THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198811. April 23, 2014.]
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH HON. HERMOGENES EBDANE, SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. PABLO R. SEN AND ERNESTO L. GO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 23, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198811 (The Republic of the Philippines, through Hon. Hermogenes Ebdane, Secretary of Public Works and Highways, et al. v. Pablo R. Sen and Ernesto L. Go). — On January 11, 1979 respondents Pablo R. Sen and Ernesto L. Go executed a Deed of Sale in favor of petitioner Republic of the Philippines, ceding 2,278 square meters portion of their land in Barangay San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna, 1 for the price of P68,340.00. The government intended to use the acquired property for the construction of the Kimberly-Clark overpass along the portion of the Maharlika Road that traversed the South Luzon Expressway.
As it happened, the government used only 1,028 square meters or less than half of the land they acquired from respondents Sen and Go. The latter subsequently tried to reclaim possession of the unused area but the Barangay Captain resisted their move, stating that the same belonged to the government, specifically to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
On October 26, 2005 respondents Sen and Go filed a Complaint 2 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93, for quieting of title, recovery of land by partial reconveyance, and payment of just compensation. They claim that the Deed of Sale in favor of the Republic created a cloud in their ownership of the unsegregated portion that the government expropriated, this having remained annotated on their title. Although appearing to be valid and effective, the sale is void, invalid, defective, and unenforceable.
Respondents Sen and Go alleged that, although the Deed of Sale said that a check in their names had been deposited with Philippine National Bank Escolta and withdrawn, that had not been the case. The government had not paid them the P68,340.00 fair market value of the property taken. The government also failed to comply with its obligation under the Deed of Sale to reconvey to them the unused portion of the expropriated property, compelling them to file the action. 3
On January 13, 2006 petitioner Republic filed a motion to dismiss the complaint 4 on the grounds that (a) it failed to state a cause of action; and (b) prescription and laches barred the same. Regarding the first ground, the Republic contends that respondents Sen and Go admitted that the Deed of Sale in question stated on its face that payment had been made and, therefore, they are barred from presenting evidence to the contrary. Besides, the sale had been annotated on the title, precluding any action for reconveyance.
As for the second ground, the Republic pointed out that it took respondents Sen and Go 26 years before they asserted their alleged right over the unused property. Their action was thus barred by prescription and laches. 5
Opposing the motion to dismiss, respondents Sen and Go contended that registration of the Deed of Sale did not bar them from asking for its annulment on the ground of the government's non-payment of the purchase price stated in it. Further, they claim a right to the reconveyance to them of the unused portion of the expropriated property. Neither prescription nor laches barred their action.
On December 3, 2007 the RTC granted the Republic's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches considering plaintiffs' long inaction for more than 25 years. 6 This prompted respondents Sen and Go to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV 91401. On May 16, 2011 the CA rendered judgment reversing and setting aside the RTC Decision and reinstating respondents Sen and Go's complaint before that court, hence the present petition.
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA committed error in reversing the RTC Order that dismissed respondents Sen and Go's complaint on the ground of laches.
This Court agrees with the CA that, as this Court enunciated in Pineda v. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara, 7 the issue of whether laches exists or not can only be settled by the presentation of evidence. It can neither be established by mere allegations in the pleadings nor resolved through a motion to dismiss. 8
The elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct as 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 in 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. 9
No absolute rule exists regarding what constitutes laches or staleness of demand: Without prejudging that issue in this case, an apparent delay in enforcing one's right does not automatically constitute laches. The party charged with failing to invoke his right with promptness must be afforded the opportunity to raise his defenses in a proper proceeding. 10
Although the Republic reiterated their other grounds for dismissal of the complaint, namely, failure to state a cause of action and prescription, the fact is that the RTC dismissed respondents Sen and Go's complaint solely on the ground of laches. The assumption is that the RTC did not find merit in those grounds. Since the Republic neither sought reconsideration of the order of dismissal nor appealed from the same for failing to consider those grounds for dismissal as well, it cannot be heard to raise those issues in an appeal by the other party.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMSthe Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 91401 dated May 16, 2011 and its Resolution dated September 26, 2011.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Covered by Transfer Certificate of Title T-54755 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Laguna.
2. Records, p. 1.
3. Rollo, p. 33.
4. Records, pp. 33-40.
5. Id. at 130.
6. Id. at 134.
7. 544 Phil. 554 (2007).
8. Id. at 561.
9. Arroyo v. Bocago Inland Development Corp., G.R. No. 167880, November 14, 2012, 689 SCRA 430, 438.
10. Pineda v. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara, supra note 7, at 562.