Victoriano v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ladislawa A. Masigla (Masigla) was in possession of Lot 897. Victoriano, owner of the adjoining Lot 898, filed criminal cases against Masigla's son, Domingo Masigla, for entering Lot 898 and prohibiting cultivation of Lot 897. In the process, Victoriano discovered Lot 897 was registered in the name of her grandfather, Cirilo Tamio. Victoriano obtained waivers from all heirs of Cirilo Tamio and secured a title (TCT No. 124731) in her name. Procedural History: The heirs of Crispin Arcilla, represented by Masigla, filed a complaint for reconveyance of Lot 897, claiming their father bought it from Cirilo Tamio and had been in possession since 1927. Masigla presented a "Sinumpaang Salaysay" from Cirilo Tamio's children authorizing their mother to sell Lot 897 to Crispin Arcilla, owner's duplicate title in Cirilo Tamio's name, real property tax receipts (earliest 1944), and tax declarations. Victoriano presented her TCT No. 124731, a tax declaration, and a receipt dated March 30, 1983. The trial court ruled in favor of Victoriano. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring Masigla and her co-heirs as owners. Victoriano's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Victoriano seeks review, alleging the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by deciding based on the Statute of Frauds and laches, principles not raised in the lower court, and by deciding questions of substance contrary to law and applicable decisions.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the principles of the Statute of Frauds and laches when these were not raised in the lower court. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's decision and declaring the heirs of Crispin Arcilla as owners of Lot No. 897.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 10, 1989, and its Resolution dated March 17, 1989, declaring the heirs of Crispin Arcilla, represented by Ladislawa A. Masigla, as the owners of Lot No. 897 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the application of the Statute of Frauds and laches: The Court clarified that the Statute of Frauds was mentioned by the Court of Appeals not as a new issue, but to explain the trial court's erroneous reliance on it. The Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts, not to those already performed, totally or partially. The evidence presented by Masigla, including possession since 1927, the "Sinumpaang Salaysay," improvements, expenses for resurvey, tax declarations in her father's name, and religious payment of taxes, demonstrated performance of the contract of sale. The Court also affirmed the application of laches, defining it as neglect or omission to assert a right coupled with lapse of time and prejudice to an adverse party. Victoriano's inaction for over 50 years, despite Masigla's continuous possession since 1927, barred her claim to recover possession, even though titled lands cannot be acquired by prescription. The Court emphasized that while prescription does not apply to registered land, the original owner's heir may lose the right to recover possession due to laches. On the ownership of Lot No. 897: The Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision reversing the trial court. The trial court's ruling was based solely on the absence of a deed of sale, overlooking the principle that the Statute of Frauds does not apply to consummated contracts. The evidence presented by Masigla, particularly the long-standing possession since 1927 and the "Sinumpaang Salaysay," sufficiently established the consummated sale between Cirilo Tamio and Crispin Arcilla. The heirs of Cirilo Tamio never contested Masigla's possession, negating any claim that a sale did not occur. Consequently, the Court found that Masigla and her co-heirs were the true owners of Lot No. 897.
Main Doctrine
The Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts, not to contracts either totally or partially performed. Performance of the contract, whether total or partial, takes it out of the operation of the statute. Furthermore, inaction for more than fifty years may bar a claim to recover possession of property on the ground of laches, even if title cannot be acquired by prescription.