HONESTO GAYOTIN, PETITIONER, VS. MARTA TOLENTINO, SEVERINA TOLENTINO AND MANUEL TOLENTINO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 29611-R entitled “Marta Tolentino, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants vs. Honesto Gayotin, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees” declaring the
plaintiffs-appellants to be the absolute and lawful owners of the land in
question and ordering the defendant-appellee,
petitioner herein, to deliver the possession thereof to the plaintiffs.

The background facts are as follows:

The respondents, Marta Tolentino, Severina Tolentino and Manuel Tolentino, are the children of the spouses Felipe Tolentino and Catalina Mayorga
both of whom are now deceased.  In
September 1931, Homestead Patent No. 167835 embracing a parcel of land with an
area of 17 hectares 76 ares and 81 centares, more or less, si­tuated in Pinagsabañgan,
Naujan, Oriental Mindoro
was issued in the name of Felipe Tolentino.  Said patent was registered in the Registry of
Deeds of Mindoro, now Oriental Mindoro,
on October 20, 1931 and
Original Certificate of Title No. 1313 was issued to Felipe Tolentino.

In 1932 Felipe Tolentino sold the
southern portion of the land embraced in Original Certificate of Title No. 1313
containing an area of seven hectares to the spouses Honesto
Gayotin and Apolonia Cantos
for a consideration of P280.00 but no deed of sale was executed.  The defendant Honesto
Gayotin immediately took possession of the portion of
land sold to him.

Felipe Tolentino died in 1935 and his
wife also subsequently died in 1937. 
They were survived by their children, plaintiffs Marta Tolentino, Severino Tolentino and Manuel Tolentino,
and Servillano Tolentino.

On December 7, 1946 said Marta Tolentino,
Severino Tolentino and
Manuel Tolentino together with one Servillano Tolentino purportedly
executed a private document entitled “Deed of Absolute Sale” confirm­ing
the sale of the portion of land in question made by their father.  (Exh.
“1”).  The
Court of Appeals, however, expressly found in its decision that “It must
be noted that in Exhibit 1, one of the heirs by the name of Servillano
did not sign for he was still a minor.”^[1]

The land in question was declared for taxation purposes in the
name of Felipe Tolentino from 1929 to 1937 under Tax
Declaration No. 4393 (Exh. “C”),
Tax Declaration No. 10778 (Exh. “C-1”) and Tax Declaration No. 11386 (Exh.
“C-2”). 
In 1947 the land was declared for taxation in the name of the heirs of
Felipe Tolentino under Tax Declaration No. 13141 (Exh. “C-3”) and in 1948 Tax
Declaration No. 5802 (Exh. “C-4”) in
the name of Felipe Tolentino, – Marta Tolentino, administratrix, was
issued.  Taxes on the land in question
were paid by respondents under Official Receipts No. A-4255071 (Exh. “D”), No. 1-37679 (Exh. “D-1”) and No.
X-98832 (Exh. “D-2”).  No taxes appear to have been ever paid on the
land by petitioner and the same remained declared for tax purposes in the name
of Felipe Tolentino and after his death in the name
of his heirs.  The original certificate
of title in the name of Felipe Tolentino was never
cancelled or trans­ferred to petitioner.

In July 1949 Marta Tolentino, Severino Tolentino, Manuel Tolentino and Servillano Tolentino allegedly commenced Civil Case No. V-226 in the
Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro against Honesto Gayotin and two other
persons to recover the land in question, as covered by the subsisting original
certificate of title issued in the name of Felipe Tolentino.  The plaintiffs failed to appear at the
trial.  Hence Civil
Case No. V-226 was dismissed in an order dated Feb­ruary 7, 1950.

The plaintiffs^[2]
thereafter instituted on March 27,
1950 Civil Case V-264 in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro against Honesto Gayotin and Nemesio Asinas for the recovery of the same land in question.  The case was settled as to the defendant Nemesio Asinas and the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint dated March
20, 1951 against Honesto Gayotin only.

