Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 78178 April 15, 1988
DELIA BAILON-CASILAO, LUZ PAULINO-ANG, EMMA PAULINO-BANEZ, NILDA
PAULINO-TOLENTINO, !"# SABINA BAILON, petitioners,
vs.
T$E $ONORABLE COURT O% APPEALS !"# CELESTINO A%ABLE, respondents.
Veronico E. Rubio for petitioners.
Mario G. Fortes for private-respondent.

CORTES, J.:
The fate of petitioners clai! over a parcel of land rests ulti!atel" on a deter!ination of
#hether or not said petitioners are char$eable #ith such laches as !a" effectivel" bar
their present action.
The petitioners herein filed a case for recover" of propert" and da!a$es #ith notice of
lis pendens on March %&, %'(% a$ainst the defendant and herein private respondent,
)elestino *fable. The parcel of land involved in this case, #ith an area of +(,(+'
s,uare !eters, is covered b" Ori$inal )ertificate of Title No. %--% issued on .une %/,
%'&%, in the na!es of Rosalia, 0audencio, Sabina 1ernabe, Nenita and Delia, all
surna!ed 1ailon, as co2o#ners, each #ith a %34 share. 0audencio and Nenita are no#
dead, the latter bein$ represented in this case b" her children. 5u6, 7!!a and Nilda.
1ernabe #ent to )hina in %'&% and had not been heard fro! since then 8Decision of
the )ourt of *ppeals, Rollo, p. &'9.
It appears that on *u$ust /&, %'+(, Rosalia 1ailon and 0audencio 1ailon sold a
portion of the said land consistin$ of %4,/(& s,uare !eters to Donato Del$ado. On
Ma" %&, %'+', Rosalia 1ailon alone sold the re!ainder of the land consistin$ of &/,:44
s,uare !eters to Ponciana V. *res$ado de 5anu6a. On the sa!e date, 5anu6a
ac,uired fro! Del$ado the %4,/(& s,uare !eters of land #hich the latter had earlier
ac,uired fro! Rosalia and 0audencio. On Dece!ber &, %'-:, .ohn 5anu6a, actin$
under a special po#er of attorne" $iven b" his #ife, Ponciana V. *res$ado de 5anu6a,
sold the t#o parcels of land to )elestino *fable, Sr.
In all these transfers, it #as stated in the deeds of sale that the land #as not re$istered
under the provisions of *ct No. +'4 #hen the fact is that it is. It appears that said land
had been successivel" declared for ta;ation first, in the na!e of )iriaca Della!as,
!other of the re$istered co2o#ners, then in the na!e of Rosalia 1ailon in %'/+, then in
that of Donato Del$ado in %'&4, then in Ponciana de 5anu6as na!e in %'4/ and
finall" in the na!e of )elestino *fable, Sr. in %'(&.
In his ans#er to the co!plaint filed b" the herein petitioners, *fable clai!ed that he
had ac,uired the land in ,uestion throu$h prescription and contended that the
petitioners #ere $uilt" of laches.He later filed a third2part" co!plaint a$ainst Rosalia
1ailon for da!a$es alle$edl" suffered as a result of the sale to hi! of the land.
*fter trial, the lo#er court rendered a decision<
%. =indin$ and declarin$ )elestino *fable, a co2o#ner of the land
described in para$raph III of the co!plaint havin$ validl" bou$ht the
t#o2si;th >/34? respective undivided shares of Rosalia 1ailon and
0audencio 1ailon@
/. =indin$ and declarin$ the follo#in$ as pro2indiviso co2o#ners,
havin$ %34 share each, of the propert" described in para$raph III of
the co!plaint, to #it<
a. Sabina 1ailon
b. 1ernabe 1ailon
c. Heirs of Nenita 1ailon2Paulino
d. Delia 1ailon2)asilao@
&. Orderin$ the se$re$ation of the undivided interests in the propert"
in order to ter!inate co2o#nership to be conducted b" an" 0eodetic
7n$ineer selected b" the parties to delineate the specific part of
each of the co2o#ners.
+. Orderin$ the defendant to restore the possession of the plaintiffs
respective shares as #ell as all attributes of absolute do!inion@
:. Orderin$ the defendant to pa" the follo#in$<
a. P:,AAA.AA as da!a$es@
b. P/,AAA.AA as attorne"s fees and@
c. to pa" the costs.
