Bailon- Casilao v. CA 160 SCRA 738 (Case Digest)

 

Bailon- Casilao v. CA

160 SCRA 738

 

Facts:

The petitioners herein filed a case for recovery of property and damages with notice of lis pendensgainst the defendant and herein private respondent, Celestino Afable. The parcel of land involved in this case, with an area of 48,849 square meters, is covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1771 issued on June 12, 1931, in the names of Rosalia, Gaudencio, Sabina Bernabe, Nenita and Delia, all surnamed Bailon, as co-owners, each with a 1/6 share.

Rosalia Bailon and Gaudencio Bailon sold a portion of the said land consisting of 16,283 square meters to Donato Delgado.  On May 13, 1949, Rosalia Bailon alone sold the remainder of the land consisting of 32,566 square meters to Ponciana V. Aresgado de Lanuza. On the same date, Lanuza acquired from Delgado the 16,283 square meters of land which the latter had earlier acquired from Rosalia and Gaudencio. John Lanuza, acting under a special power of attorney given by his wife, Ponciana V. Aresgado de Lanuza [wife of John], sold the two parcels of land to Celestino Afable, Sr.

CA held the petitioners guilty of laches and dismissed their complaint.

 

 

Issue:

Whether or not the action of Bailon-Casilao is barred by laches.

 

 

Held:

No.

 

 

Ratio:

Well-stated in this jurisdiction are the four basic elements of laches, namely: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complainant seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the corporations complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute 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 [Go China Gun, et al. v. Co Cho et al., 96 Phil. 622 (1955)].