View full case

LILIBETH ESPINAS-LANUZA v. FELIX LUNA

FACTS:

Simon Velasco was the owner of several properties, including a land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 20630 in Daraga, Albay. Simon had four children, Heriberto, Genoviva, Felisa, and Juan. Respondents allege that Juan and Felisa executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale in favor of Leopoldo Espinas, son of Felisa. They claim that they discovered the fraud in 2010 when they found out that a tax declaration was issued in Leopoldo's name. Petitioners, children of Leopoldo, argue that the property was the joint share of Juan and Felisa who sold it to Leopoldo. The RTC ruled in favor of respondents, declaring them as co-owners of the subject property. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, finding that the extrajudicial settlement was fraudulent and should be annulled. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that there was already an actual partition among the heirs of Simon and that no one questioned Leopoldo's possession of the subject property for over 44 years.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether an oral partition by the heirs is valid if no creditors are affected.

  2. Whether the possession and exercise of ownership by the heirs constitute strong proof of an oral partition.

  3. Whether the respondents have proven their co-ownership of the subject property.

  4. Whether laches has set in and thereby precludes the respondents' right to recover the subject property.

RULING:

  1. Yes, an oral partition by the heirs is valid if no creditors are affected. The requirement of a written memorandum under the statute of frauds does not apply to partitions effected by the heirs where no creditors are involved.

  2. Yes, the possession and exercise of ownership by the heirs constitute strong proof of an oral partition. Actual possession and exercise of dominion over definite portions of the property in accordance with an alleged partition are considered strong evidence of an oral partition.

  3. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their co-ownership of the subject property. Aside from their mere claim of co-ownership, there was no evidence presented that the heirs of Simon did not actually partition his estate.

  4. Laches has set in against the respondents, which precludes their right to recover the subject property. The elements of laches, namely conduct on the part of the defendant, delay in asserting the complainant's rights, lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant, and injury or prejudice to the defendant, have been established. The respondents filed their suit 44 years after the conveyance of the subject property to Leopoldo, and their predecessors-in-interest were aware of Leopoldo's possession of the property. The petitioners will be prejudiced if the respondents' complaint is accorded relief or not held barred.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Laches refers to the neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party, resulting in a bar in equity. It is different from and applies independently of prescription. (De Vera-Cruz v. Miguel)

  • The elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation that led to the complaint and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct and 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 on 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.