Sleeping in their rights

Rights of action and rights of ownership may be lost through lapse of time either by laches or prescription. This case explains the difference between laches and prescription.

This case involves a 7,275-square meter parcel of land situated in a Central Luzon province owned by spouses Andy and Annie with an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 8705 (subject land). Andy and Annie have three children, Dino, Tita and Mila.

When Dino got married about 50 years ago, his parents Andy and Annie donated to him three parcels of land, including the subject land and a carabao in celebration of his marriage to Tessie by executing a Donation propter nuptias (Inventario Matrimonio). In order to prove their acceptance of the donation, Dino and Tessie signed a receipt and gave it to their father Andy. Immediately thereafter, they occupied and took possession of the subject land as the owner thereof.

About 52 years later when Dino and his parents Andy and Annie were already dead, the children of Tita and Mila presented a Deed of Succession and Adjudication stating that the subject land was subdivided into three lots and adjudicated to them in equal shares using a reconstituted copy of the OCT 8705, which was allegedly lost.

This prompted the heirs of Dino to file a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Declaration of Nullity of Document and surrender of the Title. They claimed ownership of subject land by virtue of the donation executed by Andy and Annie when Dino got married. So the Deed of Adjudication is null and void. In fact, even the signature of Andy therein is a forgery as he was already dead when it was executed. Even the thumbmark of Dino appearing on the Deed was spurious, as he never appeared before a notary.

The heirs of Tita