the subject property, is indicated in the deed of donation, which its opposition to the motion alleging that the defense of prescription
deed, for unknown reasons, was refused registration by the Register was not raised in a timely filed motion to dismiss, and as an
of Deeds. Six (6) years later, or in 1939, Ana de los Reyes died affirmative defense in the answer. x x x
without issue. On 13 November 1989 the lower court rendered the judgment x x
Nevertheless, before her death, she had given the subject x It opined that, since: (1) defendant-appellant [private respondent]
property to her nephew who had been living with her, the herein failed to present the necessary power of attorney executed by the
defendant-appellant [private respondent]. The latter immediately Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila giving Rev. Fr. Mariano
took possession of the property in the concept of owner, built his Sarili the authority to execute the deed of donation; (2) the first 2
house thereon and, through the years, declared the land for paragraphs of the Excritura de Donacion indicates that the parish
taxation purposes as well as paid the taxes due thereon. His priest x x x was only the administrator of all, hence, had no
possession of the subject property was never disturbed by anybody authority to dispose in whatever manner any of the properties of
until plaintiff-appellee [petitioner] filed the instant com- the Roman Catholic Church of Balanga, Bataan; (3) the parish
priest was not a corporation sole and registered owner of Lot No.
187 1272; and, (4) he did not, in his own behalf or that of the Roman
Catholic
VOL. 264, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 187
188
Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

plaint against him on 5 November 1985, or more than 49 years after
the deed of donation was executed, alleging, among others, that: (1) Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals
during the Japanese occupation of the country, defendant-appellant
[private respondent], without the knowledge and prior consent of Archbishop of Manila, secure any prior leave of court to donate a
the plaintiff-appellee [petitioner], and its predecessors-in-interest, portion of Lot No. 1272 in consonance with Sec. 159 of the old
entered and occupied the subject property, and (2) despite requests Corporation Code x x x Rev. Fr. Mariano Sarili was not authorized
by plaintiff-appellee [petitioner], defendant-appellant [private to, and could not validly, donate the subject lot. Thus, the deed of
respondent] refused to vacate the property in question. In support donation he executed is unenforceable under Art. 1403 of the New
of the above contention, Crispulo Torrico, the sole witness and Civil Code and defendant-appellant [private respondent], as well as
authorized representative of plaintiff-appellee [petitioner] testified, his predecessor-in-interest, never acquired ownership over the
5
among others, that: the subject property is situated at the corner of subject property.‰
Lot No. 1272, and defendant-appellant [private respondent] has, on
the strength of the deed of donation, publicly claimed ownership The court a quo having rendered judgment against private
and occupied the same as early as before the 2nd World War and respondent, the latter lost no time in bringing the case to
has built his store thereon. the respondent Court of Appeals for review.
As his defense, defendant-appellant [private respondent]
„In his appeal, defendant-appellant [private respondent]
maintains that by virtue of the deed of donation of 23 August 1936
contend[ed] that the lower court erred in not ruling on the issue of
executed in favor of his predecessor-in-interest, he is the lawful
prescription which he raised in his amended answer and motion to
owner of the subject property and the complaint states no cause of
dismiss. The thrust of his argument [was] that, since the instant
action as it was filed only to harass him.
case [was] basically and fundamentally a suit for the recovery of
xxx
possession of a real property and the complaint was filed x x x more donation on 23 August 1936 and were never ousted therefrom by
than 49 years after the deed of donation was executed x x x the plaintiff-appelleeÊs [petitionerÊs] predecessors-in-interest. It was not
instant action should have been dismissed on the ground of until almost 5 decades later or on 5 November 1985 that plaintiff-
6
prescription. x x x.‰ appellee [petitioner] instituted the instant action. The inaction for
almost half a century now bars plaintiff-appellee [petitioner] from
Respondent court is in agreement with private respondentÊs recovering the land in question on the equitable principles of laches,
insistence that the defense of prescription is not deemed which is defined as Âsuch neglect or omission to assert a right taken
waived when prescription is apparent from the allegations in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances
in the complaint, 7citing this courtÊs ruling
8
in the cases of causing prejudice to the adverse party as will operate as a bar in
Gicano vs. Gegato, 9Garcia vs. Mathis, and PNB vs. Pacific equity.Ê Registered lands may not be acquired by prescription but
Commission House. But respondent court also stated that the same can be lost or acquired by Laches. [citing Lola vs. CA, 145
private respondent could not have acquired ownership over SCRA 439] Plaintiff-appellee [petitioner] has lost, while defendant-
the subject property through acquisitive prescription appellant [private respondent] has acquired, the subject property by
10
because the same having been duly registered under the laches.‰
Torrens system, title thereto was indefeasible.
Now aggrieved by the aforecited decision of the respondent
____________________________ Court of Appeals, petitioner comes before us mainly
claiming that it was contrary to the law and settled
5 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 25683, supra, pp. 1-3; Rollo, pp. 28-30. jurisprudence for the respondent court to have applied the
6 Ibid., p. 4; Rollo, p. 31. doctrine of laches in the instant case and to have
7 157 SCRA 140. considered a mere administrator
8 100 SCRA 250.
9 27 SCRA 766.
____________________________

