Heirs of Teodoro dela Cruz vs.

CA, 298 SCRA 172

FACTS: Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance with damages 4 against private respondents
involving a parcel of land. In their complaint, petitioners assert that the subject land was bought
by their predecessor-in-interest from the private respondents, Madrid brothers, for P4,000.00 in a
deed of sale executed on May 18, 1959, and since then they have been in actual, physical,
continuous and open possession of the property. However, sometime in October 1986, much to
their dismay and surprise, private respondents managed to obtain a Torrens Title over the said
land. On the other hand, the Madrids denied having executed the said deed of sale and assuming
that said document exists, the same is fictitious and falsified. Moreover, while they admit
petitioners' possession of the land, they assert that this possession is in defiance of their repeated
demands that the former relinquish the same. During the trial, petitioners were unable to present
the original deed of sale since it was lost. The trial court dismissed the complaint. Upon appeal,
the Court of Appeals rendered its judgment which ruled that Exhibit "A" was admissible in
evidence for failure of the private respondents to object when it was offered during the trial
hence affirmed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not neither prescription or laches can operate against them

HELD: No, even if we were to rule that the Certificates of Title to the private respondents would
ripen into ownership of the land, and therefore, the defense of prescription would be unavailing,
still, the petitioners would have acquired title to it by virtue of the equitable principle of laches.
The Madrids' long inaction or passivity in asserting their rights over disputed property will
preclude them from recovering the same. Moreover, petitioners ever since, have been
introducing several improvement s on the land which certainly could not have escaped the
attention of the Madrids. The construction of various infrastructures on the land was undoubtedly
a clear exercise of ownership which the Madrids could not ignore. If the Madrids and
Marquezes wished to assert their ownership, they should have filed a judicial action for recovery
of possession and not merely to have the land registered under their respective names, Courts can
not look with favor at parties who, by their silence, delay and inaction, knowingly induce another
to spend time, effort and expense in cultivating the land, paying taxes and making improvements
thereon for 30 long years, only to spring from ambush and claim title when the possessor's
efforts and the rise of land values offer an opportunity to make easy profit at his expenser