It was alleged in the amended complaint in Civil Case No. V-264
that:

“3-a   Upon the death of Catalina Mayorga in the year stated in paragraph 2-a of this amended
complaint, the defendant, taking advantage of the minority of the plaintiffs
who were then all minors, commenced usurp­ing the southern portion of the
plaintiff’s land described in paragraph 2 hereof, and unlawfully took
possession of the said portion which is more particularly described as follows:

‘The southern portion bounded on the N. by part of the same land,
on the E. by part also of the same land, on the S. by Macatok
River, and on the W. by Jacinto Albotra; xx xx containing an area of about 7 hectares’;

“4.    The defendant Honesto
Gayotin has been dis­turbing the plaintiffs’ property
rights of dominion, enjoyment and possession of the land described in para­graph
2 hereof by wrongfully usurping its southern por­tion described in the
immediately preceding paragraph, and despite repeated demands and vigorous
objections and protests from the plaintiffs this defendant Honesto
Gayotin has exercised and continues to exercise acts
over the aforesaid southern portion in derogation of the plaintiffs’ title and
ownership, to the damage of the latter who have been unjustly deprived of the
harvest from the said portion; the amount of the said harvest and/or its value
shall be proved in the trial of this case as the said amount and/or value can
not now be determined for the rea­son that the defendant still continues to
reap the harvest from the aforesaid southern portion usurped by him.” (Rollo, p. 58, Record on Appeal, pp. 14-15)

In
his answer to the original complaint the defendant Honesto
Gayotin interposed the following specific defenses:

“(a)  That sometime prior to his death in 1935,
Felipe Tolentino sold, conveyed, and transferred to
defendant Honesto Gayotin
for P280.00 in Philippine currency the land in question between him and the
plaintiffs with the understanding that the correspond­ing deed of sale will be
executed by him at a later date, but unfortunately the same could not be done
due to the fact that he became sick from which sickness he did not recover;

“(b)  That since 1935 and for about 15 years now,
defendant Honesto Gayotin,
with the knowledge of the plaintiffs, has been in possession of the land in
question between them as owner, in a manner open, public continuous, under a
claim of title adverse to all other claimants and exclusive of any other’s
rights, having spent in its clearing, cultivation, and improve­ment about P5,000.00,
and for that matter alone the land in question now belongs to defendant Honesto Gayo­tin by acquisitive
prescription;

“(c)  That in December, 1946, plaintiffs as pre­sumptive
heirs of the late Felipe Tolentino executed a
document wherein they recognized thee sale of the land in question made by
their father to defendant Honesto Gayotin;

“(d)  That on July 11, 1949, plaintiffs filed Civil Case No. V-226 of
this Court for the recovery of the same land, entitled ‘Marta Tolentino, Severino Tolen­tino, Manuel Tolentino, and
Servillano Tolentino, Plain­tiffs,
versus Honesto Gayotin, Nemesio Asinas and Cesario Reyes, Defendants’, but after defendants have hired
their counsels, filed their answers, and appeared several times before the
Court ready for trial, plaintiffs failed to appear and prosecute, with
consequence that this Hon. Court issued an order on February 7, 1950,
dismissing the said case with costs, thereby causing defendant Honesto Gayotin damages in the
amount of P500.00 which he paid his counsel as partial payment of the agreed
professional fee of P1,000.00;

“(e)  That the present action is frivolous and was
filed for the second time at the instance of cer­tain parties interested in the
land in question now that it is already cleared and converted into rice paddies
by defendant Honesto Gayotin,
thus said defendant is again compelled to secure the professional services of
undersigned counsel for P1,000.00;

“(f)   That whatever right
of action the plaintiffs may have had in relation to the land in question said
right of action is now barred by the Statute of Limi­tation as well as by estoppel.” (Rollo, p. 58,
Record on Appeal, pp. 9-10)

The plaintiffs and
defendant Honesto Gayotin
submitted on June 6, 1956 in Civil Case No. V-264 the following:

“STIPULATIONS

“The parties and their respective attorneys in this case
stipulated that:

“1.  The land in question is correctly des­cribed
in the plaintiffs’ complaint, said land being the Southern portion of a
registered parcel covered by and described in Homestead Patent No. 167835;
O.C.T. No. 1313-Mindoro (Exhibit A); issued on September 29, 1931 in favor and
in the name of the now deceased Felipe Tolentino who
died on February 28, 1934 (Exhibit B, B-1);

