Friday, May 02, 2008 SC rejects bid of 17 people's heirs at Lahug airport
THE Supreme Court has dismissed the claims of the heirs of 17 people who contended they own four titled lots in Barangay Lahug, Cebu City that are now registered in the name of Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA).
In Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santia-go's ruling for the Third Division, the High Tribunal questioned why the people who claimed to be the real landowners took so long to file their claims.
"Respondents' inaction for a period of 38 years to vindicate their alleged rights had converted their claim into a stale demand," the ruling read.
"The negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it had either abandoned it or declined to assert it," it said.
The heirs of the 17 claimants, all represented by a certain Anecito Invento, filed a recovery suit against several defendants last July 6, 1999.
They sought the nullity of several titles, four of which are registered under the name of the MCIAA and the Republic of the Philippines.
"Such neglect to assert a right taken in conjunction with the lapse of time more or less great, and other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party, operates as a bar in a court of equity," Santiago further said in her ruling.
The claimants alleged that the properties were owned by their forebear, Ysabel Limbaga, but the original titles were lost during the Second World War.
They then claimed that the mother of four of the defendants-Ricardo Inocian, Emilia Bacalla, Olympia Esteves and Restituta Montana-pretended to be Isabel Limbaga and fraudulently succeeded in reconstituting the titles under her name.
The properties were then sold to the other defendants, including the Civil Aeronautics Administration, which obtained the lots through expropriation in December 29, 1961. The CAA was the forerunner of the MCIAA.
The 8th branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City dismissed the complaint in 2001.
It approved the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. In the ruling, the RTC said the complainants had no cause of action, and that the action was barred by prescription and laches.
The complaining heirs filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. They then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals who reversed the RTC's approval of the motion to dismiss and remanding the case back to it for full-blown trial.
A motion for reconsideration was filed but it was denied, resulting in the elevation of the case to the High Court.
In the ruling, Justice Santiago upheld the findings of the RTC that the complainants no longer have any claim over the property, taking note of when the alleged fraudulent re-titling of the property was made, when it was found out, and when the first case before the RTC was filed.
"Even assuming that respondents have a right to the subject properties being the heirs of the alleged real owner Ysabel Limbaga, they still do not have a cause of action against the petitioner because such right has been foreclosed by prescription, if not by laches," she said.
"Respondents failed to take the necessary steps within a reasonable period to recover the properties from the parties who caused the alleged fraudulent reconstitution of titles," she added. (KNR)
