FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 103959. August 21, 1997]

SPOUSES REGALADO SANTIAGO a ! ROSITA PALA"#A", $OSE%INA AR&EGA, petitioners, vs. T'E 'ON. &OURT O% APPEALS( T'E 'ON. &A)ILO &. )ONTESA, $R., P*+s,!, g $u!g+ o- t.+ RT& o)a/o/os, "u/a0a , "*a 0. 19, a ! 1UIRI&O AR&EGA, respondents. DE&ISION
'ER)OSISI)A, $R., J.2

Assailed in this petition for review under Rule 45 is the November ! "##" De$ision of respondent %ourt of Appeals in %A&'(R( %V No( )5*+#( It affirmed in toto the ,ud-ment of .ran$h "#! Re-ional Trial %ourt of /alolos! .ula$an! in %ivil %ase No( 40*&/( The a$tion therein sou-ht to de$lare null and void the 12asulatan n- .ilihan- Tulu3an n- 4upa5 e6e$uted on 7ul3 " ! "#0" b3 the late 8aula Ar$e-a! sister of private respondent! in favor of herein petitioners over a par$el of land $onsistin- of #)0 s9uare meters! situated in .aran-a3 Tabin- Ilo-! /arilao! .ula$an( 8aula Ar$e-a was the re-istered owner of that $ertain par$el of land $overed b3 Transfer %ertifi$ate of Title No( T&""55"*( :er residential house stood there until "#0* when it was destro3ed b3 a stron- t3phoon( On De$ember #! "#0*! 8aula Ar$e-a e6e$uted what purported to be a !++! o- 0o !,t,o a/ sa/+ over the land in favor of 7osefina Ar$e-a and the spouses Re-alado Santia-o and Rosita 8alab3ab! the petitioners herein! for and in 0o s,!+*at,o o- P20,000.00. The vendees were supposed to pa3 80!***(** as downpa3ment( It was e6pressl3 provided that the vendor would e6e$ute and deliver to the vendees an absolute deed of sale upon full pa3ment b3 the vendees of the unpaid balan$e of the pur$hase pri$e of 8";!***(**( Subse9uentl3! on 7ul3 " ! "#0"! supposedl3 upon pa3ment of the remaininbalan$e! 8aula Ar$e-a e6e$uted a deed of absolute sale of the same par$el of land in favor of petitioners( Thereupon! on 7ul3 )*! "#0"! T%T No( T&""55"*! in

the name of 8aula Ar$e-a! was $an$elled and a new title! T%T No( T&"4 # # was issued in the name of petitioners( On A3*,/ 10, 1945, Pau/a A*0+ga !,+! s, g/+ a ! 5,t.out ,ssu+ ! leavinas .+,*s her two 6*ot.+*s! Nar$iso Ar$e-a<"= a ! 3*,7at+ *+s3o !+ t 1u,*,0o A*0+ga. I 0,!+ ta//8! before 8aula Ar$e-a died! a .ous+ of four bedrooms with a total floor area of ))5 s9uare meters 5as 6u,/t o7+* t.+ 3a*0+/ o- /a ! in 9uestion( Si-nifi$antl3! the 9ast+*:s 6+!*oo9, 5,t. to,/+t a ! 6at., 5as o00u3,+! 68 Pau/a A*0+ga u t,/ .+* !+at. despite the e6e$ution of the alle-ed deed of absolute sale( The t.*++ ot.+* 6+!*oo9s! smaller than the master>s bedroom! were o00u3,+! 68 t.+ 3+t,t,o +*s who were the su33os+! 7+ !++s , t.+ sa/+. 8rivate respondent ?uiri$o Ar$e-a! as heir of his de$eased sister! filed on O$tober )4! "# 5 %ivil %ase No( 40*&/ before the RT% of /alolos! .ula$an! see@in- to de$lare null and void the deed of sale e6e$uted b3 his sister durinher lifetime in favor of the petitioners on the -round that sa,! !++! 5as -,0t,t,ous sin$e the purported $onsideration therefor of 8)*!***(** was not a$tuall3 paid b3 the vendees to his sister( Answerin- the $omplaint 6+-o*+ t.+ RT&, 3+t,t,o +* s3ous+s a7+**+! that private respondent>s $ause of a0t,o 5as a/*+a!8 6a**+! 68 t.+ statut+ o/,9,tat,o s $onsiderin- that t.+ !,s3ut+! !++! o- a6so/ut+ sa/+ 5as +;+0ut+! , t.+,* -a7o* o $u/8 14, 1971 ! b3 whi$h T%T No( "4 # # was issued on 7ul3 )*! "#0"! while private respondent>s 0o93/a, t 5as -,/+! , 0ou*t o /8 o O0to6+* 2<, 1945 or more than fourteen A"4B 3ears from the time the $ause of a$tion a$$rued( P+t,t,o +*s also !+ 8 that the sa/+ was -,0t,t,ous. The3 maintain that the 3u*0.as+ 3*,0+ 5as a0tua//8 3a,! to 8aula Ar$e-a and that said amount was spent b3 the de$eased in the $onstru$tion of her three&door apartment on the par$el of land in 9uestion( 7osefina Ar$e-a! the other petitioner! was de$lared in default for failure to file her answer within the re-lementar3 period( After trial! the RT& *+ !+*+! =u!g9+ t , -a7o* o- 3*,7at+ *+s3o !+ t

