Você está na página 1de 3


2005 May 16 G.R. No. 144773

The disputed property is Lot No. 4399 with an area of 34,325 square meters located at Dapdap, Lapu-
Lapu City. Crisanta Maloloy-on petitioned for the issuance of a cadastral decree in her favor over said
parcel of land. After her death in 1930, the Cadastral Court issued a Decision directing the issuance of a
decree in the name of Crisanta Maloloy-ons eight children, namely: Juan, Celedonio, Emiliano,
Francisco, Simeon, Bernabe, Roberta and Fausta, all surnamed Aying. The certificate of title was,
however, lost during the war.

Subsequently, all the heirs of the Aying siblings executed an Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with
Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 3, 1964, conveying the subject parcel of land to herein petitioner
Aznar Brothers Realty Company. Said deed was registered with the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City
on March 6, 1964 under Act No. 3344.

In 1988, herein petitioner filed a Petition for Reconstitution of the Original Title as the original title over
the subject property had been lost during the war. On April 12, 1988, the court granted said petition,
thereby directing the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to issue a reconstituted title in the name of
the abovementioned Aying siblings.

In 1991, petitioner, claiming to be the rightful owner of the subject property, sent out notices to vacate,
addressed to persons occupying the property. Unheeded, petitioner then filed a complaint for
ejectment against the occupants before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Lapu-Lapu City.

On February 1, 1994, the MTC ordered the occupants to vacate the property. The case eventually
reached this Supreme Court, a Decision was promulgated in favor of herein petitioner, declaring it as the
rightful possessor of the parcel of land in question.

Meanwhile, herein respondents, along with other persons claiming to be descendants of the eight Aying
siblings, all in all numbering around 220 persons, had filed a complaint for cancellation of the Extra-
Judicial Partition with Absolute Sale, recovery of ownership, injunction and damages with the RTC of
Lapu-Lapu City. The complaint was dismissed twice without prejudice. Said complaint was re-filed on
August 19, 1993, docketed as Civil Case No. 2930-L.

In the Answer to the Amended Complaint, petitioner then raised the affirmative defenses of failure to
state cause of action and prescription, as it took respondents 27 years, 10 months and 27 days to file the
action to recover subject property, when an action to recover property based on an implied trust should
be instituted within 4 years from discovery of the fraud.

After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision dated July 4, 1997, ruling that respondents evidence failed to
prove that the extra-judicial partition with deed of absolute sale was a totally simulated or fictitious
contract and concluded that said document is valid, thus, effectively conveying to petitioner the
property in question.

In modifying the RTC judgment, the CA ratiocinated that an action for recovery of possession of
registered land never prescribes in view of the provision of Section 44, Act No. 496 (now Sec. 47, PD
1520), to the effect that no title to registered land in derogation to that of a registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription. The CA further ruled that even if the action is deemed to be based on implied
trust, prescription did not begin to run since there is no evidence that positive acts of repudiation were
made known to the heirs who did not participate in the execution of the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real
Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale. Thus, striking down the RTCs ruling that the respondents complaint
is dismissible on the ground of prescription, the CA held instead that herein respondents action had not
prescribed but upheld the validity of the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute
Sale, except as to the shares of the heirs of Emiliano, Simeon and Roberta, who did not participate in the
execution of said document.

Whether or not there is sufficient proof for the principle of laches to apply.


In this case, since the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale was registered
under Act No. 3344 and not under Act No. 496, said document is deemed not registered. Accordingly,
the ten-year prescriptive period cannot be reckoned from March 6, 1964, the date of registration of the
subject document under Act No. 3344. The prescriptive period only began to run from the time
respondents had actual notice of the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale.

The only evidence on record as to when such prescriptive period commenced as to each of the
respondents are Wenceslao Sumalinogs (heir of Roberta Aying) testimony that about three years after
1964, they already learned of the existence of the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of
Absolute Sale; and Laurencio Ayings (heir of Emiliano Aying) admission that he found out about the sale
of the land in dispute a long time ago and can only estimate that it must be after martial law. Paulino
Aying (heir of Simeon Aying) gave no testimony whatsoever as to when the children of Simeon Aying
actually learned of the existence of the document of sale. On the other hand, petitioner did not present
any other evidence to prove the date when respondents were notified of the execution of the subject

In view of the lack of unambiguous evidence of when the heirs of Emiliano Aying and Simeon Aying
discovered the existence of the document of sale, it must be determined which party had the burden of
proof to establish such fact.

The test for determining where the burden of proof lies is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail
if he offers no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to
obtain. Moreover, one alleging a fact that is denied has the burden of proving it and unless the party
asserting the affirmative of an issue sustains the burden of proof of that issue by a preponderance of the
evidence, his cause will not succeed. Thus, the defendant bears the burden of proof as to all affirmative
defenses which he sets up in answer to the plaintiffs claim or cause of action; he being the party who
asserts the truth of the matter he has alleged, the burden is upon him to establish the facts on which
that matter is predicated and if he fails to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict or decision in his

In the case at bar, it was petitioner, as the defendant before the RTC, which set up in its Answer the
affirmative defense of prescription. It was, therefore, incumbent upon petitioner to prove the date
from which the prescriptive period began to run. Evidence as to the date when the ten-year prescriptive
period began exists only as to the heirs of Roberta Aying, as Wenceslao Sumalinog admitted that they
learned of the existence of the document of sale in the year 1967. As to the heirs of Emiliano Aying and
Simeon Aying, there is no clear evidence of the date when they discovered the document conveying the
subject land to petitioner. Petitioner miserably failed to adduce proof of when the heirs of Emiliano
Aying and Simeon Aying were notified of the subject document. Hence, with regard to said heirs, the
Court may consider the admission in the amended complaint that they learned of the conveyance of the
disputed land only in 1991 when petitioner sent notices to vacate to the occupants of the subject land,
as the date from which the ten-year prescriptive period should be reckoned.

Respondents filed their Amended Complaint on December 6, 1993. Thus, with regard to respondent
heirs of Roberta Aying who had knowledge of the conveyance as far back as 1967, their cause of action
is already barred by prescription when said amended complaint was filed as they only had until 1977
within which to bring action. As to the respondent heirs of Emiliano and Simeon Aying, they were able
to initiate their action for reconveyance of property based on implied or constructive trust well within
the ten-year prescriptive period reckoned from 1991 when they were sent by petitioner a notice to
vacate the subject property.

Evidently, laches cannot be applied against respondent heirs of Emiliano and Simeon Aying, as they took
action to protect their interest well within the period accorded them by law.