G.R. No. 112905, February 3, 2000
Topics
laches
Doctrines:
The theory of stale demands or laches is founded on policy reasons that demand that stale claims be discouraged for the peace of society. It primarily concerns the inequity or injustice of allowing a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.
The land must be constructively seized as against all parties, including the state, who have rights to or interests in it as part of an in rem procedure, such as a land registration proceeding. Publication of the registration application and notification of concerned parties result in the constructive seizure of the land for registration. Due to the rule that whoever gets title to a piece of property first should prevail, all interested parties are required to protect their rights and actively pursue their objective of registration in a land registration procedure. The regulation pertains to the date of the title certificate rather than the date the application for registration of title was submitted.
Summary:
The two applications for registration of the same parcel of property were submitted to different branches of the same court of first instance 12 years apart. Pedro Lopez, et al. didn’t submit their application for the registration of a land piece in Tagaytay City to the Court of First Instance of Cavite Branch until July 25, 1956. the Municipality filed a request to dismiss the initial registration application. Petitioners failed to take the action that, by exercising due care, they might or should have taken earlier for an excessive and unexplained amount of time. They were presumed to have either abandoned or declined to assert a right if they failed to do so within a reasonable amount of time or failed to do so at all.
Facts:
The two applications for registration of the same parcel of property were submitted to different branches of the same court of first instance 12 years apart, one application received a certificate of title, and the other is still pending appeal. Pedro Lopez, et al. didn’t submit their application for the registration of a land piece in Tagaytay City to the Court of First Instance of Cavite Branch until July 25, 1956. The Municipality of Silang, Cavite, which had been leasing some of the land to private individuals since 1930, objected to the court’s decision of general default that was issued in January 1957.
The applicant claimed that a portion of the entire piece of land they intended to register was their inheritance, but it was rejected since it was in Laguna, on the advice of the Chief Surveyor of the General Land Registration office. The same is true for the area of land in Tagaytay that was not included in the CFI of Laguna’s procedures. On the basis of res judicata, the Municipality filed a request to dismiss the initial registration application. Because the opposition Municipality lacked the personality to intervene, the lower court denied the move to dismiss.
The land had originally been owned by one Hormogenes Orte, who had sold it to the father of de Castro in 1932. However, the Land Registration Commission later learned that a portion of the land had been decreed in favor of the private respondent de Castro. The sale agreement, however, was lost during the Japanese occupation. Pedro Lopez’s heirs claimed they had been unfairly denied ownership and possession of the land as a result of the wrongful registration through fraud and deceit and filed a complaint for execution of judgment and cancellation of defendants’ land titles.
Issue:
Was the improper registration by fraud and misrepresentation the cause of the loss of ownership and possession of the contested land to Pedro Lopez’s heirs?
Ruling:
No, as applicants for land registration, the petitioners did not perform the due diligence expected of them. The publication of notice in the land registration processes brought petitioners into compliance with the intent of the publication of notice in the land registration, which was intended to give private respondents constructive notice of such application. Thus, petitioners were assumed to have been made aware of the land registration actions brought by private respondents, giving them the chance to object, which they did not. Petitioners failed to take the action that, by exercising due care, they might or should have taken earlier for an excessive and unexplained amount of time. They were presumed to have either abandoned or declined to assert a right if they failed to do so within a reasonable amount of time or failed to do so at all.