FELICIANO VERGARA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CIRIACO VERGARA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Pangasinan (in Civil Case No. 13803) directly interposed to this
Court by therein plaintiff, on the sole question of whether under the
facts of the case as found by the lower court, his claim for
reconveyance of his share in the land in controversy is already barred
by laches.

As stated by the lower court in the decision appealed from, the facts of the case are:

“From the evidence presented by the parties in this
case it is undisputed that the land in question forms part of a bigger
portion of the land for which a certificate of title was issued in the
name of the plaintiff and the defendant, exh. ‘A’; that the land
described and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 53147 in the
office of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan, exh. ‘A’ was originally
of the father of the parties, Martin Vergara; that it was the father
who applied for the registration of the parcel of land described in
exh. ‘A’, placing as co-owner the plaintiff and defendant in this case;
that on December 12, 1936, a portion of land described in exh. ‘A’,
with an area of 69,829 square meters was sold to one Maxima Bancod;
that as a consequence of the sale of a portion of the land to Maxima
Bancod, a sub-division plan was prepared and that a Transfer
Certificate of Title in the name of Maxima Bancod was issued for the
portion sold to her; that on May 19, 1956, an affidavit of confirmation
of sub-division was executed by the defendant, Ciriaco Vergara and the
vendee, Maxima Bancod, and as a result of this affidavit of
confirmation, exh. ‘C’, a Transfer Certificate of Title over the land
in question was issued in the name of the defendant Ciriaco Vergara;
that on December 12, 1936, Ciriaco Vergara declared the portion in
question in. his name, exh. ‘1’; and said declaration was later revised
in 1951 in the name again of Ciriaco Vergara, exh. ‘1-A’ and ‘1-B’;
that Ciriaco Vergara has been paying the taxes over the land in
question from 1927 up to the present time, exhs. ‘5’, ‘5-A’ to ‘5-1’.

“The
plaintiff relies on the Original Certificate of Title exh. ‘A’ as the
basis of his complaint and on the affidavit of confirmation of
sub-division, exhs. ‘A’ and ‘C’. The defendant on the other band, has
tried to prove thru oral evidence that at the time the deed of sale,
exh. ‘B’ was executed the whole consideration mentioned in said sale
was given to the plaintiff, Feliciano Vergara; that Feliciano Vergara
agreed that the portion not sold of the land covered by Exh. ‘A’ should
then remain with Ciriaco Vergara; and that the defendant reluctantly
agreed to sign the deed of sale and only consented to do so after the
plaintiff had agreed to recognize him as the sole owner of the unsold
portion of the land.

“The evidence in support of the
contention of the defendant is so detailed that from this alone, this
Court does not feel convinced on the sincerity of the witnesses nor on
the truthfulness of their declarations. This Court cannot believe the
testimony of the notary public because a notary public in the ordinary
course of his position would not inquire into minor details.

“What
really happened in this case is that the father of the parties Martin
Vergara, who was then living, was the one who caused the sale of the
portion of the land covered by exh. ‘A’ to Maxima Bancod and it was he
who received the consideration. This Court is inclined to believe the
testimony of the plaintiff that he did not know that what he was
signing then was a deed of sale of the land covered by exh. ‘1’; that
he only signed the same because he obeyed what his father told him. In
fact, this Court believes that the plaintiff did not even know that the
land covered by exh, ‘A’ was registered in his name and that of his
brother, the defendant. From his own declaration it can be conclusively
inferred that never until a short time before the filing of the
complaint did he know that the land covered by exh. ‘A’ was registered
in his name and that of his brother; nor did he know that a portion not
yet sold and covered, by exh. ‘D’ is registered in the name of Ciriaco
Vergara. And his ignorance is due to the fact that he has been a long
resident of the City of Manila. * * *.

The court a quo, then, making further finding that
defendant had been in continuous possession of the property since 1918,
and with plaintiff a permission at least from 1937, held that the
latter is now estopped from claiming his share in the remaining portion
of the property, covered by TCT No. 23768 (Exh. D), for having slept on
his right for around 20 years. In support thereof, the trial Judge
cited the case of Lucas vs. Gamponia 100 Phil., 277; 53 Off. Gaz., 677
wherein it was held that the title of a registered owner may be
defeated by the equitable defense of laches.

Under the facts of this case, as heretofore quoted, the aforecited doctrine laid down in the Lucas case
would not apply. As therein stated, for the equitable defense of laches
to be availed of as against the right of a registered owner, four
elements must necessarily concur: viz., (1) conduct on the part of the
defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation
of which the complaint is made and for which the complaint is made and
for which it seeks a remedy; (2) 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; (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 to be
barred.^[1]

The first element, clearly, is present, because the obtaining by
defendant of a certificate of title in his own name, over the property
belonging to him and his brother, gave rise to the filing of the
complaint in this case. The second requisite, however, is not
satisfied. As found by the lower court, which is here binding,
plaintiff had no knowledge of the registration in his name and that of
his brother of the land in question, having been a resident of Manila
for a long time. The delay in asserting his right, occasioned by such
lack of knowledge of the existence thereof, can not give rise to the
defense of laches. The third element is also wanting in this case. For,
whereas it is necessary that defendant, who should set up this defense
of estoppel, has no knowledge or notice that complainant would assert
the right on which the suit is based, this can not be said of defendant
Ciriaco Vergara. Having known that the property was originally titled
in his name and that of his brother’s, and notwithstanding which he
still secured a certificate of title only in his own name by signing
the affidavit (for confirmation of subdivision) “for himself and in
behalf of his co-owner Feliciano Verga”, without the latter’s consent,
defendant should naturally anticipate the filing of the instant action.
The fourth element is not also present, because an adjudication of
plaintiff’s right to one-half of the property will not actually
prejudice the defendant who never owned the same.

In the circumstances, the action for reconveyance by plaintiff, to
recover his lawful share of the property, is proper. The facts,
however, do not clearly establish sufficient basis to adjudicate moral
damages and attorney’s fees to herein plaintiff-appellant.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and one
entered herein sentencing the defendant to execute, within 10 days
after this decision shall have become final, an appropriate deed of
conveyance of one-half of the property in question in favor of the
plaintiff. In case of defendant’s failure to do so, let the Provincial
Sheriff of Pangasinan execute the corresponding deed in accordance with
Section 10 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Appellee shall pay the
costs. So ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.