de Castro v. Tan

G.R. No. L-31956 April 30, 1984 on July 15, 1968.
on July 15, 1968. What the Court said in the cited Sarsosa case
applies with equal force to the petitioner.têñ.£îhqwâ£
FILOMENA GERONA DE CASTRO, petitioner,
vs. ... it is likewise inescapable that petitioner Epifania had slept on her
JOAQUIN TENG QUEEN TAN, TAN TENG BIO, DOLORES TAN, rights for 26 years from 1936 to 1962. By her long inaction of
ROSARIO TAN HUA ING, and TO O. HIAP, respondents. inexcusable neglect, she should be held barred from asserting her
claim to the litigated property (Sotto vs. Teves, 86 SCRA 157
[1978]).têñ.£îhqwâ£
Pascual G. Mier for petitioner.
Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an

Eddie Tamondong for respondent Joaquin Teng Queen Tan. unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by
exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it
Carlos Buenviaje for respondent Tan Teng Bio. is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned it or declined to assert it. (Tijam, et al. vs.
Arnulfo L. Perete for respondent Ong Shi (To O. Hiap). Sibonghanoy, et al., No. L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29, 35).
(cited in Sotto vs. Teves, 86 SCRA 154 [1978]).
PLANA, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1 Respondent, therefore, must be declared to be the rightful owner of

the property. (p. 553.)
Review on certiorari of the order of the former Court of First
Instance of Sorsogon dismissing petitioner's action for annulment of WHEREFORE, the appealed order is affirmed. Costs against
contract with damages. petitioner.
In 1938, petitioner Filomena Gerona de Castro sold a 1,258 sq. m. SO ORDERED.1äwphï1.ñët

residential lot in Bulan, Sorsogon to Tan Tai, a Chinese. In 1956,
Tan Tai died leaving herein respondents — his widow, To O. Hiap,
and children Joaquin Teng Queen Tan, Tan Teng Bio, Dolores Tan
and Rosario Tan Hua Ing.
Before the death of Tan Tai or on August 11, 1956, one of his sons,
Joaquin, became a naturalized Filipino. Six years after Tan Tai's
death, or on November 18, 1962, his heirs executed an extra-
judicial settlement of estate with sale, whereby the disputed lot in its
entirety was alloted to Joaquin.
On July 15, 1968, petitioner commenced suit against the heirs of

Tan Tai for annulment of the sale for alleged violation of the 1935
Constitution prohibiting the sale of land to aliens.
Except for respondent Tan Teng Bio who filed an answer to the
complaint, respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds of (a) lack of cause of action, the plaintiff being in pari
delicto with the vendee, and the land being already owned by a
Philippine citizen; (b) laches; and (c) acquisitive prescription.
Over the opposition of petitioner, the court a quo dismissed the

complaint, sustaining the first two grounds invoked by the movants.
It is this order of dismissal that is now the subject of this review.
The assailed order must be sustained.
Independently of the doctrine of pari delicto, the petitioner cannot

have the sale annulled and recover the lot she herself has sold.
While the vendee was an alien at the time of the sale, the land has
since become the property, of respondent Joaquin Teng, a
naturalized Philippine citizen, who is constitutionally qualified to
own land.têñ.£îhqwâ£
... The litigated property is now in the hands of a naturalized

Filipino. It is no longer owned by a disqualified vendee.
Respondent, as a naturalized citizen, was constitutionally qualified
to own the subject property. There would be no more public policy
to be served in allowing petitioner Epifania to recover the land as it
is already in the hands of a qualified person. Applying by analogy
the ruling of this Court in Vasquez vs. Giap and Li Seng Giap &
Sons:têñ.£îhqwâ£
... if the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also
urban lands, as construed by this Court in the Krivenko case, is to
preserve the nation's lands for future generations of Filipinos, that
aim or purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by making
lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino
citizens by naturalization. (Sarsosa Vda. de Barsobia vs. Cuenco,
113 SCRA 547, at 553.)a
Laches also militates against petitioner's cause. She sold the

disputed lot in 1938. She instituted the action to annul the sale only

de Castro v. Tan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Castro v. Tan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Castro v. Tan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-31956 April 30, 1984 on July 15, 1968.

Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an

PLANA, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1 Respondent, therefore, must be declared to be the rightful owner of

In 1938, petitioner Filomena Gerona de Castro sold a 1,258 sq. m. SO ORDERED.1äwphï1.ñët

On July 15, 1968, petitioner commenced suit against the heirs of

Over the opposition of petitioner, the court a quo dismissed the

The assailed order must be sustained.

Independently of the doctrine of pari delicto, the petitioner cannot

... The litigated property is now in the hands of a naturalized

Laches also militates against petitioner's cause. She sold the

You might also like