1
8Decision of the Trial )ourt, Rollo, p. &-2&(9.
On appeal, the respondent )ourt of *ppeals affir!ed the decision of the lo#er court
insofar as it held that prescription does not he a$ainst plaintiffs2appellees because the"
are co2o#ners of the ori$inal vendors. Ho#ever, the appellate court declared that,
althou$h re$istered propert" cannot be lost b" prescription, nevertheless, an action to
recover it !a" be barred b" laches, citin$ the rulin$ in Mejia de Lucaz v. Gamponia
8%AA Phil. /-- >%':4?9. *ccordin$l", it held the petitioners $uilt" of laches and
dis!issed their co!plaint. Hence, this petition for revie# on certiorari of the decision of
the )ourt of *ppeals.
The principal issue to be resolved in this case concerns the applicabilit" of the
e,uitable doctrine of laches. Initiall" thou$h, a deter!ination of the effect of a sale b"
one or !ore co2o#ners of the entire propert" held in co!!on #ithout the consent of all
the co2o#ners and of the appropriate re!ed" of the a$$rieved co2o#ners is re,uired.
The ri$hts of a co2o#ner of a certain propert" are clearl" specified in *rticle +'& of the
)ivil )ode.Thus<
*rt. +'&. 7ach co2o#ner shall have the full ownership of his part and
of the acts and benefits pertainin$ thereto, and he !a" therefore
alienate assin or mortae it and even substitute another person in
its enBo"!ent, e;cept #hen personal ri$hts are involved. !ut the
effect of the alienation or mortae" with respect to the co-owners"
shall be limited to the portion which ma# be allotted to him in the
division upon the termination of the co-ownership. 87!phasis
supplied.9
*s earl" as %'/&, this )ourt has ruled that even if a co2o#ner sells the #hole propert"
as his, the sale #ill affect onl" his o#n share but not those of the other co2o#ners #ho
did not consent to the sale 8Punsalan v. 1oon 5iat ++ Phil. &/A >%'/&?9. This is because
under the afore!entioned codal provision, the sale or other disposition affects onl" his
undivided share and the transferee $ets onl" #hat #ould correspond to his $rantor in
the partition of the thin$ o#ned in co!!on.8Ra!ire6 v. 1autista, %+ Phil. :/( >%'A'?9.
)onse,uentl", b" virtue of the sales !ade b" Rosalia and 0audencio 1ailon #hich are
valid #ith respect to their proportionate shares, and the subse,uent transfers #hich
cul!inated in the sale to private respondent )elestino *fable, the said *fable thereb"
beca!e a co2o#ner of the disputed parcel of land as correctl" held b" the lo#er court
since the sales produced the effect of substitutin$ the bu"ers in the enBo"!ent thereof
8Mainit v. 1ando", %+ Phil. -&A >%'%A?9.
=ro! the fore$oin$, it !a" be deduced that since a co2o#ner is entitled to sell his
undivided share, a sale of the entire propert" b" one co2o#ner #ithout the consent of
the other co2o#ners is not null and void. Ho#ever, onl" the ri$hts of the co2o#ner2
seller are transferred, thereb" !aCin$ the bu"er a co2o#ner of the propert".
$he proper action in cases li%e this is not for the nullification of the sale or for the
recover# of possession of the thin owned in common from the third person who
substituted the co-owner or co-owners who alienated their shares" but the &'V'(')* of
the common propert# as if it continued to remain in the possession of the co-owners
who possessed and administered it 8Mainit v. 1ando", supra.9
Thus, it is no# settled that the appropriate recourse of co2o#ners in cases #here their
consent #ere not secured in a sale of the entire propert" as #ell as in a sale !erel" of
the undivided shares of so!e of the co2o#ners is an action. for P*RTITION under Rule
4' of the Revised Rules of )ourt. Neither recover" of possession nor restitution can be
$ranted since the defendant bu"ers are le$iti!ate proprietors and possessors in Boint
o#nership of the co!!on propert" clai!ed 8Ra!ire6 v. 1autista, supra9.
*s to the action for petition, neither prescription nor laches can be invoCed.
