Case Digest: ROSENDO BACALSO, et al. v. MAXIMO PADIGOS, et al.

ROSENDO BACALSO, et al. v. MAXIMO PADIGOS, et al.

552 SCRA 185 (2008)

It is an enshrined rule that even a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession of property by virtue of laches

Padigos et.al. filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City a complaint against Bacalso et al. for quieting of title, declaration of nullity of documents, recover of possession, and damages.
A parcel of land (the lot) located in Cebu was registered in the name of thirteen (13) co-owners to which Maximo Padigos, et al are all heirs. Rosendo Bacalso et al occupied the disputed land for a couple of decades in which they turned it into farmland. Padigos et al. alleged that Rosendo Bacalso et al., heirs of Alipio Bacalso Sr. (Alipio, Sr.), secured a fraudulent Tax Declaration covering the disputed potions of the lot without any legal basis. In their answer, Bacalso et. al. claimed that their father Alipio, Sr. bought shares corresponding to some of the 13 co-owners via deed of sale decades ago. Alipio, Sr. only failed to register the land to his name but subsequently occupied the land and passed it on to his heirs.
Bacalso et. al also alleged that even if Padigos et al’s claim over the land is valid, the action to recover is barred by laches since Padigos et al did not claim the land at the earliest possible time. After trial, RTC ruled in favor of Padigos et. al. Bacalso et. al. appealed. The Court of Appeals found the deed of sale valid Bacalso et. al ’s property and also cited laches as a means of loosing of a right over the property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Padigos et. al.’s claim is barred by laches

HELD:

Having failed to establish their claim by preponderance of evidence, Padigos et.al’s action for quieting of title, declaration of nullity of documents, recovery of possession, and damages must fail.

Padigos et. al. lost the right of action to the property by laches – the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. While, by express provision of law, no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession, it is an enshrined rule that even a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession of property by virtue of laches.

Upon the other hand, Bacalso et. al have been vigilant in protecting their rights over the lot, which their predecessor-in-interest Alipio, Sr. had declared in his name for tax purposes as early as 1960, and for which he had been paying taxes until his death in 1994, by continuing to pay the taxes thereon.