The case involved 172 hectares of tenanted agricultural land devoted to the planting of palay yielding between 132 to 200 cavans per hectare per year. It was owned by Don Manolo and administered by his son Paco after his death.
In 1972, the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) bulldozed about 10 hectares of the land to build two irrigation canals. Although the canals occupied only a portion of the 10 hectares the entire area became prone to flooding two months out of every year. NIA completed the canals without instituting expropriation proceedings or indemnifying the landowner. So Paco sought compensation for the land affected by the canals. He even went to NIA office in Manila to submit various documents required for his claims.
In 1980, NIA belatedly offered to buy the 10 hectare land used as canals. Thereafter NIA and Paco even executed Deeds of Sale covering a total of 22,073 square meters of the land. These Deeds of Sale were however never implemented and Paco never received any consideration pursuant to the Deeds.
On August 20, 1993 Paco filed an action for damages and just compensation against NIA or in the alternative to order NIA to vacate and surrender the land to him. NIA however countered that Paco’s failure to pursue the implementation of the Deeds of Sale amounted to laches. It said that Paco’s complaint should be dismissed on the ground that too much time had passed before Paco pursued his claim. Paco slept on his rights so laches now bars his action, according to NIA. Was NIA correct?
NO. Laches is principally a doctrine of equity. It is applied to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation or injustice. The principle of laches finds no application in this case. There is nothing inequitable in giving due course to Paco’s claim for compensation. Both equity and law direct that a property owner should be compensated if his property is taken for public use.
The 13-year interval between the execution of the deeds of sale and the filing of the complaint in 1993 does not bar Paco’s claim for compensation. Where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner’s action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe (NPC vs. Campos, Jr. 405 SCRA 194). Even if the property owners are silent for 26 or 30 years before finally bringing their claims to the attention of the authorities compensation may still be allowed (Ansaldo vs. Tantuico, Jr., 188 SCRA 300; Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360).
While Paco failed to pursue his claim under the 1980 deeds, NIA was equally delinquent when it failed to perform its obligation under the deeds. NIA stalled and prolonged negotiations with Paco. Eight years passed before it offered to buy the area occupied by the canals. More than three decades later, Paco has yet to receive an iota of compensation from NIA. In the meantime NIA has been charging Paco and the other farmers in the area irrigation fees. As the expropriating agency in this case it should have instituted the proceedings necessary to acquire the private property it took for public purpose and to compensate the property owners. Section 2[e] of RA 3601 as amended by PD 552 expressly states that NIA should exercise the right of eminent domain in the manner provided by law for the institution of expropriation proceedings. It does not authorize NIA to simply appropriate part of the property without instituting such proceedings or compensating the property owner (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 147245, March 31, 2005. 454 SCRA 516)