189 10 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 25683, supra, pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 33-34.

190
VOL. 264, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 189
Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nonetheless, respondent Court of Appeals ultimately ruled Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals
that under the doctrine of laches, the consequence of
petitionerÊs inaction for 49 years since the execution of the as authorized to donate one of the properties under
deed of donation, despite its apparently undeniable administration.
knowledge of private respondentÊs adverse, peaceful and PetitionerÊs asseverations are devoid of merit.
continuous possession of the subject property in the concept First, petitioner postulates that the respondent Court of
of an owner from 1936 to the institution of the recovery suit Appeals should not have, in the first place, applied the
in 1985, is that it has lost its rights to the subject property doctrine of laches in the instant controversy because
and can no longer recover the same due to its own private respondent did not assign the same as an error on
inexcusable negligence and grave lack of vigilance in appeal.
protecting its rights over a tremendously long period of True, the appealing party is legally required
11
to indicate
time. In the words of the respondent court: in his brief an assignment of errors, and only those
assigned shall be considered
12
by the appellate court in
„x x x. He [private respondent] and his predecessor-in-interest have deciding the case. However, equally settled in
been in adverse, peaceful and continuous possession of the subject jurisprudence is the exception to this general rule.
property in the concept of owners since the execution of the deed of
„x x x Roscoe Pound states that Âaccording to Ulpian in JustinianÊs (1) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction
17
Digest, appeals are necessary to correct the unfairness or over the subject matter;
unskillfulness of those who judge.Ê Pound comments that Âthe (2) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently
18
purpose of review is prevention quite as much as correction of plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law;
mistakes. The possibility of review by another tribunal, especially a
(3) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration
bench of judges x x x is an important check upon tribunals of first
of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and
19
instance. It is a preventive of unfairness. It is also a stimulus to
complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of
20 21
care and thoroughness as not to make mistakes.Ê Pound adds that
justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;
Âreview involves matters of concern both to the parties to the case
and to the public x x x. It is of public concern that full justice be
done to [e]very one.Ê This judicial injunction would best be fulfilled ____________________________

