SEVENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. CV No. 41560. September 15, 2000.]
LUISA A. ALTARES, represented by her Attorney-In-Fact RUBEN MERCADO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SPOUSES BASILIO and WERNELA V. FORTIN, defendants, SPOUSES RODRIGO and LUZ ASUNCION, defendant-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J p:
In view of the ill-prepared pleadings and the not too clear decision of the trial court, there is a need to trace the root of the controversy which finally reached this Court on appeal.
The spouses Roman and Prudencia Asuncion were the conjugal owners of five (5) parcels of unregistered lands to wit: (1) land declared under TC 0226 with an area of 22,178 square meters situated in San Agustin, Iba, Zambales; (2) land declared in TD No. 12-1095; (3) land declared in TD No. 03-0126; (4) land declared in TD No. 12-0066; and (5) land declared in TD No. 03-0127. Upon the death of spouses Roman and Prudencia Asuncion, these properties devolved by intestate succession in equal pro indiviso shares to their five (5) children and sole heirs, namely: Carmen, Praxedes, Benjamin, Luisa, and Alfonso Asuncion.
After Alfonso Asuncion became a widower, he married Cresina Arboleda with whom he had three (3) children, Rodrigo, Corazon and Estrella. Alfonso Asuncion died intestate on August 28, 1946 and as a result, his one-fifth (1/5) pro indiviso shares in the five (5) parcels of land identified above were inherited by his three (3) children Rodrigo, Corazon and Estella.
Years later, the widow Cresina Arboleda Asuncion instituted a guardianship proceeding docketed as Special Proceeding No. 456 with the Justice of the Peace Court of Iba, Zambales over the persons and properties of her minor children, Rodrigo, Corazon and Estella. On June 22, 1962, the said Court issued an Order (Exhibit G) directing the issuance of letters of guardianship (Exhibit H) to Cresina Arboleda Asuncion. This was done on the same day June 22, 1962. On motion of Cresina Arboleda Asuncion, the said court issued yet another Order (Exhibit I) on the same day, June 22, 1962 authorizing the sale of the properties of the three wards which they inherited from their father Alfonso Asuncion. Accordingly, on the following day, June 23, 1962, guardian Cresina Arboleda Asuncion for and in behalf of her three children and wards executed a Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit J) conveying to her late husband's sister Luisa Asuncion Altares one-fifth (1/5) pro indiviso interests in the five (5) parcels of land mentioned above.
Parenthetically, it is noted that in 1962 Rodrigo Asuncion was already of age; and that the Order (Exhibit G), Letter of Guardianship (Exhibit H) and the other Order (Exhibit I) were all registered with the Registry of Deeds of Zambales on the same day, March 31, 1976.
From 1966 to 1984, the spouses Basilio and Wernela Fortin worked as leaseholder over a one-hectare portion of the land covered by TD No. 0226 paying the rentals to Luisa Asuncion Altares. Meanwhile, Luisa Asuncion Altares migrated to the U.S.A. In 1985, Basilio Fortin was summoned to the Office of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform in Batolan, Zambales and there he was informed by one Silvestre Falunan of that office in the presence of Rodrigo Asuncion that starting agricultural year 1985, he should pay the rentals over the land he was working on to the latter who was the lawful owner of said land. An Agricultural Leasehold Contract (Exhibit 1-Fortin) was prepared constituting Basilio Fortin as agricultural lessee over an area of 1.25 hectares of the land covered by TD No. 0226 and Rodrigo Asuncion as the agricultural lessor. Basilio and Rodrigo signed said contract on November 14, 1985.
Parenthetically, Alfonso Asuncion owned only 1/5 pro indiviso share in the land covered by TD No. 0226. Since the area of this land was 22,178 square meters, the equivalent area of Alfonso Asuncion's share was only 4,435.6 square meters. Even assuming in the meantime that Rodrigo acquired the shares of her sisters Corazon and Estella and became the owner of the 1/5 share of her father Alfonso over the land in TD No. 0226, he could only lay claim to an area of only 4,435.6 square maters. The subject of the Agricultural Leasehold Contract (Exhibit 1-Fortin) was therefore very much more than the area of his father's share in said land.
