Lawyerly

GR No. 192896

2013-07-24

DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REYES, J.

Moreover, it is a settled rule that lands under a Torrens title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.[62] Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree, expressly provides that no title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. And, although the registered landowner may still lose his right to recover the possession of his registered property by reason of laches,[63] nowhere has Dream Village alleged or proved laches, which has been defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. Put any way, it is a delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition or relations of the property or parties. It is based on public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim.[64]

GR No. 164693

2011-03-23

JOSEFA S. ABALOS* v. SPS. LOMANTONG DARAPA AND SINAB DIMAKUTA

PEREZ, J.

Laches, on the other hand, is a doctrine meant to bring equity - not to further oppress those who already ,are. Laches has been defined as neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity.[34] It is a delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition or relations of the property or parties.[35]

GR No. 165697

2009-08-04

ANTONIO NAVARRO v. METROPOLITAN BANK

PERALTA, J.

Moreover, laches, or what is known as the doctrine of stale claim or demand, is the neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition of the property involved or in the relations of the parties.[31] It is based on public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim.[32]

GR No. 178906

2009-02-18

ELVIRA T. ARANGOTE v. SPS. MARTIN MAGLUNOB AND LOURDES S. MAGLUNOB

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In this case, the subject property waived and quitclaimed by Esperanza to the petitioner and her husband in the Affidavit was only covered by a tax declaration in the name of Esperanza. Petitioner did not even bother to look into the origin of the subject property and to probe into the right of Esperanza to relinquish the same. Thus, when petitioner and her husband built a house thereon in 1989 they cannot be considered to have acted in good faith as they were fully aware that when Esperanza executed an Affidavit relinquishing in their favor the subject property the only proof of Esperanza's ownership over the same was a mere tax declaration. This fact or circumstance alone was enough to put the petitioner and her husband under inquiry. Settled is the rule that a tax declaration does not prove ownership. It is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership. Payment of taxes is not proof of ownership; it is, at best, an indicium of possession in the concept of ownership. Neither tax receipts nor a declaration of ownership for taxation purposes is evidence of ownership or of a right to possess realty when not supported by other effective proofs.[50]

GR No. 156310

2008-07-31

XERXES A. ABA DIAN O v. SPS. JESUS AND LOLITA MARTIR

NACHURA, J.

Laches has been defined as neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition or relations of the property or parties. It is based on public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim.[42]

GR NO. 150654

2007-12-13

HEIRS OF ANACLETO B. NIETO v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN

NACHURA, J.

In recent cases, [15] however, the Court held that while it is true that a Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover possession of his registered property by reason of laches.

GR NO. 142766

2007-06-15

NARCISO AMOROSO v. JUAN ALEGRE

TINGA, J.

The equitable doctrine of laches is also inapplicable to the case at bar. 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 a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[43] The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and since laches is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot work to defeat justice or to perpetrate fraud and injustice.[44]

GR No. 161758

2007-06-08

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. CELSO OÑATE

VELASCO, JR., J.

The law[55] provides that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Nonetheless, while it is true that a Torrens Title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession of his registered property by reason of laches.[56]

GR NO. 165038

2006-11-29

HEIRS OF EMILIO R. DOMINGO v. MARTIN.

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As for the tax declarations and receipts-Exhibits "M" "O"[16] presented by petitioners to prove their ownership of Lot No. 1769-A,[17] these are not conclusive evidence of ownership.[18]

GR NO. 146294

2006-07-31

JOHN ABING v. JULIET WAEYAN

GARCIA, J.

Other than John's bare allegation that he alone, thru his own funds and money he borrowed from his relatives, spent for the construction of the annex structure, evidence is wanting to support such naked claim. For sure, John even failed to reveal how much he spent therefor. Neither did he divulge the names of the alleged relatives from whom he made his borrowings, let alone the amount of money he borrowed from them. All that petitioner could offer by way of reinforcing his claim of spending his own funds and borrowed money in putting up the subject structure was the affidavit executed by a certain Manuel Macaraeg to the effect that petitioner borrowed P30,000.00 from him. Even then, Macaraeg stated in his affidavit that it was sometime in 1990 when John borrowed said amount from him. With the petitioner's own admission that the subject structure was constructed only in 1992, or two years after he borrowed P30,000.00 from Macaraeg, it is even doubtful whether the amount he allegedly borrowed from the latter went into the construction of the structure in dispute. More, it is noted that while petitioner was able to present in evidence the Macaraeg affidavit, he failed to introduce similar affidavits, if any, of his close relatives from whom he claimed to have made similar borrowings. For sure, not a single relative came forward to confirm petitioner's tale. In short, there is a paucity of evidence, testimonial or documentary, to support petitioner's self-serving allegation that the annex structure which housed the sari-sari store was put up thru his own funds and/or money borrowed by him. Sure, petitioner has in his favor the tax declaration covering the subject structure. We have, however, ruled time and again that tax declarations do not prove ownership but at best an indicia of claims of ownership.[5] Payment of taxes is not proof of ownership, any more than indicating possession in the concept of an owner.[6] Neither tax receipts nor declaration of ownership for taxation purposes are evidence of ownership or of the right to possess realty when not supported by other effective proofs.[7]