and the interest of full justice would best be served if it should be 14 Hernandez v. Andal, supra, cited in Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. v.
maintained that x x x appeal brings before the reviewing court the Philippine International Surety Co., Inc., 8 SCRA 143, 148 [1963].
totality of the controversy resolved in the questioned judgment and 15 Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 117728,
order apart from the fact that such full-scale review by appeal is promulgated on June 26, 1996; Hydro Resources Contractors Corp. v. Court of
expressly granted as a matter of right and therefore of due process Appeals, 204 SCRA 314, 315 [1991]; Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines,
13
by the Rules of Court.‰ 64 SCRA 610, 633 [1975]; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of
Appeals, 198 SCRA 300, 311 [1991].
Guided by the foregoing precepts, we have ruled in a
16 Espina v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 484, 488 [1992].
number of cases that the appellate court is accorded a
17 Sec. 7, Rule 51, Rules of Court.
broad discretionary power to waive the lack of proper
18Id.
assignment of errors
19 Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 717, 725 [1994];
Vda. de Javellana v. Court of Appeals, 123 SCRA 799 [1983]; Saura Import &
____________________________
Export Co., Inc. v. Philippine International Surety Co., Inc., supra; Servicewide
11 Section 16[b], Rule 46, Rules of Court. Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., supra.
12 Hernandez v. Andal, 78 Phil. 198.
20 Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines, supra.
13 Silverio v. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 527, 545 [1986].
21 Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., supra.

191 192

VOL. 264, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 191 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals
Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals

14 (4) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but

and to consider errors not assigned. It is clothed with
raised in the trial court and are matters of record having
ample authority to review rulings even if they are not
15 some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties
assigned as errors in the appeal. Inasmuch as the Court 22
failed to raise or which the lower court ignored;
of Appeals may consider grounds other than those touched
(5) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related
upon in the decision of the trial court
16
and uphold the same 23
to an error assigned; and
on the basis of such other grounds, the Court of Appeals
may, with no less authority, reverse the decision of the trial (6) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which
court on the basis of grounds other than those raised as the determination of a question properly assigned, is
24
errors on appeal. We have applied this rule, as a matter of dependent.
exception, in the following instances:
The instant controversy falls squarely under the exception
to the general rule that only assigned errors may be passed concern itself with the character of the defendantÊs title,
upon by the appellate court. A just, fair and complete but only with whether or not by reason of the plaintiff Ês
resolution of the present case necessitates the long inaction or inexcusable neglect, he should be barred
consideration and the application of the doctrine of laches from asserting this claim at all, because to allow him
28
to do
which is not the same as but is undoubtedly closely related so would be inequitable and unjust to the defendant.
to, the issue of prescription which was properly raised by
„The doctrine of laches or of stale demands is based upon grounds of
private respondent before the respondent Court of Appeals.
public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the
Laches means the failure or neglect for an unreasonable
and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done ____________________________

earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within 25 Cormero v. Court of Appeals, et al., 247 SCRA 291 [1995]; Tijam, et al. v.
a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, 35 [1968]; Tejido v. Zamacoma, 138 SCRA 78, 90
party entitled to [1985]; Sotto v. Teves, 86 SCRA 154 [1978]; De Castro v. Tan, 129 SCRA 85
[1984]; Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP, 133 SCRA 800 [1984]; Corro v. Lising,
____________________________ 137 SCRA 541 [1985]; Medija v. Patcho, 132 SCRA 540 [1984]; Gumonpin v.
Court of Appeals, 120 SCRA 687 [1983]; Vda. de Alberto v. Court of Appeals,
22 Baquiran v. Court of Appeals, 2 SCRA 873 [1961]; Korean Airlines,
173 SCRA 436, 449 [1989]; Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 738,
Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, supra; Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German
747 [1988]; Chung Ka Bio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 163 SCRA 534, 541
Airlines, supra; Hernandez v. Andal, 78 Phil. 196; Philippine Commercial
[1988]; Bergado v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 502, 503 [1989]; Ching v. Court
and Industrial Bank v. Court of Appeals, 159 SCRA 24 [1988];
of Appeals, 181 SCRA 9, 17 [1990]; Villamor v. Court of Appeals, 126 SCRA 574
Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., supra.
[1988]; Solomon v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 185 SCRA 352 [1990];
23 Garrido v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 450, 455 [1994]; Medida v.
Marcelino v. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 444, 447 [1992].
Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 887 [1992]; Roman Catholic Archbishop of
26 Heirs of Batiog Lacamen v. Heirs of Laruan, 65 SCRA 125 [1975];
Manila v. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 300 [1991]; Philippine Commercial
Victoriano v. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 19, 24 [1991]; Jacob v. Court of
and Industrial Bank v. Court of Appeals, supra; Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa
Appeals, 224 SCRA 189, 196 [1993].
German Airlines, supra; Hernandez v. Andal, supra; Espina v. Court of
27 Arradaza v. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 12, 20 [1989]; Asuncion v. Court
Appeals, 215 SCRA 484, 488 [1992]; Soco v. Militante, 123 SCRA 160
of Appeals, et al., 150 SCRA 353 [1987].
[1983]; Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., supra.
28 Pabalate v. Echarri, Jr., 37 SCRA 518, 522 [1971]; Lola v. Court of
24Id.
Appeals, 145 SCRA 459, 450 [1986].
193
194