1u,*,0o A*0+ga, viz.:

"(a) Declaring as null and void and without legal force and effect the 'Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa' dated July !" #$ e%ecuted &y the deceased 'aula (rcega covering a parcel of land e)&raced under T*T No+ T, -- . in favor of the defendants/

(&) Declaring T*T No+ T, 0!#!# issued and registered in the na)es of defendants Josefina (rcega and spouses 1egalado 2antiago and 1osita 'ala&ya& as null and void/ (c) 3rdering the reconveyance of the property including all i)prove)ents thereon covered &y T*T No+ T, -- ." now T*T No+ T, 0!#!#" to the plaintiff" su&4ect to real estate )ortgage with the 2ocial 2ecurity 2yste)/ and (d) To pay 4ointly and severally the a)ount of ' ."...+.. as attorney's fees+ 3n the counterclai)" the sa)e is here&y dis)issed for lac5 of legal and6or factual &asis (p+ 7" decision" pp+ 8#-,9.." rec+)+":8; In rulin- for private respondent! the trial $ourt! as affirmed in toto b3 the publi$ respondent %ourt of Appeals! found thatC "3n the &asis of the evidence adduced" it appears that plaintiff <uirico (rcega and his &rother Narciso (rcega are the only surviving heirs of the deceased 'aula (rcega who on (pril ." #!- died single and without issue+ 2o)eti)e in #$." a strong typhoon destroyed the house of 'aula (rcega and the latter together with the defendants decided to construct a new house+ All the defendants:9; being members of the SSS, Paula deemed it wise to lend her title to them for purposes of loan with the SSS. 2he e%ecuted a deed of sale to effect the transfer of the property in the na)e of the defendants and thereafter the latter )ortgaged the sa)e for '9."...+.. &ut the a)ount actually released was only '8-"...+..+ 'aula (rcega spent the initial a)ount of '9."...+.. out of her savings for the construction of the house so)eti)e in #$ and after the sa)e and the proceeds of the loan were e%hausted" the sa)e was not as yet co)pleted+ 'aula (rcega and her &rothers sold the property which they inherited for '0-"...+.. and the sa)e all went to the additional construction of the house" however" the said a)ount is not sufficient+ Thereafter" 'aula (rcega and her &rothers sold another property which they inherited for '!.-"#-.+.. and one,third ( 69) thereof went to 'aula (rcega which she spent a portion of which for the finishing touches of the house+ The house as finally finished in #!9 is worth )ore than ' .."...+.. with a floor area of 88- s=uare )eters consisting of four &edroo)s + A big master's bedroom complete with a bath and toilet was occupied by Paula Arcega up to the time of her death on April 10, 198 and the other three smaller bedrooms are occupied by spouses, defendants !egalado Santiago and !osita Palabyab, and "osefina Arcega. (fter the death of 'aula (rcega defendant Josefina (rcega and Narciso (rcega constructed their own house at &ac5 portion of the lot in =uestion+ #here is clear indication that the deed of sale, which is unconscionably low for 9$% s&uare meters in fa'or of the defendants sometime on "uly 18, 19%1 who are all members of SSS, is merely designed as an accommodation for purposes of loan with the SSS. 'aula (rcega cogni>ant of the shortage of funds in her possession in the a)ount of '9."...+.." dee)ed it wise to aug)ent her funds for construction purposes &y way of a )ortgage with the 222 which only defendants could possi&ly effect they &eing