In the li$ht of the attendant circu!stances, defendant2appellees defense of
prescription is a vain proposition. Pursuant to *rticle +'+ of the )ivil )ode, >n?o co2
o#ner shall be obli$ed to re!ain in the co2o#nership. Such co2o#ner ma# demand at
an#time the partition of the thin owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.
87!phasis supplied.9 In !udion v. !ondoc 80.R. No. 52/--A/, Septe!ber ', %'--, -'
S)R* /+%, this )ourt has interpreted said provision of la# to !ean that the action for
partition is i!prescriptible or cannot be barred b" prescription. =or *rticle +'+ of the
)ivil )ode e;plicitl" declares< DNo prescription shall lie in favor of a co2o#ner or co2
heir so lon$ as he e;pressl" or i!pliedl" reco$ni6es the co2o#nership.D
=urther!ore, the disputed parcel of land bein$ re$istered under the Torrens S"ste!,
the e;press provision of *ct No. +'4 that >n?o title to re$istered land in dero$ation to
that of the re$istered o#ner shall be ac,uired b" prescription or adverse possession is
s,uarel" applicable. )onse,uentl", prescription #ill not lie in favor of *fable as a$ainst
the petitioners #ho re!ain the re$istered o#ners of the disputed parcel of land.
It is ar$ued ho#ever, that as to the petitioners 7!!a, 5u6 and Nelda #ho are not the
re$istered co2o#ners but !erel" represented their deceased !other, the late Nenita
1ailon, prescription lies.Respondents bolster their ar$u!ent b" citin$ a decision of this
)ourt in +asion v. +asion 80.R.No. 52%:-:-, Ma" &%, %'4%, / S)R* +(4, +('9 holdin$
that Dthe i!prescriptibilit" of a Torrens title can onl" be invoCed b# the person in whose
name the title is reistered, and that -one who is not the reistered owner of a parcel of
land cannot invo%e imprescriptibilit# of action to claim the same.-
Reliance on the aforesaid Pasion case is futile. The rulin$ therein applies onl" a$ainst
transferees other than direct issues or heirs or to co!plete stran$ers. The rational is
clear<
If prescription is unavailin$ a$ainst the re$istered o#ner, it !ust be
e,uall" unavailin$ a$ainst the latters hereditar" successors,
because the" !erel" step into the shoes of the decedent b"
operation of la# >Ne# )ivil )ode, *rticle ---@ Old )ivil )ode, *rticle
2
4:-?, the title or ri$ht under$oin$ no chan$e b" its trans!ission
mortis causa 8*tus, et al., v. Nune6, et al., '- Phil. -4/, -4+9.
The latest pronounce!ent of this )ourt in .mba# v. /lecha 80. R. No. 4-/(+, March
%(, %'(:, %&: S)R* +/-, +/'9, #hich #as pro!ul$ated subse,uent to the +asion
case reiterated the /tus doctrine. Thus<
Prescription is unavailin$ not onl" a$ainst the re$istered o#ner but
also a$ainst his hereditar" successors, because the" !erel" step
into the shoes of the decedent b" operation of la# and are !erel"
the continuation of the personalit" of their predecessor2in2interest.
81arcelona v. 1arcelona, %AA Phil. /:%, /:-9.
5aches is liCe#ise unavailin$ as a shield a$ainst the action of herein petitioners.
Eell2stated in this Burisdiction are the four basic ele!ents of laches, na!el"< >%?
conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under #ho! he clai!s, $ivin$ rise to the
situation of #hich co!plaint is !ade and for #hich the co!plainant seeCs a re!ed"@
>/? dela" in assertin$ the corporations co!plainants ri$hts, the co!plainant havin$
had Cno#led$e or notice of the defendants conduct and havin$ been afforded an
opportunit" to institute suit@ >&? lacC of Cno#led$e or notice on the part of the defendant
that the co!plainant #ould assert the ri$ht on #hich he bases his suit@ and, >+? inBur"
or preBudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the co!plainant, or the
suit is not held to be barred 80o )hina 0un, et al. v. )o )ho et al., '4 Phil. 4// >%'::?9.
Ehile the first and last ele!ents are present in this case, the second and third
ele!ents are !issin$.