In view of the Agricultural Leasehold Contract, beginning 1985 up to 1987, Basilio Fortin gave the rentals of the 1.25 hectares to Rodrigo Asuncion. In February 1988, Rodrigo Asuncion executed a Deed of Conditional Sale (Exhibit 4-Fortin) and on February 22, 1988 an Absolute Deed of Sale (Exhibit 4-A-Fortin) conveying one (1) hectare of the land covered by the Agricultural Leasehold Contract in favor of spouses Basilio and Wernela Fortin. He, therefore sold 5,564.4 square meters more than Alfonso's original share in said property.
When Luisa Asuncion Altares learned about the sale made by Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion, she filed a complaint for reivindicacion with damages against the couple. This was docketed in the Regional trial Court, Branch 69 in Iba, Zambales as Civil Case No. 663-1. This Complaint was amended by impleading as party defendants the spouses Basilio and Wernela Fortin. In this Amended Complaint, plaintiff Luisa Asuncion Altares alleged that she is the owner of two-fifth (2/5) of each of the five (5) parcels of land specified above having bought the one-fifth (1/5) share of her brother Alfonso Asuncion in said properties; that from 1985 to 1988, defendants spouses Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion had been unlawfully collecting the rentals over an area of one (1) hectare in the land described in TD No. 0226; and that without any right or authority sold said land in 1988 to defendants spouses Basilio and Wernela Fortin. She prayed that a judicial declaration be made that defendants spouses Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion have no dominical nor possessory rights over the said five (5) specified parcels of land; that said defendants be ordered to reimburse her the rentals they unlawfully collected from the one-hectare land from 1985 with legal interest and pay attorney's fees; and that the sale said defendants made in favor of their co-defendants Basilio and Wernela Fortin be declared null and void.
Defendant-spouses Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion in their Amended Answer asserted that there was no valid sale of his father's shares in said five (5) parcels of land to his sister the plaintiff Luisa Asuncion Altares; and that the latter's action had already prescribed. For their part, the defendants spouses Basilio and Wernela Fortin answered the Amended Complaint alleging that they had to pay rentals to their co-defendant Rodrigo Asuncion from 1985 until 1987 because in 1984, they were instructed by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform Office in Botalan Zambales to do so; and that they bought the one (1) hectare portion of the said land from spouses Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion in good faith and for value. They counterclaimed for attorney's fees and cross-claimed against defendant spouses Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion for the price they paid the said one-hectare land should the court finally decide to annul the sale in their favor. In such an eventually, they should be allowed to remain over the land as leaseholders of whoever may be declared the true owner thereof.
On February 26, 1993, after the requisite proceedings, the trial court rendered a Decision the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:
1) Plaintiff is declared to be the owner of the subject parcel of land and the defendants-spouses Rodrigo Asuncion Luz Asuncion are declared to be without any right whatsoever over the said property;
2) The deed of absolute sale over the portion of the subject property equivalent to one (1) hectare executed by the defendants-spouses Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion in favor of defendants Basilio Fortin and Wernela Fortin is declared null and void and the defendants Fortins are ordered to reconvey that portion sold to them in favor of the plaintiff; however, defendants Basilio and Wernela Fortin shall remain as agricultural lessees over that portion of one (1) hectare purchased by them;
3) Defendants Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion are ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of P120,040.00 representing rentals on the subject premises which the said defendants unlawfully collected;
4) Defendants Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion are ordered to reimburse to the defendants Basilio and Wernela Fortin the amount of P30,000 paid as consideration for the unlawful sale of a portion of the subject property by the former in favor of the latter; and
5) Defendants-Spouses Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion are ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 and to the defendants Basilio and Wernela Fortin also the amount of P10,000.00, both for attorney's fees."
From said decision, only the defendant-spouses Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion appealed to this Court.
In this appeal, appellant Rodrigo Asuncion contends that he inherited the one-hectare portion of the land under TD No. 0226 from his father Alfonso Asuncion. The sale of this land by Cresina Arboleda purportedly by authority of the Justice of the Peace Court of Iba, Zambales in Special Proceeding No. 456 and on behalf of her children, Rodrigo, Corazon and Estella was null and void because: a) there was no notice of the hearing of the motion to sell properties of the wards to the latter's next of kin pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 96 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 95, Revised Rules of Court); b) there was no hearing of said motion as prescribed by Sec. 3 of the same Rules; c) the Order did not specify the causes why the sale was necessary or beneficial as mandated by Sec. 4, of the same Rule; d) the sale was not submitted to the court and hence, there was no judicial approval as decreed by jurisprudence (Labango v. Lafarga, Phil. 22 Phil. 374; Ledesma Hermanos v. Castro, 55 Phil. 136); and e) at the time of the sale, Rodrigo Asuncion was already of legal age, hence, guardianship over him was facto terminated.