)e)&ers of the 222+ Since the SSS re&uires the collateral to be in the name of the mortgagors, Paula Arcega e(ecuted a simulated deed of sale )*asulatan ng +ilihang #uluyan ng ,upa- for '8."...+.. dated "uly 18, 19%1 in fa'or of the defendants and the same was notari.ed by Atty. ,uis /u'in who emphatically claimed that no money was in'ol'ed in the transaction as the parties ha'e other agreement. The allegations of the defendants that the property was given to the) (Kaloo&) &y the deceased has no evidentiary value+ ?hile it is true that 1osita 'ala&ya& stayed with the deceased since childhood" the sa)e cannot &e said with respect to defendant Josefina (rcega" distant relative and a niece of the wife of Narciso (rcega" who stayed with deceased so)eti)e in #77 at the age of # years and already wor5ing as a saleslady in @anila+ Did the deceased indeed give defendant Josefina (rcega half of her property out of love and gratitudeA 2uch circu)stance appears illogical if not highly i)pro&a&le+ As a matter of fact defendant Josefina Arcega in her unguarded moment unwittingly told the truth that couple (Regalado Santiago and Rosita Palabyab) had indeed borrowed the title and then mortgaged the same with the SSS as shown in her direct testimony which reads: 'Atty Villanueva:
1> A> ?.8 !,! 8ou sa8 t.at t.+ .ous+ ,s o5 +! 68 s3ous+s Sa t,ago 6ut t.+ /ot ,s 6oug.t 68 8ou a ! Ros,ta@ Because at that time, the couple[<] borrowed the title and then mortgaged the property with the SSS. T.+*+ ,s o /8 o + t,t/+ 6ut 6ot. o- us o5 +! ,t. ATSN !t!. 19 O0t. :44, 3. 5BC[5]

O a33+a/, t.+ 3u6/,0 *+s3o !+ t &ou*t o- A33+a/s !,s9,ss+! the same! a--,*9, g , a// *+s3+0ts t.+ RT& =u!g9+ t. :en$e! this petition( The petition is unmeritorious( Veril3! this $ase is on all fours with Su ta8 v. &ou*t o- A33+a/s(<+= There! a $ertain Federi$o Sunta3 was the re-istered owner of a par$el of land in Sto( Nino! :a-ono3! .ula$an( A ri$e miller! Federi$o applied on September ;*! "#+* as a miller&$ontra$tor of the then National Ri$e and %orn %orporation ANARI%B! but his appli$ation was disapproved be$ause he was tied up with several unpaid loans( For purposes of $ir$umvention! he thou-ht of allowin- his nephew& law3er! Rafael Sunta3! to ma@e the appli$ation for him( To a$hieve this Ra-a+/