The second ele!ent speaCs of dela" in assertin$ the co!plainants ri$hts. Ho#ever,
the !ere fact of dela" is insufficient to constitute, laches. It is re,uired that >%?
co!plainant !ust have had %nowlede of the conduct of defendant or of one under
whom he claims and >/? he !ust have been afforded an opportunit# to institute suit.
This court has pointed out that laches is not concerned #ith the !ere lapse of ti!e.
Thus<
5aches has been defined as the failure or ne$lect, for an
unreasonable len$th of ti!e to do that #hich b" e;ercisin$ due
dili$ence could or should have been done earlier@ it is ne$li$ence or
o!ission to assert a ri$ht #ithin a reasonable ti!e #arrantin$ a
presu!ption that the part" entitled to assert it either has abandoned
it or declined to assert it. $ijam" et al." v. (ibonhano#, 0.R. No. 52
/%+:A, *pril /:, %'4(, /& S)R* /',&:@ Tendo v. Fa!aco!a, 0.R.
No. 524&A+(, *u$ust -, %'(:, %&( S)R* -(, 'A9.
The doctrine of DlachesD or of Dstale de!andsD is based upon
$rounds of public polic" #hich re,uires for the peace of societ", the
discoura$e!ent of stale clai!s and unliCe the statute of li!itations,
is not a mere 0uestion of time but is principall# a 0uestion of ine0uit#
or unfairness of per!ittin$ a ri$ht or clai! to be enforced or
asserted,D 8TiBa! v. Sibon$hano", supra, p. &:9. 87!phasis supplied.9
It !ust be noted that #hile there #as dela" in assertin$ petitioners ri$hts, such dela"
#as not attended #ith an" Cno#led$e of the sale nor #ith an" opportunit" to brin$ suit.
In the first place, petitioners had no notice of the sale !ade b" their eldest sister. It is
undisputed that the petitioner co2o#ners had entrusted the care and !ana$e!ent of
the parcel of land to Rosalia 1ailon #ho #as the oldest a!on$ the! 8TSN, .ul" /-,
%'(&, p. %+9. In fact, Nicanor 5ee, a son of Rosalia, #ho #as presented as a #itness
b" the plaintiffs2petitioners, testified on cross2e;a!ination that his !other #as onl" the
ad!inistrator of the land as she is the eldest and her brothers and sisters #ere a#a"
8TSN, October :, %'(&, p. %:9. Indeed, #hen Delia 1ailon2)asilao left Sorso$on in
%'+/ after she $ot !arried, it #as onl" in %'(& that she returned. Sabina on the other
hand, is said to be livin$ in Fa!boan$a #hile 1ernabe #ho left for )hina in %'&% has
not been heard fro! since then. )onse,uentl", #hen Rosalia, fro! #ho! the private
respondent derived his title, !ade the disputed sales coverin$ the entire propert", the
herein petitioners #ere una#are thereof.
In the second place, the" #ere not afforded an opportunit" to brin$ suit inas!uch as
until %'(%, the" #ere Cept in the darC about the transactions entered into b" their sister.
It #as onl" #hen Delia 1ailon2)asilao returned to Sorso$on in %'(% that she found out
about the sales and i!!ediatel", she and her co2petitioners filed the present action for
recover" of propert". The appellate court thus erred in holdin$ that the petitioners did
nothin$ to sho# interest in the land.D =or the ad!inistration of the parcel of land #as
entrusted to the oldest co2o#ner #ho #as then in possession thereof precisel"
because the other co2o#ners cannot attend to such a tasC as the" reside outside of
Sorso$on #here the land is situated. Her co2o#ners also allo#ed her to appropriate
the entire produce for herself because it #as not even enou$h for her dail"
consu!ption 8TSN, October :, %'(&, pp. %-2%(9. *nd since petitioner #as the one
receivin$ the produce, it is but natural that she #as the one to taCe char$e of pa"in$
the real estate ta;es. No#, if Cno#led$e of the sale b" Rosalia #as conve"ed to the
petitioners onl" later, the" cannot be faulted for the acts of their co2o#ner #ho failed to
live up to the trust and confidence e;pected of her. In vie# of the lacC of Cno#led$e b"
the petitioners of the conduct of Rosalia in sellin$ the land #ithout their consent in
%'-: and the absence of an" opportunit" to institute the proper action until %'(%,
laches !a" not be asserted a$ainst the petitioners.