VOL. 264, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 193

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals
25
assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it. It discouragement of stale claims and x x x is principally a question of
has also been defined as such neglect or omission to assert the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be
29
a right taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and enforced or asserted.‰
other circumstances causing prejudice
26
to an adverse party,
as will operate as a bar in equity. The time-honored rule anchored on public policy is that
The principle of laches is a creation of equity which, as relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim or demand
such, is applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping has become „stale,‰ or who has acquiesced for an
upon oneÊs right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right unreasonable length of time, or who has not been vigilant
when to 27do so would result in a clearly inequitable or who has 30slept on his rights either by negligence, folly or
situation. As an equitable defense, laches does not inattention. In other words, public policy requires, for the
peace of society, the discouragement of claims grown stale recognition of her long and satisfactory service to the
for non-assertion; thus laches is an impediment to the church of Balanga, Bataan. For some reason or another, the
assertion or enforcement of a right which has become, 31
said deed was refused registration by the Register of
under the circumstances, inequitable or unfair to permit. Deeds. However, she accepted the donation, indicated such
The following are the essential elements of laches: acceptance in the said deed, occupied the donated property,
and exercised acts of ownership thereupon.
(1) Conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom In 1945, the donee, Ana de los Reyes, died without issue.
he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of; She had, however, given the subject property to her nephew
(2) Delay in asserting complainantÊs right after he had who is the private respondent in the instant case. Upon
knowledge of the defendantÊs conduct and after he has an acceptance of the gift, private respondent immediately took
opportunity to sue; possession of the subject property in the concept of owner,
(3) Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant built his house thereon, and thenceforth paid land taxes
that the complainant would assert the right on which he therefor after declaring the subject property for that
bases his suit; and purpose.
(4) Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is The act of petitioner-defendant that culminated in the
32
accorded to the complainant. 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
29 Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 [1968], quoted in Bergado v. starting in 1936. Undoubtedly, the first element of laches
Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 500, 503 [1989]. exists.
30 Arradaza v. Court of Appeals, supra. The second element also exists in this case. The second
31 Chung Ka Bio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 163 SCRA 534, 541 element is three-tiered: (a) knowledge of defendantÊs action;
[1988]. (b) opportunity to sue defendant after obtaining such
32 Go Chi Gun, et al. v. Co Cho, et al., 96 Phil. 622 [1955]; Mejia de knowledge; and (c) delay in the filing of such suit.
Lucas v. Gamponia, 100 Phil. 277 [1956]; Z.E. Lotho, Inc. v. Ice & Cold Petitioner, in his complaint filed in the trial court, alleged
Storage Industries, Inc., 3 SCRA 744 [1961]; Abraham v. Intestate Estate that without its consent, private respondent entered and
of Juan C. Ysmael, 4 SCRA 298 [1962]; Custodio v. Casiano, 9 SCRA 841 occupied the subject
[1963]; Nielsen & Co., Inc. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., 18 SCRA
1040 [1966]; Miguel v. Catalino, 26 SCRA 234 [1968]; Yusingco v. Ong _______________
Hing Lian, 42 SCRA 589 [1971];
Perez v. Ong Chua, 116 SCRA 732 [1982]; Rafols v. Barba, 119 SCRA
195 146 [1982]; Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 738, 747
[1988]; Chung Ka Bio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra; Claverias v.
Quingco, 207 SCRA 66, 83 [1992]; Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals, 216
VOL. 264, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 195 SCRA 818, 824 [1992].
Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals
196