3*+3a*+! a ota*,D+! A6so/ut+ D++! o- Sa/+ 5.+*+68 %+!+*,0o, -o* a ! , 0o s,!+*at,o o- P20,000.00, 0o 7+8+! to Ra-a+/ sa,! 3a*0+/ o/a ! 5,t. a// ,ts +;,st, g st*u0tu*+s. Dpon the e6e$ution and re-istration of
said deed! %ertifi$ate of Title No( *&)*"5 in the name of Federi$o was $an$elled

and! in lieu thereof! T%T No( T&;+0"4 was issued in the name of Rafael( Sometime in the months of 7une to Au-ust! "#+#! <0= Federi$o re9uested Rafael to deliver ba$@ to him the owner>s dupli$ate of the transfer $ertifi$ate of title over the properties in 9uestion for he intended to use the propert3 as $ollateral in se$urin- a ban@ loan to finan$e the e6pansion of his ri$e mill( Ra-a+/, .o5+7+*, 5,t.out =ust 0aus+, *+-us+! to !+/,7+* t.+ t,t/+

, s,st, g t.at sa,! 3*o3+*t8 5as Ca6so/ut+/8 so/! a ! 0o 7+8+! [to .,9] ;;; -o* a 0o s,!+*at,o o- P20,000.00! 8hilippine $urren$3! and for
other valuable $onsideration(E ?+ t.+*+, *u/+! , -a7o* o- %+!+*,0o Su ta8 a ! -ou ! t.at t.+ !++! o- sa/+ , Eu+st,o 5as 9+*+/8 a a6so/ut+/8 s,9u/at+! 0o t*a0t -o* t.+ 3u*3os+ o- a00o99o!at,o a ! t.+*+-o*+ 7o,! ( In retrospe$t! we observed in that $aseC "0ndeed the most protuberant inde( of simulation is the complete absence of an attempt in any manner on the part of the late !afael to assert his rights of ownership o'er the land and rice mill in &uestion. (fter the sale" he should have entered the alnd and occupied the pre)ises thereof+ 1e did not e'en attempt to. 0f he stood as owner, he would ha'e collected rentals from 2ederico for the use and occupation of the land and its impro'ements. All that the late !afael had was a title in his name. 666 666 666

%%% The fact that, notwithstanding the title transfer, ederico remained in actual possession, culti!ation and occupation of the disputed lot from the time the deed of sale was e"ecuted until the present, is a circumstance which is unmista#ably added proof of the fictitiousness of the said transfer, the same being contrary to the principle of ownership$% :!; In the $ase before us! while petitioners were able to o$$up3 the propert3 in 9uestion! the3 were rele-ated to a small bedroom without bath and toilet! <#= while 8aula Ar$e-a remained virtuall3 in full possession of the $ompleted house and lot usin- the bi- master>s bedroom with bath and toilet up to the time of her death on April "*! "# 5( <"*= If! indeed! the transa$tion entered into b3 the petitioner>s and the late 8aula Ar$e-a on 7ul3 " ! "#0" was a veritable deed of absolute sale! as it was purported to be! then /s( Ar$e-a had no business whatsoever remainin- in the propert3 and! worse! to still o$$up3 the bi- master>s bedroom with all its amenities until her death on April "*! "# 5( Definitel3! an3 le-itimate vendee of real propert3 who paid for the propert3 with -ood mone3 wil not a$$ede to an arran-ement whereb3 the vendor $ontinues o$$up3in- the most favored room in the house while he or she! as new owner! endures the dis-ra$e and absurdit3 of havin- to sleep in a small bedroom without bath and toilet as if he or she is a -uest or a tenant in the house( In an3 $ase! ,3+t,t,o +*s *+a//8 stoo! as /+g,t,9at+ o5 +*s o- t.+ 3*o3+*t8, t.+8 5ou/!

