Barred by inaction

The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights either by negligence, folly or inattention. This is illustrated in this case of Olivia.

On January 4, 1966, Olivia sold a house and the parcel of agricultural land on which it stands containing an area of 16, 542 sq. m. to Mario for a total consideration of P 3, 500.00. At the time of the sale, Olivia had no title yet on the property as it was still in the name of Celia who had a pending application for free patent and who agreed to sell the property to her. Mario initially paid Olivia P 600.00 and was allowed to occupy the house together with his wife Virginia on the promise that he would pay the balance upon receipt of his money from Manila.

On April 27, 1966, Olivia formally acquired the property from Celia and pursued the free patent application which was subsequently granted on August 16, 1974.

Meantime Mario was not able to make good on his promise to pay the purchase price in full because the money he was expecting from Manila never materialized. After May 13, 1966 when his payment reached only P2,250.00, he failed to pay any installment anymore. Olivia never demanded payment until Mario died in 1978. His wife Virginia continued staying in the property but Olivia apparently allowed her as she did not make any verbal demand. Virginia even introduced a lot of improvements on the house and lot amounting to about P80,000.

On May 5, 1982, 16 years after the sale, Olivia filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, possession and damages against Virginia. Eventually the case of Olivia was dismissed by the RTC and the dismissal was affirmed by the CA. Both the RTC and the CA held that laches had already set in. The inaction of Olivia for almost 16, years had barred her action to recover the property from Virginia and the heirs of Mario said the RTC and the CA.

Were the courts correct?

Yes.

When Mario failed to make further installments after May 13, 1966, Olivia already had the right to compel payment or to ask for rescission of the contract of sale, which though oral, is valid and enforceable, since she had accepted payments under the said contract. In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him or her. But from the moment one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins (Article 1169, Civil Code).

In this case, Olivia complied with her obligation to deliver the property in 1966. Nonetheless she failed to sue for collection or rescission of the contract until May 5, 1982 or for a total of 16 years. Meanwhile, Virginia had spent considerable sum in renovating the house and introducing improvements on the premises. Olivia’s inaction for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time had barred her from recovering the property because of laches. Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable period, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. It does not concern itself with the character of the defendant’s (Virginia) title but only with the issue of whether or not the plaintiff( Olivia) – by reason of long inaction or inexcusable neglect – should be barred entirely from asserting the claim because to allow such action would be inequitable and unjust to the defendant. Even a registered owner of property may be barred from recovering possession of the property by virtue of laches.

But all is not lost for Olivia. By Virginia’s own admission, a balance of P1,250 of the total unpaid price remains unpaid. Reason and fairness demand that Olivia be allowed to collect the sum. It is basic in law that no one shall unjustly enrich oneself at the expense of another. So Virginia should pay Olivia P 1,250.00 with 6 percent interest from May 5,1982 until finality of the judgment. And the sum so awarded shall likewise bear interest of 12 percent from finality until full satisfaction.( Soliva etc. vs. Estae of Villalba etc. G.R. 154017, December 8, 2003).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]