G.R. No. 14399. January 28, 1961
FELICIANA EDRALIN, PETITIONER VS. ANDRES EDRALIN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:
Appeals. The antecedent facts pertinent to the case are undisputed and
are stated in the decision complained of as follows:
“As
early as the year 1878, there exists in Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, an
association of irrigators called ‘Associacion Zanjera de Santo Rosario
Mamutbut’. It has its officers and headmen and keeps records and books
listing its members and other matters pertaining to its business of
communal irrigation system. To be a member of this association, one
must appear in the books thereof and, whether male or female, must
comply with his or her duties consisting of digging and maintaining the
canals of the irrigation system, which, from time to time, were blocked
by sand, stones and debris, in order to insure the continuous flow of
water to the lands irrigated. This service is rendered as often as it
is necessary and up to one hundred days every year. Such labor,
however, may be performed either in person or through a substitute. As
compensation therefor and as privilege for enrolled members, a share of
the land of the association labelled in the dialect as ‘tugao’ was
given to each of them. This share is usually about one hectare of
riceland. Each member tills or cultivates his share, by himself or with
the aid of tenants. The members enjoy the products of the land thus
separately cultivated by them. They can declare for taxation purposes
their respective shares and exercise rights of ownership over the same.
As long as a member fulfills his obligations heretofore adverted to and
does not violate the rules and regulations which may lead to his
expulsion, he remains the owner and possessor of the land assigned to
him. Contrariwise, he maybe expelled from the association and the
‘tugao’ or share is returned thereto for re-distribution.“Originally’
Nicolas Edralin and Gregoria Albano, husband and wife, were members of
record of the association. Each of them was assigned separate lands.
The share or ‘tugao’ of Nicolas Edralin consists of ten parcels of
irrigated riceland situated in Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, (and described in
paragraph III of the complaint). The share of Gregoria Albano was
abandoned and reverted to the association. Upon the death of Nicolas
Edralin, his portion was worked by his son, Antero Edralin.
Unfortunately, Antero committed some infractions of the rules of the
association, ‘so he was removed from the group of irrigators’.“In
1908, Andres Edralin solicited from the association that he be given
the forfeited share which originally belonged to his grandfather,
Nicolas Edralin. At the time, Andres Edralin felt that ‘the share of my
(his) grandfather should be revived by me (him) and the share of my
(his) grandmother should be revived by my (his) sister Feliciana
Edralin’. The amount required for admission as a member was P90.00. Of
this amount P50.00 was paid in May, 1908, as follows (Exhibit I-a):
“24
May—Taken in trust by Mr. Cipriano Lagasca the sum of twenty pesos from
that had been given by Andres and Feliciana Edralin intended as their
beginning to plead for one name in the name of Don Nicolas Edralin in
this irrigation association of Mamutbut Twenty Pesosidem.-Taken in trust by Benito Aceret coming from matter as noted above Fifteen Pesos idem.-Taken in trust by Balerio Bitao coming from matter as noted above Fifteen Pesos
“Immediately
after the above payment, the name of Andres Edralin was entered in the
rolls of the association as a member. The balance of P40.00 was paid in
April and July, 1909, as follows (Exhibit 3-a):
“14
April—Taken in trust by Benito Aceret from what had been paid by Andres
Edralin as addition to (what he paid) so as to enter (the association)idem.—Taken by Mr. Cipriano Lagasca as additional payment of Andres Edralin
* * * * * * *
“4
of July—Taken in trust by Benito Aceret from what had been given by
Andres Edralin because of his (Edralin’s) debt for his entry into the
association as a member thereofP20.00
“The foregoing entries were taken from the book of the association.”
On May 20, 1952, or more than forty years after Andres Edralin had been
admitted as member of the association, his sister Feliciana Edralin
filed the present action before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos
Norte for the partition of the ten parcels of land given or assigned to
him by the association and which formerly constituted the share or
‘tugao’ of their grandfather Nicolas Edralin. The complaint in
substance alleged that the lands in controversy, which had been
conveyed by defendant Andres Edralin to his co-defendants, his daughter
Isabel and Gregoria, both surnamed Edralin, and daughter-in-law
Gorgonia Dacuycuy-Edralin, are owned pro indiviso by plaintiff
and defendant Andres Edralin. The complaint also averred that after the
agricultural year 1944-45, defendants refused to deliver plaintiff’s
right share in the yearly “canon” of the said lands and accordingly
prayed for recovery of the same or its money equivalent.
