arroyo vs. bocago

GR. No. 167880  14 November 2012

JACK ARROYO, Petitioner, vs. BOCAGO INLAND DEV'T. CORP. (BIDECO), represented by CARLITO BOCAGO and/or the HEIRS OF THE DECEASED RAMON BOCAGO, namely, BASILISA VDA. DE BOCAGO, CARLITO BOCAGO, SANNIE BOCAGO ARRENGO, and INDAY BUENO, Respondents.

The case commenced on February 28, 1997 when herein plaintiff-appellee Jack Arroyo filed with the Regional Trial Court (Branch 56) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against herein defendants-appellants, Bocago Inland Development Corporation (BIDECO), represented by its President and General Manager Carlito Bocago, Basilisa Vda. de Bocago, Sammy Bocago Arringo and Inday Bueno.

In his complaint, plaintiff-appellee averred that he is the owner of the three (3) parcels of land located at Del Gallego, Camarines Sur, which are now covered by TCT No. RT-854 (14007), TCT No. RT-853 (10065) and RT-855 (19085), all under his name. Plaintiff-appellee claimed that since his acquisition thereof in 1972, he has been paying the taxes for the said lands. He likewise claimed that when he bought the properties from the Development Bank of the Philippines, the same were already 60% developed, which was the reason for the purchase and, in addition, the said properties are natural breeding grounds for crabs and prawns.

Later on, plaintiff-appellee discovered that defendants-appellants had been occupying the above-mentioned parcels of land since 1974. Plaintiff-appellee, through counsel, sent demand letters to defendants-appellants to return the peaceful possession of the parcels of land. But despite such demands, defendants-appellants never bothered to make a reply. Thus, because of the unlawful occupation by the defendants-appellants of the properties of plaintiff-appellee, the latter was forced to litigate.

On the other hand, defendants-appellants in their Answer maintained that plaintiff-appellee has no cause of action for he does not possess the said parcels of land nor manage the cultivation of the alleged fishpond. That the truth of the matter remains that the late Ramon Bocago was in possession of the said fishpond as early as 1967 when it was merely a swampy area and was not yet converted into a fishpond. In fact, it was Ramon Bocago, with the assistance of some of his sons, who personally introduced improvements in the area after the original applicant of the land, Mr. Anselmo Delantar, transferred his rights to the deceased Ramon Bocago. And after the death of Ramon Bocago in 1984, it was his heirs who continued the occupation, possession and development of the fishpond.

Issue: whether petitioner's complaint should be deemed barred by laches.

Held:

The Court cannot agree with the appellate court that the principle of laches is applicable in this case.

The established rule, as reiterated in Heirs of Tomas Dolleton vs. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., is that “the elements of laches must be proven positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature, a fact that cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings x x x.”7 Evidence is of utmost importance in establishing the existence of laches because, as stated in Department of Education, Division of Albay vs. Oñate, 'there is “no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances.” x x x Verily, the application of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court as its application is controlled by equitable considerations.

In this case, respondents (defendants-appellants below) did not present any evidence in support of their defense, as they failed to take advantage of all the opportunities they had to do so. The Court stressed in Heirs of Anacleto B. Nieto vs. Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan, that:

laches is not concerned only with the mere lapse of time. The following elements must be present in order to constitute laches:

(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 for which the complaint seeks a remedy;

(2) delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice, of the defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a 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.

In this case, there is no evidence on record to prove the concurrence of all the aforementioned elements of laches. The first element may indeed be established by the admissions of both parties in the Complaint and Answer – i.e., that petitioner is the registered owner of the subject property, but respondents had been occupying it for some time and refuse to vacate the same – but the crucial circumstances of delay in asserting petitioner's right, lack of knowledge on the part of defendant that complainant would assert his right, and the injury or prejudice that defendant would suffer if the suit is not held to be barred, have not been proven. Therefore, in the absence of positive proof, it is impossible to determine if petitioner is guilty of laches.

At this juncture, it is best to emphasize the Court's ruling in Labrador vs. Per/as, to wit:

as a registered owner, petitioner has a right to eject any person illegally occupying his property. This right is imprescriptible and can never be banned by laches. In Bishop v. Court of Appeals, we held, thus: As registered owners of the lots in question, the private respondents have a right to eject any person illegally occupying their property. This right is imprescriptible. Even if it be supposed that they were aware of the petitioners' occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any time as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all. This right is never barred by laches.

Social justice and equity cannot be used to justify the court's grant of property to one at the expense of another who may have a better right thereto under the law. These principles are not intended to favor the underprivileged while purposely denying another of his right under the law.

To rule that herein petitioner is guilty of laches even in the absence of evidence to that effect would truly run afoul of the principle of justice and equity.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition is GRANTED.