“2.  The land in question in this case was de­clared
for taxation purposes in the name of Felipe Tolentino
from the year 1929 to 1937 under Tax Dec. No. 4393 (Exhibit C-1) and Tax Dec.
No. 11386 (Exhibit C-2); and declared in the name of the heirs of Felipe Tolentino
in 1947 under Tax Dec. No. 13141 (Exhibit C-3) and in 1948 in the name of Fe­lipe
Tolentino – Marta Tolentino,
administratrix, under Tax Dec. No. 5802 (Exhibit
C-4); and that taxes on the land in question were paid under Offi­cial Receipts
Nos. A-4255071 (Exhibit D), No. 1-37679 (Exhibit D-1) and No.
X-98832 (Exhibit D-2);

“3.  The foregoing stipulations are submitted for
the purpose of dispensing with the presentation of evidence on these undisputed
matters, thereby limiting or narrowing the issues on which evidence should be
presented.

“June 6, 1956.

(Sgd.)
MARTA TOLENTINO                                                                                                                    (Sgd.) HONESTO GAYOTIN

Plaintiff                                                                                                                                       Defendant

(Sgd.) Jose N. Contreras                                                                                                                        (Sgd.) Luciano Joson

Attorney for
plaintiffs                                                                                                                          Attorney for Defendant”

(Rollo,
p. 58, Record on Appeal, p. 16)

The parties also
stipulated on August 9, 1956 that the plaintiffs are the children of the
deceased Felipe Tolentino and his wife Catalina Mayorga who was also deceased.  (Rollo, p. 58,
Record on Appeal, p. 17)

In a decision dated July 16,
1960 the trial court
declared that plaintiffs-respondents already lost their right to the possession
of the land in question through estoppel by laches and dismissed the case with costs.  (Rollo, p. 58,
Record on Appeal, pp. 21-22)

Plaintiffs-respondents
appealed to the Court of Appeals, assign­ing the following errors:

I

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER AND OVERLOOKING
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS WHICH DECISIVELY ARGUE AGAINST DE­FENDANTS’ CLAIM OF
OWNERSHIP, NAMELY, THAT THE LAND IN CONTROVERSY WAS NEVER DECLARED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF TAXATION IN DEFENDANTS’ NAME; THAT SAID DEFENDANTS NEVER PAID THE
TAXES FOR SAID LAND, AND THAT THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IN THE NAME OF
PLAIN­TIFFS’ PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST, O.C.T. NO. 1313-MINDORO, WAS NOT
CANCELLED AND/OR TRANSFERRED TO DEFENDANTS.

II

“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN FINDING FOR THE DEFENDANTS AND IN HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE
ALREADY LOST THEIR RIGHT TO THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN CON­TROVERSY, SAID
HOLDING BEING CONTRARY TO AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE SPECIFIC PRO­VISION OF
LAW, MORE PARTICULARLY SECTION 118 OF COMMONWEALTH ACT 141, AS AMENDED.

III

“FINALLY, THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF ‘ESTOPPEL
BY LACHES’ ENUNCIATED IN THE CASE OF CON­CORDIA MEJIA DE LUCAS VS. ANDRES
GAMPONIA, 53 O. G. NO. 3, FEBRUARY 15, 1957, G. R. NO. L-9335.  IT WAS ERRONEOUS FOR THE LOWER
COURT TO RELY ON SAID DOCTRINE FOR THE REASON THAT
ALL THE INDISPENSABLE ELE­MENTS OF ESTOPPEL BY LACHES ARE NOT PRE­SENT IN THE
INSTANT CASE AND THE LOWER COURT
LIKEWISE ERRED IN APPLYING TO THE CASE AT BAR THE ABOVE-CITED MEJIA DE LUCAS
VS. GAMPONIA CONSIDERING THAT THE FACTS IN THE LATTER WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
FROM THE FACTS IN THE FORMER.”