Under the present circumstances, all of the aforegoing

elements are attendant in this case. 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
On or some time before August 23, 1936, Rev. Fr. Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals
Mariano Sarili, the parish priest and administrator of the
church property in the Municipality of Balanga, Bataan,
property during the Second World War. By its own
executed a deed of donation over a 265-square meter
admission, therefore, petitioner was clearly aware of
church lot in favor of Ana de los Reyes and her heirs in
private respondentÊs possession of the subject property in
the concept of owner. Petitioner did not also rebut the where a party allows the following number of years to lapse
testimony of its own authorized representative and sole from the emergence of his cause of action, before instituting
witness, one Crispulo Torrico, that the subject property was court action to enforce his claim, such action would 33
be
so proximately located to the rest of petitionerÊs church barred34 by the equitable
35
defense
36
of laches:
37
36 years;38 12
property as to foreclose assertion of ignorance of private years;39 50 years;40 34 years;41 37 years;42 32 years;43 20
respondentÊs possession of the subject property, on the part years;44 47 years;45 11 years;
46
25 years;
47
40 years;
48
19
of petitioner. years;49 27 years; 7 years; 44 years; 4 years; and 67
From that time during the Second World War to 1985 years.
when petitioner actually commenced suit against private
respondent, there was doubtlessly all the opportunity to file ____________________________
the appropriate action to have the donation of the subject
property to Ana de los Reyes and her heirs, declared null 33 Claverias v. Quingco, 207 SCRA 66 [1992]; Tambot v. Court of
and void and to demand reconveyance of said property from Appeals, 181 SCRA 202, 207 [1990].
its present occupants. 34 De la Calzada-Cierras v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 390, 396
Notwithstanding such opportunity available to [1992].
petitioner, however, forty-nine (49) years had to first pass 35 Marcelino v. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 444, 447 [1992].
by for petitioner to finally institute the appropriate court 36 Miguel v. Catalino, 26 SCRA 234, 239 [1968]; Bergado v. Court of
proceedings. As such, the second element of knowledge, Appeals, 173 SCRA 497, 502 [1989].
opportunity to file suit, and delay in filing such suit, is 37 Mejia de Lucas v. Gamponia, 100 Phil. 277 [1956].
undoubtedly present in the instant controversy. 38 Lola v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 439, 449 [1986].
The third element of laches is likewise present. There is 39 Gabriel v. Court of Appeals, 159 SCRA 461, 470 [1988]; Caragay-
nothing on the record that impresses us as clear evidence of Layno v. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 718, 723 [1984]
at least an inkling on the part of private respondent as to 40 Golloy v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 26, 31 [1989].
petitionerÊs serious intention to revoke the donated 41 Vda. de Alberto v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 436, 449 [1989].
property. There was neither a demand letter nor positive 42 Wright, Jr., et al. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., 11 SCRA 508
testimony of any person who actually informed private [1964].
respondent of petitionerÊs intentions. In other words, 43 Bautista v. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 507, 514 [1988].
private respondent manifestly had every reason to believe 44 Ching v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 9, 10 [1990].
that, with the passing of almost half a century since his 45 Arradaza v. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 12, 19 [1989].
predecessor-in-interest accepted the donated property and 46 Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 347, 358
without unambiguous intimation of petitionerÊs non- [1993].
recognition of such donation, he was secure in his 47 J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Macalingdong, 6 SCRA 938 [1962].
possession of the subject property in the concept of owner. 48 Chung Ka Bio v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 163 SCRA 534, 540
In the light of all the above, it goes without saying that [1988].
private respondent will suffer irreparable injury under the 49 Cormero v. Court of Appeals, et al., 247 SCRA 291 [1995].