Answering the complaint, defendants claimed, among other things, that
Andres Edralin acquired the parcels of land described in the complaint
by purchase from the “Association Zanjera de Santo Rosario Mamutbut” of
Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, with his own exclusive, funds, and that
plaintiffs action had already prescribed.
After trial, the
lower court in its decision of January 14, 1954 found that the parcels
of land sought to be partitioned belonged to neither plaintiff nor
defendant Andres Edralin but to the “Asociacion Zanjera de Santo
Rosario Mamutbut” and for this reason opined that the action for
partition was improper. On the theory, however, that the plaintiff and
the defendant, Andres Edralin, had bought share and share alike the
usufructuary rights over the parcels of land in question, the trial
court rendered judgment as follows:
“For
all the foregoing considerations, the Court renders judgment declaring
the plaintiff entitled to work and cultivate one half (1/2)
pro-indiviso of the 10 parcels of land described in the complaint if
she can do so personally, or else through tenants, but in case that she
cannot do this, the defendant shall cultivate, irrigate and plant the
10 parcels of land taking two-thirds (2/3) of the produce thereof as
his share as such irrigator, cultivator and worker, and one-third (1/3)
thereof to be divided equally between him and the plaintiff. The
defendant is ordered to pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of
Six & Two Thirds (6 2/3) baares of palay every year since 1944-45, or its equivalent value of P43.00. Without any special pronouncement as to costs.”
On appeal, however, to the Court of Appeals, the judgment was reversed
and the complaint dismissed, the said appellate court holding that
defendant Andres Edralin alone re-acquired that share originally
belonging to Nicolas Edralin. Contending that this finding of the Court
of Appeals is a conclusion not supported by facts established by the
evidence, plaintiff Feliciana Edralin brought the case to this Court
through the present petition for review.
The petition is without merit.
The Court of Appeals, in holding that the share or “tugao” of Nicolas
Edralin as a member of the “Asociacion Zanjera de Santo Rosario
Mamutbut” was reacquired by defendant Andres Edralin alone, expressly
found that the full amount of P90.00 entrance fee for membership in the
association was paid by said defendant and that only he became the
registered member of the association in respect of the lands in
question. Plaintiff insists that the forfeited share of Nicolas
Edralin, as found by the trial court, was reacquired not by the
defendant Andres Edralin alone but by both of them. The fact, however,
remains that only said defendant Andres Edralin appears in the rolls of
the association as a member thereof. And while it is true that the
first payments in 1908 on account of the entrance fee. amounting to
P50.00 were entered in the book of the association in the names of
defendant Andres Edralin and plaintiff, said entries, however, were
found by the Court of Appeals to have been made by mistake. This
finding is factual and is borne out by the record. Thus, the subsequent
payments of the entrance fee were made exclusively in the name of
defendant Andres Edralin. From 1908 up to the present said defendant
has been in possession of the lands in question. He had declared them
for taxation purposes exclusively in his name as early as 1911 and he
has been paying the taxes thereon without plaintiff making any protest.
Finally, the work on the land had always been done exclusively by
Andres Edralin for his own account, and, plaintiff never intervened in
the division of the produce thereof, which was appropriated solely and
exclusively by defendants. Incidentally, these facts, found by the
Court of Appeals to be either undisputed or established by the
evidence, are conclusive and cannot be reviewed by this Court.
Moreover, there is, we think, good reason to doubt the merit or
validity of plaintiff’s claims. From 1908 up to the filing of the
complaint in 1952, some 44 years have elapsed, during which plaintiff
took no steps to assert her right over the property. The doubtful
nature of her claims is further aggravated by the fact that in 1937 she
and her brother, defendant Andres Edralin, had an extra-judicial
partition of their common properties, and in that partition the lands
in question, or, at least, their rights therein had not been included.
These circumstances, as observed by the Court of Appeals, militate
against the genuineness of plaintiff’s claims.
“The
assertion of doubtful claims, after long delay, cannot be favored by
the courts. Time inevitably tends to obliterate occurrences from the
memory of witnesses, and even where the recollection appears to be
entirely clear, the true clue to the solution of a case may be
hopelessly lost. These considerations constitute one of the pillars of
the doctrine long familiar in equity jurisprudence to the effect that
laches or unreasonable delay on the part of a plaintiff in seeking to
enforce a right is not only persuasive of a want of merit but may,
according to the circumstances, be destructive of the right itself. Vigilantibus non dormientibus equites subvenit.” (Buenaventura vs. David, 37 Phil., 435).
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner.
Paras, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.