.a7+ 0o//+0t+! *+ ta/s -*o9 Pau/a A*0+ga for the use and o$$upation of the master>s bedroom as s.+ 5ou/! t.+ 6+ a 9+*+ /+ss++ o- t.+ 3*o3+*t8 in 9uestion( :owever! not a sin-le pie$e of eviden$e was presented to show that this was the $ase( All told! the -a,/u*+ o- 3+t,t,o +*s to taF+ +;0/us,7+

3oss+ss,o o- t.+ 3*o3+*t8 a//+g+!/8 so/! to t.+9, o* , t.+ a/t+* at,7+, to 0o//+0t *+ ta/s -*o9 t.+ a//+g+! 7+ !++ Pau/a A*0+ga, ,s 0o t*a*8 to t.+ 3*, 0,3/+ o- o5 +*s.,3 a ! a 0/+a* 6a!g+ o- s,9u/at,o that renders the whole transa$tion void and without
for$e and effe$t! pursuant to Arti$le "4*# of the New %ivil %odeC

"The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
666 666 666

(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious

666 666 666(E

The $on$eded fa$t that sub,e$t deed of absolute sale e6e$uted b3 8aula Ar$e-a in favor of petitioners is a notariFed do$ument does not ,ustif3 the petitioners> desired $on$lusion that said sale is undoubtedl3 s true $onve3an$e to whi$h the parties thereto are irrevo$abl3 and undeniabl3 bound( To be $onsidered with -reat si-nifi$an$e is the fa$t that Att3( 4uis %uvin who notariFed the deed dis$laimed the truthfulness of the do$ument when he testified that ENO /ONGH IAS INVO4VGD IN T:G TRANSA%TION(E<""=Furthermore! thou-h the notariFation of the deed of sale in 9uestion vests in its favor the presumption of re-ularit3! it is ot t.+ , t+ t,o o* t.+ -u 0t,o o- t.+ ota*8 3u6/,0 to 7a/,!at+ a ! 9aF+ 6, !, g a , st*u9+ t never! in the first pla$e! intended to have an3 bindin- le-al effe$t upon the parties thereto( The , t+ t,o o- t.+ 3a*t,+s st,// ,s a ! a/5a8s 5,// 6+ t.+ 3*,9a*8 0o s,!+*at,o , !+t+*9, , g t.+ t*u+ atu*+ o- a 0o t*a0t. '+*+! the parties to the E2asulatan n- .ilihanTulu3an n- 4upa!E as shown b3 the eviden$e and a$$ompan3in- $ir$umstan$es! +7+* , t+ !+! to 0o 7+8 t.+ 3*o3+*t8 t.+*+to -*o9 o + 3a*t8 to t.+ ot.+* -o* 7a/ua6/+ 0o s,!+*at,o . Rather! the transa$tion was merely used to fa$ilitate a loan with the SSS with petitioners-mortgagors using the property in 9uestion! the title to whi$h the3 were able to re-ister in their names throu-h the simulated sale! as collateral. The fa$t that petitioners were able to se$ure a title in their names! T%T No( "4 # #! !,! ot operate to 7+st u3o 3+t,t,o +*s o5 +*s.,3 over 8aula Ar$e-a>s propert3( That a$t has never been re$o-niFed as a mode of a$9uirinownership( As a matter of fa$t! even the ori-inal re-istration of immovable

To**+ s s8st+9 !o+s ot 0*+at+ o* 7+st t,t/+. It o /8 0o -,*9s a ! *+0o*!s t,t/+ a/*+a!8 +;,st, g a ! 7+st+!. It does not prote$t a usurper from the
propert3 does not vest title thereto( <")= The true owner( It $annot be a shield for the $ommission of fraud( It does not permit one to enri$h himself at the e6pense of another( <";= Ihere one does not have an3 ri-htful $laim over a real propert3! the Torrens s3stem of re-istration $an $onfirm or re$ord nothin-( Petitioners! nevertheless! insist that both the trial court and the respondent court should have followed the Parole vidence !ule and prevented evidence, li"e the testimony of #otary Public, $tty. %uis &uvin, private respondent 'uirico $rcega, among others, which impugned the two notarized deeds of sale.