(Rollo, p. 61,
Brief for the Appellants, pp. 3-4)

On February
6, 1973 the Court of
Appeals reversed the deci­sion of the trial court and declared plaintiffs
(herein respondents) to be the absolute and lawful owners of the land in
question and ordered the defendant (herein petitioner) to deliver the
possession thereof to plaintiffs (herein respondents) without costs, because:

“The lower court in deciding the case in favor of the
defendant cited the case of Mejia de Lucas vs. Andres Gamponia,
53 O.G. No. 3, February 15, 1957, G.R. No. L-9335, October 31, 1957, but in the
case of J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Macalindong, 6 SCRA 938, the Supreme Court, citing Art. 348
of the Civil Code declared that ‘the right of the owner to file an action to
recover possession based on its Torrens Title is imprescriptible
and not barred under the doctrine of laches.’

“The defendant seeks umbrage on the fact that in 1932 said
Felipe Tolentino sold the land in question to the
spouses Honesto Gayotin and
Apolonia Cantos for the sum of P280.00, although no
deed of sale was executed and that on December 7, 1946, Marta Tolentino, Severina Tolentino, Manuel Tolentino and
one Servillano Tolentino
exe­cuted a private document entitled ‘Deed of Absolute Sale’ confirming the
sale of the said portion of land in question made by their father and that the
defendant Honesto Gayotin
has been in possession of the land in question since 1932 up to the time Honesto Gayotin was testifying on
October 27, 1959.  The homestead patent
No. 16835 issued in the name of Felipe Tolentino was
issued on September 26, 1931
and certificate of title No. 1313 was issued on October 20, 1931. 
On that year 1931, the law enforced was already Act No. 2874 and that
law prohibits the alienation, disposal or en­cumbering of such land within five
years from the date of issuance of the patent. 
The sale made by Felipe Tolentino on a portion
of the land covered by patent No. 16835 and certificate of title No. 1313 was
null and void because it is contrary to the provisions of Act No. 2874, and
contrary to an announced public policy of the government.  Exhibit 1 for the defendant, which is
entitled ‘Deed of Absolute Sale,’
cannot validate the illegal and invalid sale made by the registered owner,
Felipe Tolentino. 
As a matter of fact, while Exhibit 1 is entitled ‘Deed of Absolute
Sale,’ yet the substance of said document is only to confirm the sale of the
said portion of land in question by said Felipe Tolentino.  As a matter of fact, in the answer filed by
the defendant-appellee, is stated as follows:

‘(a)  That sometime prior to his death in 1935,
Felipe Tolentino sold, con­veyed, and transferred to
defendant Honesto Gayotin
for P280.00 in Philippine currency the land in question between him and the
plain­tiffs; that in December, 1946, plaintiffs as presumptive heirs of the
late Felipe Tolen­tino executed a document wherein
they re­cognized the sale of the land in question made by their father to
defendant Honesto Gayotin.’

“In other words, the validity of Exhibit 1, which is just a
confirmation of sale, or in the words of the defendant, a
recognition of the sale of the land in question, depends upon the
validity of the sale made by Felipe Tolentino.  The sale made by Felipe To­lentino
being null and void, consequently, the con­firmation does not change the nature
of the sale or the invalidity, for an absolutely void act cannot be
subsequently validated by the heirs.  It
must be noted that in Exhibit 1, one of the heirs by the name of Servillano did not sign for he was still a minor.” (Rollo, pp. 38-40, Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. No. 29611-R, pp. 9-11)

The defendant, Honesto Gayotin now petitioner, contends that the decision of the
Court of Appeals is erroneous on the fol­lowing grounds:

“1.  Failure to assign as error the trial court’s
conclusion that laches is a valid defense to the
action operated as a waiver thereof, such that the Court of Appeals should not
have considered, much less passed judgment on, said ‘question’.

“2.  Notwithstanding the case of J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Macalindong,
the ruling in Mejia de Lucas v. Gamponia was never
abandoned.  To the contrary, it was
adhered to and reiterated with consistency in several decisions of the
Honorable Court.

“3.  Petitioner-vendee is entitled to reimburse­ment
of the price he paid for the land and the value of the improvements he had
introduced thereon. “ (Petition, Rollo, p. 14)

On the basis of the undisputed facts of record recited above, the
decision of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.