	GR No. 192896 2013-07-24	DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REYES, J.
Moreover, it is a settled rule that lands under a Torrens title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.[62] Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree, expressly provides that no title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. And, although the registered landowner may still lose his right to recover the possession of his registered property by reason of laches,[63] nowhere has Dream Village alleged or proved laches, which has been defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. Put any way, it is a delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition or relations of the property or parties. It is based on public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim.[64]
	GR No. 164693 2011-03-23	JOSEFA S. ABALOS* v. SPS. LOMANTONG DARAPA AND SINAB DIMAKUTA PEREZ, J.
Laches, on the other hand, is a doctrine meant to bring equity - not to further oppress those who already ,are. Laches has been defined as neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity.[34] It is a delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition or relations of the property or parties.[35]
	GR No. 165697 2009-08-04	ANTONIO NAVARRO v. METROPOLITAN BANK PERALTA, J.
Moreover, laches, or what is known as the doctrine of stale claim or demand, is the neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition of the property involved or in the relations of the parties.[31] It is based on public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim.[32]
	GR No. 178906 2009-02-18	ELVIRA T. ARANGOTE v. SPS. MARTIN MAGLUNOB AND LOURDES S. MAGLUNOB CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In this case, the subject property waived and quitclaimed by Esperanza to the petitioner and her husband in the Affidavit was only covered by a tax declaration in the name of Esperanza. Petitioner did not even bother to look into the origin of the subject property and to probe into the right of Esperanza to relinquish the same. Thus, when petitioner and her husband built a house thereon in 1989 they cannot be considered to have acted in good faith as they were fully aware that when Esperanza executed an Affidavit relinquishing in their favor the subject property the only proof of Esperanza's ownership over the same was a mere tax declaration. This fact or circumstance alone was enough to put the petitioner and her husband under inquiry. Settled is the rule that a tax declaration does not prove ownership. It is merely an indicium of a claim of ownership. Payment of taxes is not proof of ownership; it is, at best, an indicium of possession in the concept of ownership. Neither tax receipts nor a declaration of ownership for taxation purposes is evidence of ownership or of a right to possess realty when not supported by other effective proofs.[50]
	GR No. 156310 2008-07-31	XERXES A. ABA DIAN O v. SPS. JESUS AND LOLITA MARTIR NACHURA, J.
Laches has been defined as neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition or relations of the property or parties. It is based on public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim.[42]
	GR NO. 150654 2007-12-13	HEIRS OF ANACLETO B. NIETO v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN NACHURA, J.
In recent cases, [15] however, the Court held that while it is true that a Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover possession of his registered property by reason of laches.
	GR NO. 142766 2007-06-15	NARCISO AMOROSO v. JUAN ALEGRE TINGA, J.
The equitable doctrine of laches is also inapplicable to the case at bar. 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 a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[43] The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and since laches is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot work to defeat justice or to perpetrate fraud and injustice.[44]
	GR No. 161758 2007-06-08	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. CELSO OÑATE VELASCO, JR., J.
The law[55] provides that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Nonetheless, while it is true that a Torrens Title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession of his registered property by reason of laches.[56]
	GR NO. 165038 2006-11-29	HEIRS OF EMILIO R. DOMINGO v. MARTIN. CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for the tax declarations and receipts-Exhibits "M" "O"[16] presented by petitioners to prove their ownership of Lot No. 1769-A,[17] these are not conclusive evidence of ownership.[18]
	GR NO. 146294 2006-07-31	JOHN ABING v. JULIET WAEYAN GARCIA, J.
Other than John's bare allegation that he alone, thru his own funds and money he borrowed from his relatives, spent for the construction of the annex structure, evidence is wanting to support such naked claim. For sure, John even failed to reveal how much he spent therefor. Neither did he divulge the names of the alleged relatives from whom he made his borrowings, let alone the amount of money he borrowed from them. All that petitioner could offer by way of reinforcing his claim of spending his own funds and borrowed money in putting up the subject structure was the affidavit executed by a certain Manuel Macaraeg to the effect that petitioner borrowed P30,000.00 from him. Even then, Macaraeg stated in his affidavit that it was sometime in 1990 when John borrowed said amount from him. With the petitioner's own admission that the subject structure was constructed only in 1992, or two years after he borrowed P30,000.00 from Macaraeg, it is even doubtful whether the amount he allegedly borrowed from the latter went into the construction of the structure in dispute. More, it is noted that while petitioner was able to present in evidence the Macaraeg affidavit, he failed to introduce similar affidavits, if any, of his close relatives from whom he claimed to have made similar borrowings. For sure, not a single relative came forward to confirm petitioner's tale. In short, there is a paucity of evidence, testimonial or documentary, to support petitioner's self-serving allegation that the annex structure which housed the sari-sari store was put up thru his own funds and/or money borrowed by him. Sure, petitioner has in his favor the tax declaration covering the subject structure. We have, however, ruled time and again that tax declarations do not prove ownership but at best an indicia of claims of ownership.[5] Payment of taxes is not proof of ownership, any more than indicating possession in the concept of an owner.[6] Neither tax receipts nor declaration of ownership for taxation purposes are evidence of ownership or of the right to possess realty when not supported by other effective proofs.[7]

DELA CRUZ v. SABINA MIGUEL