T.+ *u/+ o 3a*o/+ +7,!+ 0+ u !+* S+0t,o Eua/,-,+! 68 t.+ -o//o5, g +;0+3t,o s2
written agree)ent if he puts in issue in his pleading/ (a)

9, Ru/+ 130 ,s

Bowever" a party )ay present evidence to )odify" e%plain or add to the ter)s of the

(n intrinsic ambiguity" mista!e or im"erfection in the written agreement/

(&) The failure of the written agree)ent to e%press the true intent and agree)ent of the parties thereto/ (c) #he 'alidity of the written agreement3 or (d) The e%istence of other ter)s agreed to &y the parties or their successors in interest after the e%ecution of the written agree)ent+ The ter) Cagree)entD includes wills+E In this $ase! 3*,7at+ *+s3o !+ t 1u,*,0o A*0+ga was able to 3ut , ,ssu+ in his $omplaint before the Re-ional Trial %ourt the validit3 of the su6=+0t !++!s o- sa/+ for bein- a s,9u/at+! t*a sa0t,o C
7+ That in #$ " the defendants" who &y then were already e)ployed in private fir)s

and had &eco)e )e)&ers of the 2ocial 2ecurity 2yste) &y virtue of their respective e)ploy)ents" decided a)ong the)selves to &uild a new house on the property of '(FL( (1*GH( a&ove descri&ed and to &orrow )oney fro) the 2ocial 2ecurity 2yste) to finance the proposed construction+ $+ That in order to secure the loan fro) the 2ocial 2ecurity 2yste) it was necessary that the lot on which the proposed house would &e erected should be registered and titled in the names of the defendants#

666 666

666

#+ #hat in conformity with the abo'e plans and schemes of the defendants, they made PA&'A AR()*A e"ecute and sign a fictitious, hence null and !oid +,AS&'ATA-* ./'/0A-* T&'&1A- -* '&PA2 on "uly 18, 19%1, before 4otary Public ,50S /5604, of +ulacan and entered in his register as 7oc. 4o. 8 $, Page 4o. 8, +oo9 4o. :0:, Series of 19%1, by which PA5,A A!/;<A purportedly con'yed)sic- in fa'or of the defendants "=S;204A A!/;<A and the spouses !;<A,A7= SA4#0A<= and !=S0#A PA,A+>A+, the whole parcel of land abo'e described for the sum of #?;4#> #1=5SA47 )P80,000.00-, as consideration which was not actually, then or thereafter paid either wholly or partially. A copy of said document is hereto attached as Anne( @+A and made integral part hereof. .+ That defendants pursuing their unlawful sche)e registered the said void and ine%istent IK(2FL(T(N NH BJLJB(NH TFLFK(N NH LF'(E with the office of the 1egister of Deeds of Bulacan" procured the cancellation of Transfer *ertificate of Title No+ -- ." in the na)e of '(FL( (1*GH( and the issuance of Transfer *ertificate of Title No+ 0!#!#" in their na)es" a %ero%ed copy of which is hereto attached as (nne% C*D and )ade integral part hereof+ + That still in furtherance of their un4ust and unlawful sche)es" defendants secured a loan from $ocial $ecurity $ystem in the amount of %&'('''#''( securing the pay)ent thereof with a )eal *state +ortgage on the above,described "ro"erty then already titled in their na)es as aforestated (pp+ 8,9" co)plaint" pp+ ,-" rec+)+E: 0; /oreover! the 3a*o/ +7,!+ 0+ *u/+ 9a8 6+ 5a,7+! 68 -a,/u*+ to , 7oF+ ,t ! as b3 failure to ob,e$t to the introdu$tion of parol eviden$e( And! where a part3 who is entitled to the benefit of the rule waives the benefit thereof 68 a//o5, g su0. +7,!+ 0+ to 6+ *+0+,7+! 5,t.out o6=+0t,o a ! 5,t.out a 8 +--o*t to .a7+ ,t st*,0F+ -*o9 t.+ 9, ut+s o* !,s*+ga*!+! 68 t.+ t*,a/ 0ou*t, he $annot! after the trial has $losed and the $ase has been de$ided a-ainst him! invo@e the rule in order to se$ure a reversal of the ,ud-ment b3 an appellate $ourt(<"5= :ere! the re$ords are devoid of an3 indi$ation that petitioners ever ob,e$ted to the admissibilit3 of parole eviden$e introdu$ed b3 private respondent in open $ourt( The $ourt $annot disre-ard eviden$e whi$h would ordinaril3 be in$ompetent under the rules but has been rendered admissible b3 the failure of part3 to ob,e$t thereto(<"+= 8etitioners have no one to blame but themselves in this re-ard( (inally, petitioners argue that private respondent)s complaint filed before the trial court on *ctober +,, -./0 is already barred by the statute of limitations and laches considering that the deed of absolute sale was e1ecuted in their favor by the deceased Paula $rcega on July +2, -.3-. 4ndeed, more than fourteen 5-,6 years had elapsed from the time his cause