Appellants Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion, therefore argue that it was error for the trial court to uphold such a void sale.
This court is fully convinced that indeed the sale of the land to defendant Basilio and Wernela was flawed for it was not done in accordance with law. The defects of the sale pointed to by defendants Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion are correct. But alas, it is not for that that they carry the day.
Appellants' defense of the nullity of the sale made by guardian Cresina Arboleda Asuncion of the one-hectare portion of the land in TD No. 0226 to plaintiff-appellee Luisa Asuncion was raised for the first time in 1985 when Rodrigo Asuncion asserted ownership over said land. That was a good 23 years from the time the sale was executed by his mother Cresina Arboleda Asuncion. At the time of said sale, he was, according to him already of legal age. He can not feign ignorance of said sale because after its execution in 1962 his aunt, appellee Luisa Asuncion Altares was already in exclusive possession of said land and enjoyed the fruits thereof. It is an admitted fact that from 1966 to 1984 — a period of 18 years — the defendant spouses Basilio and Wernela Fortin were tenants of Luisa Asuncion Altares and it was to her that the former delivered the rental over said land.
During all this time Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion held their place. They never lifted a finger to protest their having been deprived of their land nor raised a voice in condemnation of said sale to their aunt Luisa Asuncion as a nullity. Much less did appellant Rodrigo Asuncion institute any action during the long period of 23 years questioning said sale.
A party is estopped from denying the title of another where he remained unusually silent while the ownership of the disputed land was transferred from one person to another, never instituting any action contesting the same nor registering any objection. (Heirs of Leopoldo Vancilao, Sr. vs. CA, 288 SCRA 574)
It is a time-honored rule anchored on public policy that a relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim or demand has become "stale", or who has acquiesced in the prevailing situation for an unreasonable length of time, or who has not been vigilant or who has slept on his rights either lay negligence, folly or inattention. (Caltex [Phil.], Inc. v. CA 292, SCRA 273) Considerable delay in asserting one's right before a court of justice is strongly persuasive of the lack of merit of his claim, since it is human nature for a person to enforce his right when the same is threatened or invaded. (Tan vs. CA, 295 SCRA 247)
Assuming therefore that appellant Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion had dominical rights over said one-hectare land, they already lost the right to enforce it because of the equitable principle of laches. In like manner, assuming that their defense of nullity of the said sale in favor of appellee Luisa Asuncion had been a valid defense, it cannot anymore be used to smother said sale because of the doctrine of estopped by laches.
How about the sale made by appellants Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion over a one-hectare portion of the land in TD No. 0226 in favor of defendants Basilio and Wernela Fortin, what is the status of this contract? This Court shall not anymore discuss that point because said defendants did not appeal from the decision annulling said sale. This means that they are satisfied with the verdict that they shall just remain in the said land not anymore as owners but as leaseholders. That adjudication by the lower court, therefore, stands.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision is hereby MODIFIED in this wise: This Court renders judgment:
1. Holding that defendant-appellants Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion cannot anymore assail the validity and enforceability of the Deed of Sale dated June 23, 1962 over the five (5) parcels of land identified in the Amended Complaint in favor of plaintiff-appellee Luisa Asuncion Artales;
2. The Deed of Absolute Sale over one-hectare portion of the land in question dated February 22, 1988 in favor of defendant Basilio and Wernela Fortin is declared null and void but the latter shall remain on said property as agricultural lessee of plaintiff-appellee Luisa Asuncion Altares;
3. Defendant-appellant Rodrigo and Luz Asuncion are ordered to reimburse defendant Basilio and Wernela Fortin the amount of P30,000.00 which was the price paid by the latter for the land mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
All other claims and counterclaims for damages and attorney's fees are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Guerrero and Gozo-Dadole, JJ., concur.