The first assignment of error that respondents failed to assail
in their appeal the trial court’s conclusion that their action was barred by laches and the Court of Appeals should not have overruled
the trial court’s erroneous conclusion is mere sophistry.  As may be readily seen from respondents’
assignment of error in their brief in the Court of Appeals, they expressly
asserted that “the lower court erred in applying the doctrine of ‘estoppel by laches‘….  It was erroneous for the lower court to rely
on said doctrine for the reason that all the indispensable elements of estoppel by lathes are not present in the instant
case.”

The Court of Appeals therefore correctly cited the established
doctrine in favor of respondents, mutatis mutandis, that “because
the subject of the transaction is a piece of public land, public policy
requires that [plaintiffs], as heir(s), be not prevented from reacquiring it
because it was given by law to [their] family for [their] home and
cultivation.  This is the policy on which
our homestead law is predi­cated (Pascual v. Talens, supra). 
This right cannot be waived. ‘It is not within the competence of any
citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to preserve.’ (Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, Inc. v. Pantaleon de las Ama, et al., 74 Phil. 3).” (Land Registration
& Mortgages by Francisco, pp. 586-587, third edition)^[3]

The Court of Appeals
likewise correctly rejected petitioner’s defense of laches,
since “the defense of laches is an equitable one
concerned only with whether or not by reason of the plaintiff’s long inaction
or inexcusable neglect, he should be barred from asserting (his) claim at all,
because to allow him to do so would be inequitable and unjust to
defendant.” (Pabalate vs. Echarri,
Jr., 37 SCRA 518) The facts show no such “long inaction or inexcusable
neglect” on res­pondents’ part.  It
is manifest that they were still minors at the time of the void sale in 1932
and that when they executed in December, 1946 the document recognizing the sale
made by their father who died in 1935, one of them was still a minor and could
not sign the document.  Within two and a
half years later, in July 1949 (and later in March 1950) they promptly
repudiated the document and filed suit for recovery of the land.

As to petitioner’s second
assignment of error, the ruling of Lucas vs. Gamponia,
100 Phil. 277, on laches where the patentee’s right
to recover possession of the property was converted into an unenforceable stale
demand by patentee’s long inaction and neglect for 37 years
notwithstanding that defendant’s possession for the said period could not
destroy the patentee’s indefeasible title finds no application in the instant
case.

On the third assignment of error, we find that petitioner is
entitled only to reimbursement of the price of P280.00 but not of the value of
the improvements.  Payment of such price
of P280.00 should be made by respondents to petitioner within 90 days and
should they fail to do so, petitioner may apply for a writ of execution against
them to satisfy the said sum of P280.00, following the procedure in Oliveros vs. Porciongcola, 69
Phil. 305.^[4][5]
Petitioner is entitled to no more, much less the value of the improvements,
because as was held in Angeles vs. Court of Appeals, 102 Phil. 1006,
“the heirs of the homestead should be declared to have lost and forfeited
the value of the products gathered from the land and
so should the defendants lose the value of the necessary improvements that they
have made thereon.” Petitioner has enjoyed the fruits and products of the
land for 27 years – since the filing of the suit below (which should by right
have pertained to res­pondents) and he cannot be heard to complain of any
inequity or injustice.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
affirmed, with the modification that respondents shall pay petitioner the sum
of P280.00 by way of reimbursement of the price of the void sale, as stated in
the preceding paragraph.

In view of the long pendency of the
case since respondents’ filing thereof in 1950, during which time they have
been wrongfully deprived of the possession and enjoyment of the property, this
judgment is de­clared immediately executory upon its
promulgation.  Petitioner is ordered to
forthwith surrender the land and its improvements to res­pondents upon notice
hereof and upon his failure to do so, respondents may
apply to the court a quo for a writ of execution and immediate pos­session
upon the strength of this decision and without awaiting the re­mand of the
records.

With costs against petitioner in all instances.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Martin, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Court of Appeals’ decision, page 82, Rollo,
page XII.

^[2]
For reasons not explained in the record, the name of Servillano
Tolentino appears to have been omitted as plaintiff
in this second complaint.

^[3] Court of Appeals’ decision, page 82, Rollo, pages XIII-XIV.

^[4] See also Santander vs. Villanueva, 103 Phil. 1, where it
was held that “the sale being null and void ab initio, [the homesteader] never lost ownership over the land in question and
[vendee’s] right is reduced to nothing more than to recover the price paid by
[them] for said land, which is P480.00.”