MUNICIPALITY OF CARCAR, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, BARILI BRANCH, ABUNDIO ALFAFARA, EUFEMIA TABAY, CONSOLACION NAVARRO, AND TEODORICO BARCOMA, RESPONDENTS.

On September 3, 1954, Judge Jose S. Rodriguez of the Court of
First Instance of Cebu issued an order in Cadastral
Case No. 1, Cadastral Record No. 58, Lot No. 592-A, Psd-3750, Carcar Cadastre, denying the petition of the Municipal
Mayor of Carcar which prayed that herein respondents Abundio Alfafara and Consolacion Navarro be ordered to return to the
Municipality of Carcar, Cebu
a portion of land which, according to the petitioner, was erroneously included
in the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2183. 
Judge Rodriguez, in denying the petition of the Municipal Mayor of Carcar, stated that said petition is untenable “for it
would defeat the object of the Torrens System which is to guarantee the
stability, security and indefeasibility of the Torrens Title to the
property.”

Thereafter, the Municipality
of Carcar
filed a case, docketed as Civil Case No. R-3679, for Reinvindicacion
against herein respondents Abundio Alfafara and Consolacion Navarro
and two (2) others, namely:  Eufemia Tabay and Teodorico Barcoma, before the
Court of First Instance of Cebu.  In this new complaint, herein petitioner
asked the court, inter alia, to order the defendants
to return to it the ownership and possession of the land known as Lot No.
592-A, Psd-3750 of the Carcar Cadastre.

Herein private respondents filed a motion to dismiss said Civil
Case No. R-3679 (which became Civil Case No. 313-BC upon its transfer to the Barili Branch of the Court of First Instance of Cebu).  Respondent
court granted the motion and dismissed the said civil case in an order dated March 18, 1968, saying that:

“The Court believes that the ground of res
judicata alleged in the said motion to dismiss is
meritorious.  The issue of ownership
raised in the Cad. Case No. 1, Cad. Record No. 58, Lot
No. 592-A, Psd­-3750, of Carcar Cadastre which was
decided by the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in
its order of September 3, 1954 is identical to the present Civil Case, entitled
“Municipality of Carcar, plaintiff, vs. Abundio Alfafara, et als., defendants, for there are identity of parties,
identity of cause of action and identity of issues or relief.  The order in said Cadastral Case No. 1 is res judicata in the present
action for the conveyance of ownership of the parcel of land known as Lot No.
592-A, Psd-3750, of the Cad. Survey of Carcar,
Cebu recovery of ownership being the main issue thereof.  Further­more, the
petitioner-movant Municipality of Carcar in Cad. Case No. 1, Record No. 58, and Lot No. 592-A, Carcar Cad. should have appealed
from the order of the Court, dated September
3, 1954, (Annex ‘A’ to the motion to dismiss) rendered in said Cad.
Case, which order refers to very Lot 592-A now in question.“

Petitioner filed two (2) motions for reconsideration but the same
were denied by herein respondent court in its order dated May 30, 1968.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond and
a record on appeal.  Respondent court in
an order, dated August 18, 1968,
disapproved the record on appeal on the ground that the same was filed out of
time, saying that:

“Taking into account the period from the date of service of
said order of March 18, 1968, upon Atty. Aldemita,
one of the counsels of the plaintiff which was made on March 25, 1968 to the
date of his filing of the Motion for Reconsideration on April 25, 1968, is
thirty-one days, one day late of the reglementary
period within which to file said motion for reconsideration; and taking into
account the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Asst. Provincial Fiscal Benecio Arzadon, another counsel
for the plaintiff, on May 21, 1968, the period of 56 days lapsed from the date
of the receipt (March 25, 1968) of the order of the Court of March 18,
1968.”

Hence, this petition for certiorari, with the Municipality
of Carcar praying that the order of respondent court
dated March 18, 1968 be declared null and void and that said public respondent
order the reinstatement and trial of the case on the merits “in order to
determine once and for all the validity of the respective claims of both
parties.”

Petitioner claims that the order of respondent court dismissing
the case purely on the strength of a motion to dismiss is null and void ab initio for the
reason that it was not given its day in court and thus, did not have the
opportunity to prove the material alle­gations of the complaint concerning the
ownership of Lot No. 592-A; that petitioner was precluded from proving by
documentary evidence the fraudulent inclusion of subject property in the
reconstituted Title No. R. O. -809 (0-4223); that petitioner was precluded in
proving that respondents were only entitled to Lot No. 592-B after subdivision
of Lot No. 592 into two (2), known as Lots Nos. 592-A and 592-B, Psd-3750; and,
that the questioned order of respondent court did not only deprive petitioner
of its property without due process of law, but it also enriches the private
respondents to the prejudice of petitioner.

We are not persuaded.  When
respondent court dis­approved petitioner’s record on appeal on August 18, 1968, the latter should
have filed a petition for mandamus within a reasonable time.  As to what would constitute a reasonable time
“it is apparent that the delay in ordinary cases should not be more than
the longest period allowed in the lower court for the party to take action,
which is thirty days. x x x
It is well settled that laches in making an
application for a writ of mandamus affords sufficient cause for its
denial.” (Cortes vs. CFI of Capiz, 52 Phil.
214.).

Laches has been defined as the failure
or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it
is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned
it or declined to assert it.  (Sotto vs. Teves, 85 SCRA 154).

In the case at bar, it was on March 18, 1968 when respondent court dismissed Civil Case
No. R-3679 and it was on August 18,
1968 when petitioner’s record on appeal was disapproved.  By failing to act until February 14, 1970 when this petition for certiorari
was filed, petitioner was guilty of laches for not
having taken action seasonably. 
Petitioner’s long inaction for one and one-half years is certainly
tantamount to laches and inexcusable neglect that it
should be barred from assert­ing its claim at all.

ACCORDINGLY, this petition for certiorari is hereby
DISMISSED and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court on February 17, 1970 is dissolved.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Plana,
Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, (Chairman), in the result.