Heirs of Lacamen v Heirs of Laruan (65 SCRA 605)

Facts: Laruan executed a deed of sale in favor of Lacamen which was duly notarized. Immediately after the
sale, Laruan delivered the certificate of title to Lacamen. Thereupon, Lacamen entered in possession and
occupancy of the land, introduced improvements therein, without securing the corresponding certificate
of title. The document was also not approved by the Director of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes whose
approval is necessary in order for the Deed to be valid. This rule bounds the contracting parties
considering that they belong to the illiterate non-Christians. Later on, after the death of Laruan, his heirs
discovered that Laruan’s heirs were able to obtain a new owner’s certificate of title. Hence, they sued
Laruan’s heirs for reconveyance. The Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of the heirs of Laruan whose
decision was affirmed by the CA.

Issue: WON estoppel by laches applies.

Held: Laruan’s sale of the subject lot to Lacamen could have been valid were it not for the sole fact that it
lacked the approval of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes considering that there was impressed upon its
face full faith and credit after it was notarized. However, notwithstanding the invalidity of the sale, the fact
that when the Lacamens succeeded to the estate of their father, the Laruans kept silent, never claiming
that the lot is their own. Even granting that no prescription lies against their father’s record title, their
inaction for almost 30 years commands the imposition of laches. Hence, the Lacamens were declared as
the owners of the land.

The provisions of the 1917 Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu declaring null and void contracts or
agreements relating to real property made by any person with any non-Christian inhabitant of the
Department of Mindanao and Sulu, unless such contract shall bear the approval of the provincial governor
of the province wherein the contract was executed, or his representative duly authorized for such purpose
in writing endorsed upon it, were extended to the Mountain Province and the Province of Nueva Viscaya
by Act 2798, with the specific proviso that the approval of the land transaction shall be by the Director of
the bureau of Non-Christian Tribes. Similar provisions were incorporated in the Public Act, C.A. 141.
Illiterate Igorots, belonging to non-Christian Tribes of the Mountain Province are bound by said laws.

"Laches" has been defined as "such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse
of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity."
It is a delay in the assertion of a right "which works disadvantage to another" because of the "inequity
founded on some change in the condition or relations of the property of the parties." It is based on public
policy, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could
be a valid claim.

Laches is different from and applies independently of prescription. While prescription is concerned with
the fact of delay, laches is concerned with the effect of delay. Prescription is a matter of time; laches is
principally a question of inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded on
some change in the condition of the property or the relation of the parties. Prescription is statutory;
laches is not. Laches applies in equity, whereas prescription applies at law. Prescription is based on a fixed
time; laches is not.

While a person may not acquire title to the registered property through continuous adverse possession, in
derogation of the title of the original registered owner, the heir of the latter, however, may lose his right
to recover back the possession of such property and the title thereto, by reason of laches. Thus, where the
possession of nearly 30 years is in pursuance of sale between non-Christian inhabitants which sale
however did not bear the approval of the executive authority as required by law, but which the vendor
never questioned during his lifetime, the vendor’s laches extends to his heirs since they stand in privity
with him.

Notwithstanding the invalidity of the sale of realty between non-Christian inhabitants for lack of approval
by the executive authority as required by law, the vendee’s and his heirs shall have superior rights over the
vendor and his heirs and shall be deemed to have validly acquired the ownership of the litigated lot,
where it appears that the vendor suffered the vendee to enter, possess, and occupy the property in
concepto de dueño without demurer and molestation, and that the vendor’s heirs who succeeded to the
estate, likewise, kept silent, never claiming the lots as their own until almost 30 years later, when they took
advantage of the non-approval of the sale as their lever to deprive the vendee of the land, with a motive
that was "out and out greed." The quiescence and inaction of the vendor and his heirs commands the
imposition of laches against their adverse claim. Vigilantibus non dormientibus sequitas subvenit.