of action accrued to the time that the complaint was filed. $rticles --,, and -7.- of the #ew &ivil &ode provide:
(1T+

00+ The following actions )ust &e &rought within ten years fro) the ti)e the right of action accruesL ( ) (8) (9) 5pon a written contract3 Fpon an o&ligation created &y law/ Fpon a 4udg)ent+E

(1T+ 9# + The action for annul)ent shall &e &rought within four years.

This period shall &eginL Jn cases of inti)idation" violence or undue influence" fro) the ti)e the defect of the consent ceases+ 0n cases of mista9e or fraud, from the time of the disco'ery of the same. (nd when the action refers to contracts entered into &y )inors or other incapacitated persons" fro) the ti)e the guardianship ceases+E This su69,ss,o ,s utt+*/8 5,t.out 9+*,t! the pertinent provision bein- Arti$le "4"* of the New %ivil %ode whi$h provides une9uivo$abl3 that 1<T=he a$tion or !+-+ s+ -o* t.+ !+0/a*at,o o- t.+ , +;,st+ 0+ o- a

0o t*a0t !o+s ot 3*+s0*,6+.G[17]

As for /a0.+s, its essen$e is the failure or ne-le$t! for an unreasonable and une6plained len-th of time to do that whi$h! b3 e6er$isin- due dili-en$e! $ould or should have been done earlierJ it is the ne-li-en$e or omission to assert a ri-ht within a reasonable time! warrantin- a presumption that the part3 entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or de$lined to assert it(<" = .ut there is! to be sure! no absolute rule as to what $onstitutes la$hes or staleness of demandJ ea$h $ase is to be determined a$$ordin- to its parti$ular $ir$umstan$es( The 9uestion of la$hes is addressed to the sound dis$retion of the $ourt! and sin$e la$hes is an e9uitable do$trine! its appli$ation is $ontrolled b3 e9uitable $onsiderations( It $annot be wor@ed to defeat ,usti$e or to perpetrate fraud and in,usti$e(<"#= In the $ase under $onsideration! it would not onl3 be impra$ti$al but 5+//> ,g. u =ust a ! 3at+ t/8 , +Eu,tous to a33/8 /a0.+s aga, st

3*,7at+ *+s3o !+ t a ! 7+st o5 +*s.,3 o7+* a 7a/ua6/+ 3,+0+ o- *+a/ 3*o3+*t8 , -a7o* o- 3+t,t,o +*s b3 virtue of an absolutel3 s,9u/at+! !++!
o- sa/+ +7+*! in the first pla$e! meant to $onve3 an3 ri-ht over the sub,e$t propert3( It is the better rule that $ourts! under the prin$iple of e9uit3! will not be -uided or bound stri$tl3 b3 the statute of limitations or the do$trine of la$hes when to do so! manifest wron- or in,usti$e would result( <)*=

?'ERE%ORE, premises $onsidered! the petition is hereb3 DGNIGD with $osts a-ainst petitioners(
SO ORDERED. Padilla, (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Kapunan, JJ(! $on$ur(