Moreover,the action is barred by laches which is defined as the failure to assert a

right for an unreasonable and unexplained length or time, warranting a

presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined
to assert it. This equitable defense is based upon grounds of public policy, which
requires the discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society. (Vda. de
Rigonan v. Derecho, G.R. No. 159571, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA 627).

Records also show that Lucas Villanueva, private respondents’ predecessor-in-interest,

did not actually possess the subject property during his lifetime. Private respondent Delia
Villanueva Dela Torre, testified that her parents while still alive resided in Sitio Din-iwid,
Balabag, Malay, Aklan, about less than a kilometer away from the land in question.15
Neither did any of the private respondents ever reside therein

On the other hand, after buying the property in 1971, petitioners possessed the same in
the concept of an owner. They peacefully occupied it, built fences, planted plants and
used the same as ingress and egress towards their cottages. Having been in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the disputed land in good faith and with a just title since
1971 until 1997, petitioners doubtlessly obtained title by ordinary acquisitive
prescription.

In the instant case, private respondents knew as early as 1981 that petitioners are building
fences in the perimeter of the disputed land but did not take action to assert their rights
over the subject parcel of land. They waited 16 long years to oust petitioners from the
possession of the land. Definitely, laches had already set in.

Serina vs Caballero G.R. No. 127382 August 17, 2004

The CA noted that the land subject of the complaint has boundaries different
from the land in possession of the respondents. In fact, the land described in the
complaint appears to be different from the land described in the Deed of Sale
which the petitioners invoke as the basis of their ownership.

First. The petitioners alleged in their complaint that the boundaries of their
property are as follows:

North - Alejo Seriña chan robles virtual law library

South - T. Sabornido chan robles virtual law library

East - A. Seriña & T. Sabornido

West - F. Caballero[22]
On the other hand, the Deed of Sale provides that the property sold to them has
the following boundaries:
North - Raymundo Seriña

South - Obdullo Caballero chan robles virtual law library

East - Teofilo Saburnido chan robles virtual law library

West - Obdullo Caballero[23]

Second. The complaint[24] of the petitioners states that the property they are
claiming has an area of 2.5 hectares. On the other hand, the Deed of Sale [25]
provides that the subject property has an area of 5 hectares.

Third. The complaint alleged that the property is located in “Mantadiao, Opol,
Misamis Oriental,”[26] while the Deed of Sale shows that the property purchased
is located in “Puntakon, Igpit, Cagayan Or. Misamis

The fact remains that the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the
petitioners did not prove the identity of the land being claimed.

The failure to establish the identity of the land is obviously fatal to the
petitioners’ case. In Beo vs. Court of Appeals, [33] a case which also involves an
action for possession and quieting of title, the Court had the occasion to state:

x x xBecause petitioners failed to explain the discrepancy or present other

evidence to prove with certainty the location and area of the land they seek to
recover, respondent court correctly applied the invariable rule that a person who
claims ownership of real property is duty-bound to clearly identify the land being
claimed, in accordance with the title on which he anchors his right of ownership.
When the record does not show that the land subject matter of the action for
recovery of possession has been exactly determined, such action cannot prosper,
as in the case of petitioners. In sum, proof of ownership coupled with identity of
the land is the basic rule.
Corollarily, the rule is likewise well-settled that in order that an action for
recovery of possession may prosper, it is indispensable that he who brings the
action fully proves not only his ownership but also the identity of the property
claimed, by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof. As the appellate
court succinctly stated, he who claims to have a better right to the property must
clearly show that the land possessed by the other party is the very land that
belongs to him.[34]

[33] 200 SCRA 575 (1991).

[34] Id. at 581-582. (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, it is not even clear that the land allegedly to have been purchased from
Guinto is the same land that the plaintiffs claim in their complaint, there being a marked
discrepancy in the boundaries. The complaint gives the boundaries of the land sought to
be recovered as follows:

North — Public land claimed by one Subano Mariga;

South — Baria Creek;

East — Sibasi River;

West — Public land claimed by one Subano Amucas Sumoson.

On the other hand, the plaintiff Valeriana Sudeco in her testimony gives the boundaries
of the land purchased from Guinto as follows:

Q. Who are the boundaries on the North? — A. Valentine Camingao with a creek
between us.

Q. On the East? — A. Jose Guinto.

Q. On the South? — A. Donato Tomilao with a creek between our land.

Q. On the West? — A. Amucas Sumosan Subano and now its the mine.

It will be seen that only the boundary on the West maybe considered identical.