The third ele!ent of laches is liCe#ise absent. There #as no lacC of Cno#led$e or
notice on the part of the defendant that the co!plainants #ould assert the ri$ht on
#hich the" base the suit. On the contrar", private respondent is $uilt" of bad faith in
purchasin$ the propert" as he Cne# that the propert" #as co2o#ned b" si; persons
and "et, there #ere onl" t#o si$natories to the deeds of sale and no special
authori6ation to self #as $ranted to the t#o sellers b" the other co2o#ners.
7ven as the land here #as !isrepresented in the deeds of sale as Dunre$istered,D the
truth #as that *fable alread" had notice that the land #as titled in the na!e of si;
3
persons b" virtue of the )ertificate of Title #hich #as alread" in his possession even
before the sale. Such fact is apparent fro! his testi!on" before the court a 0uo<
)OGRT<
H< =ro! #ho! did "ou $et the certificate of TitleI
*< Ehen it #as !ort$a$ed b" Ponciana *res$ado.
H< It #as !ort$a$ed to "ou before "ou bou$ht itI
*< Jes, Jour Honor. >TSN, March :, %'(+, p. %/?
Ehen cross2e;a!ined, he stated<
H< Mr. Eitness, the ori$inal )ertificate of Title #as
$iven to "ou in the "ear %'-+, #as it notI
*< %'-:.
H< In %'-:, "ou alread" discovered that the title
#as in the na!e of several persons, is it notI
*< Jes, sir.
H< Ehen "ou discovered that it is in the na!e of
several persons, "ou filed a case in court for
authorit" to cancel the title to be transferred in
"our na!e, is it notI
*< Jes, sir.
H< *nd that #as denied b" the )ourt of =irst
Instance of Sorso$on because there #as ordinar"
one si$nator" to the deed of sale instead of si;,
#as it notI
*< Not one but t#o si$natories.
8Decision of the Re$ional Trial )ourt of Sorso$on, Rollo, p. &:9
Such actual Cno#led$e of the e;istence of other co2o#ners in #hose na!es the lot
subBect of the sale #as re$istered should have pro!pted a searchin$ in,uir" b" *fable
considerin$ the #ell2 Cno#n rule in this Burisdiction that<
... a person dealin$ #ith a re$istered land has a ri$ht to rel" upon the
face of the Torrens certificate of title and to dispense #ith the need of
in,uirin$ further, e;cept #hen the part" concerned has actual
Cno#led$e of facts and circu!stances that #ould i!pel a reasonabl"
cautions !an to !aCe such in,uir". 80on6ales v. I*) and Rural 1anC
of Pavia, Inc., 0.R. No. 4'4//, .anuar" /', %'((?.
Moreover, the undisputed fact is that petitioners are relatives of his #ife. *s a $enuine
$esture of $ood faith, he should have contacted the petitioners #ho #ere still listed as
co2o#ners in the certificate of title #hich #as alread" in his possession even before the
sale. In failin$ to e;ercise even a !ini!u! de$ree of ordinar" prudence re,uired b"
the situation, he is dee!ed to have bou$ht the lot at his o#n risC. Hence an" preBudice
or inBur" that !a" be occasioned to hi! b" such sale !ust be borne b" hi!.
Indeed, a#are of the fla#s i!pairin$ his title, *fable #ent to the herein petitioner Delia
1ailon2)asilao, asCin$ the latter to si$n a docu!ent obviousl" to cure the fla# 8TSN,
.ul" /-, %'(&, p.49. 5ater, he even filed a petition in the )ourt of =irst Instance to
re$ister the title in his na!e #hich #as denied as aforesaid.
It !a" be $leaned fro! the fore$oin$ e;a!ination of the facts that )elestino *fable is
not a bu"er in $ood faith. 5aches bein$ an e,uitable defense, he #ho invoCes it !ust
co!e to the court #ith clean hands.
EH7R7=OR7, the petition for certiorari is hereb" 0R*NT7D, the challen$ed decision
of the )ourt of *ppeals is S7T *SID7, and the decision of the trial court is
R7INST*T7D.
SO ORD7R7D.
4