197 198

VOL. 264, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 197 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals

most unfair circumstances, were we to disregard In this case, petitioner filed its complaint in court only
petitionerÊs inaction for more than forty-nine (49) years in after forty nine (49) years had lapsed since the donation in
asserting its rights. its behalf of the subject property to private respondentÊs
In applying the doctrine of laches, we had ruled that predecessor-in-interest. There is nary an explanation for
the long delay in the filing by petitioner of the complaint in Finally, we agree with the respondent Court of Appeals
the case at bench, and that inaction for an unreasonable that, while petitioner is admittedly still the registered
and unexplained length of time constitutes laches. As such, owner of the donated property, and jurisprudence is settled
petitioner cannot claim nullity of the donation as an excuse as to the imprescriptibility and indefeasibility of a Torrens
to avoid the consequences of its own unjustified inaction Title, there is equally an abundance of cases in the annals
and as a basis for the50 assertion of a right on which they of our jurisprudence where we categorically ruled that a
had slept for so long. Courts cannot look with favor at registered landowner may lose his right to recover 54 the
parties who, by their silence, delay and inaction, knowingly possession of his registered property by reason of laches.
induce another to spend time, effort, and expense in WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED with
cultivating the land, paying taxes and making costs against petitioner.
improvements thereon for an unreasonable period only to SO ORDERED.
spring an ambush and claim title when the possessorÊs
efforts and the rise of land values offer an opportunity to Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
51
make easy profit at their own expense. Considerable delay Padilla (Chairman), J., No part, former counsel for
in asserting oneÊs right before a court of justice is strongly petitioner.
persuasive of the lack of merit of his claim, since it is
Petition dismissed.
human nature for a person to enforce his right when same
is threatened or invaded; thus, it can also be said that Notes.·The doctrine of stale demands would apply only
petitioner is estopped by laches from questioning 52
private where by reason of the lapse of time, it would be
respondentÊs ownership of the subject property. At any inequitable to allow a party to enforce his legal rights.
rate, petitionerÊs right to recover the possession of the (Noel vs. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 78 [1995])
subject property from private respondent has, by the
latterÊs long period of possession and by petitionerÊs
____________________________
inaction and neglect, been converted into a stale demand.
Such passivity in the face of what might have given rise to 53 Vda. de Lima v. Tio, 32 SCRA 516 [1970]; Tambot v. Court of
an action in court is visited with the loss of such right, and Appeals, 181 SCRA 202, 208 [1990]; Mejia de Lucas v. Gamponia, 100
ignorance resulting from inexcusable negli- Phil. 277, 280 [1956].
54 Victoriano v. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 19, 24 [1991]; Lola v.
____________________________ Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 439, 449 [1986]; Golloy v. Court of Appeals,
173 SCRA 26, 32 [1989]; Miguel v. Catalino, supra; Pabalate v. Echarri,
50 Pabalate v. Echarri, 37 SCRA 518 [1971]; Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23
Jr., supra; Bergado v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 500, 503 [1989];
SCRA 29 [1968]; Arcuino v. Aparis, 22 SCRA 417 [1968]; Bautista v.
Republic v. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 160, 180 [1991]; Tambot v. Court
Court of Appeals, supra.
of Appeals, supra; Marcelino v. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA 444, 447
51 Miguel v. Catalino, 26 SCRA 234 [1968]; Mejia de Lucas v.
[1992]; De la Calzada-Cierras v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 390, 394
Gamponia, supra; Bautista v. Court of Appeals, supra.
[1992]; Claverias v. Quingco, 207 SCRA 66, 83 [1992]; Mejia de Lucas v.
52 Caro v. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 401, 409 [1989]; Vda. de Alberto
Gamponia, supra.
v. Court of Appeals, supra; Buenaventura v. David, 37 Phil. 435 [1971].
200
199

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 264, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 199
People vs. De Gracia
Catholic Bishop of Balanga vs. Court of Appeals

There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches.

gence does not suffice to explain
53
such failure to file Each case is to be determined according to its particular
seasonably the necessary suit.
 circumstances. (Chavez vs. Bonto-Perez, 242 SCRA 73
[1995])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.