University of the Philippines College of Law

DKDL D2022

Case Name SIMEON B. MIGUEL, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FLORENDO CATALINO, defendant-appellee
Topic Estoppel » Cases where estoppel applies
Case No. | Date G.R. No. L-23072. November 29, 1968.
Ponente Reyes, J.B.L., J.
Appellants Simeon, Emilia, Marcelina Miguel brought a suit against Florendo Catalino for the
recovery of the subject property. They claim to be children and heirs of the original owner. The land
in dispute was sold to the father of the defendant Catalino. No deed was formally executed even
after payment. Since the sale more than 30 years prior to the initiation of this suit, The Catalinos
were in possession of the land.
Case Summary
The Court held that plaintiffs were now estopped from questioning the deed of sale. The elements
of laches are present in this case. Laches is concerned with the effect of delay. It is principally a
question of iniquity of permitting a claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded on some
change in the condition of the property or the relation of the parties. The petitioner’s passivity and
inaction for more than 34 years justify the defendant in setting up the defense of laches.
While no legal defense to the action lies, an equitable one lies in favor of the defendant and that is,
the equitable defense of laches.

Four elements of laches:

(a) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to
the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complaint seeks a remedy;
Doctrine (b) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge
or notice, of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to
institute a suit;
(c) 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
(d) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant,
or the suit is not held to be barred.

RELEVANT FACTS
• Appellants Simeon, Emilia and Marcelina Miguel, and appellant Grace Ventura brought suit against Florendo
Catalino for the recovery of a parcel of land, plaintiffs claiming to be the children and heirs of the original registered
owner.
o They averred that defendant, without their knowledge or consent, had unlawfully taken possession of the
land, gathered its produce and unlawfully excluded plaintiffs therefrom.
o Defendant answered pleading ownership and adverse possession for 30 years, and counterclaimed for
attorneys' fees.
• The trial court found for defendant.
o The land in dispute is covered by an Original Certificate of Title, which was issued in 1927 in the name of
Bacaquio, a widower.
o No encumbrance or sale has ever been annotated in the certificate of title.
• The plaintiff-appellant Grace Ventura is the only child of Bacaquio by his first wife, Debsay, and the other plaintiffs-
appellants, Simeon, Emilia and Marcelina, all surnamed "Miguel", are his children by his third wife, Cosamang.
• He begot no issue with his second wife, Dobaney.
o The three successive wives have all died.
• Bacaquio, deceased, acquired the land when his second wife died and sold it to Catalino Agyapao, father of the
defendant Florendo Catalino.
o No formal deed of sale was executed but since the sale in 1928, or for more than 30 years, vendee
Catalino Agyapao and his son, defendant-appellee Florendo Catalino, had been in possession of the land,
in the concept of owner, paying the taxes thereon and introducing improvements.
• On 1 February 1949, Grace Ventura, by herself alone, "sold" anew the same land for P300.00 to defendant Florendo
Catalino.
• In 1961, Catalino Agyapao in turn sold the land to his son, the defendant Florendo Catalino.

RATIO DECIDENDI
 University of the Philippines College of Law
DKDL D2022

Issue Ratio
W/N the trial court NO.
erred in dismissing
plaintiff’s complaint ACTION BARRED BY LACHES — Even granting appellants' proposition that no prescription lies
for recovery of against their father's recorded title, their passivity and inaction for more than 34 years (1928-
possession of a 1962) justifies the defendant-appellee in setting up the equitable defense of laches in his own
parcel of land. behalf. As a result, the action of plaintiffs-appellants must be considered barred and the Court
below correctly so held.
• As held in one case, "…we are constrained to find, that while no legal defense to the action
lies, an equitable one lies in favor of the defendant and that is, the equitable defense of
laches. We hold that the defense of prescription or adverse possession in derogation of
the title of the registered owner does not lie, but that of the equitable defense of laches.
Otherwise stated, we hold that while defendant may not be considered as having acquired
title by virtue of his and his predecessors' long continued possession for 37 years, the
original owner's right to recover back the possession of the property and title thereto from
the defendant has, by the long period of 37 years and by patentee's inaction and neglect,
been converted into a stale demand."

FOUR ELEMENTS OF LACHES PRESENT — As in the Gamponia case, the four elements of laches
are present in the case at bar, namely:
(a) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to
the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complaint seeks a
remedy;
(b) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge
or notice, of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to
institute a suit;
(c) 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
(d) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.
• In the case at bar, Bacaquio sold the land in 1928 but the sale is void for lack of the
governor's approval. The vendor, and also his heirs after him, could have instituted an
action to annul the sale from that time, since they knew of the invalidity of the sale, which
is a matter of law; they did not have to wait for 34 years to institute suit. The defendant
was made to feel secure in the belief that no action would be filed against him by such
passivity, and also because he "bought" again the land in 1949 from Grace Ventura who
alone tried to question his ownership; so that the defendant will be plainly prejudiced in
the event the present action is not held to be barred.

GRACE VENTURA EVEN MORE OF AN ASS — her situation is even worse than that of her co-heirs
and co- plaintiffs, in view of her executing an affidavit of transfer attesting under oath to her having
sold the land in controversy to herein defendant-appellee, and the lower Court's finding that in
1949 she was paid P300.00 for it, because she, “threatened to cause trouble if the defendant failed
to give her P300.00 more, because her stand (of being the owner of the land) was buttressed by
the fact that Original Certificate of Title is still in the name of her father, Bacaquio". This sale, that
was in fact a quitclaim, may not be contested as needing executive approval; for it has not been
shown that Grace Ventura is a non-christian inhabitant like her father, an essential fact that
cannot be assumed.

RULING
Since the plaintiffs-appellants are barred from recovery, their divestiture of all the elements of ownership in the
land is complete; and the Court a quo was justified in ordering that Bacaquio's original certificate be cancelled, and a new
transfer certificate in the name of Florendo Catalino be issued in lien thereof by the Register of Deeds.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with costs against the plaintiffs-
appellants.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
DKDL D2022

NOTES
Difference between prescription and laches
The defense of laches applies independently of prescription. Laches is different from the statute of limitations.

Prescription Laches
Prescription is concerned with the fact of delay Laches is concerned with the effect of delay
Prescription is a matter of time Laches is principally a question of inequity of permitting a
claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded on some
change in the condition of the property or the relation of
the parties
Prescription is statutory Laches is not
Prescription is based on a fixed time Laches is not