D’ORO LAND REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT vs. NILA CLAUNAN, et al.
D’ORO LAND REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT
vs. NILA CLAUNAN, et al.
G.R. NO. 169447
February 26, 2007
PONENTE: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
FACTS:
Three parcels of land situated in Lapasan,
CDO City owned by Chacon Enterprises Inc. and were later sold to D’oro and the
Regalados sometime in the early 1990’s. On September 9, 1992, a TCT were issued
in the name of D’oro for Lots 2-A and 2-B while the Regalados were issued TCT
for Lot 2-C, which was also purchased by the former.
Thereafter, D’oro caused a relocation survey
to be conducted and confirmed that there were about 34 houses sporadically erected
on the lots. Apparently, certain individuals surreptitiously entered the
properties and introduced improvements thereon. After demands to vacate went
unheeded, D’oro filed an action for recovery of possession and damages against
more than 50 individuals who refused to surrender possession of the lots.
The respondents alleged that they entered the
lots between the years 1970 to 1982; that their occupation of the lots has been
continuous, undisturbed, public and adverse and has therefore ripened into
ownership; that whatever rights petitioner had over the lots were barred by
laches. In support of their claim, they presented a Certification issued on
June 11, 1984 by Forest Guards and approved by District Forester, that the lots
were alienable and disposable land of the State. According to respondents, the
lots were marshy, swampy, surrounded by "piyapi" trees and without
improvements when they occupied the same.
The trial court dismissed the complaint and
held that while the respondents could not acquire title to the registered lots
in derogation of that of D’ore through prescription, the latter's claim was nonetheless
barred by laches. The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court in toto.
Now, D’oro appealed before the SC, mainly
contends that laches could not bar its claim over the subject lots since
respondents had no colorable title or any valid claim of ownership to it
because they are mere squatters whose possession of the lots, no matter how
long, could not prevail over petitioner's certificate of title.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondents’ length of possession
meet the jurisprudential standards for laches to set in.
HELD:
No, in the jurisprudence, Laches has been defined as 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.
The elements
of laches are:
(1) conduct
on the part of the defendant, or one under whom he claims, giving rise to the
situation that led to the complaint and for which the complaint seeks a remedy;
(2) delay in
asserting the complainant's rights, having had knowledge or notice of the
defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a
suit;
(3) lack of
knowledge or notice on the part of 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, or the suit is not held barred.
In the
present case, the third and fourth elements of laches are absent.
Moreover,
the respondents knew that they did not own the lots and concluded, on the basis
of a certification issued by the Bureau of Forest Development, that the lots
were government-owned. Regardless of the nature of the lots' ownership, however,
the fact remains that respondents entered the properties without permission
from the owner. Notwithstanding the length of time that they may have
physically occupied the lots; they are deemed to have entered the same in bad
faith, such that the nature of their possession is presumed to have retained
the same character throughout their occupancy.
0 comments :
Post a Comment