#6 GOLLOY v CA
GR NO. L-47491
MAY 4, 1989
By: GUZMAN
Topic: LACHES
Petitioners: GALICANO GOLLOY
Respondents: HON. JOSE VALDEZ, JR., CONSOLACION VALDEZ, LOURDES
VALDEZ, SOLEDAD VALDEZ, AND BENNY MADRIAGA
Ponente: PARAS, J.
RECIT-READY: Case is a petition from the decision of CA on the disputed land of
the petitioner which ruled against it. Petitioner here, is the owner of a land for more
than 20 years. While the Southwest portion of the land, was bounded by the land of
the private respondent. The priv. respondent decided to subdivide the land, however,
in the course of subdivision, the PR placed 2 monuments inside the southwest
ISSUE
portion of petitioner’s land. Thus, petitioner filed an action to quiet title. The PR,
alleged that they never encroached the said land. In the pre-trial, they agreed that
the disputed land will be resolved through surveying the respective lots. However,
HELD/RATIO
on the surveyors’ report, it was said that the PR’s land prevails over petitioner’s land.
CFI, ruled in favor of the PR in accordance to the surveyors’ report. CA affirmed it.
SC reversed the decision. The Court said, if ever, they have any right on the disputed
land, they will be guilty of laches.
DOCTRINE: Failure to assert claims and ownership for 32 years, by virtue of the
equitable principle of laches will apply.
FACTS
 The case is a petition for review on certiorari on the decision of CA affirming
the judgment of CFI.
 Petitioner for more than 20 yrs, has been registered owner and in possession
of a 41,545 sqm parcel of land. (Covered by TCT No. 45764)
 Southwest portion of the above land, is bounded by the land of the private
respondent.
o Priv. respondent subdivided their land.
o In the course of the subdivision, private respondents caused to be
placed 2 monuments inside the Southwest portion of petitioner’s
land.
 Petitioner now filed with the CFI, an action to quiet title.
 Priv. respondent, filed motion to dismiss with counterclaim.
o They alleged that they never encroached upon the landholding of
petitioner.
o Nothing has been placed on his land which could create any cloud.
o The truth of the matter was that they merely subdivided their own
land according to their title.
o Therefore, there was nothing for petitioner to quiet or remove cloud
on his title.
 In the pre-trial, the parties had an agreement, that the disputed land will be
resolved through surveying the respective lots and, hence, to relocate the
disputed area with the end in view of determining the true and correct
boundaries of their parcels.
 Then, CFI ordered the Director of Lands to appoint an impartial public
surveyor.
o In the submitted report, it was stated that there were overlappings
on the boundaries of the two lands.
o And that overlappings are due to the defect in the survey on
petitioner’s land since it did not duly conform with the previously
approved survey.
o Hence, the private respondents’ land, prevails over petitioner’s
land, since the former was surveyed and titled ahead.
 CFI: the court renders judgment in accordance with the surveyor’s report,
thus, favoring to the private respondent.
o CA: affirmed the decision of the CFI.
 Who between the two title holders is entitled to the land in dispute?
 The petitioner is entitled to the disputed land. The Court reversed and set
aside the decision of CA. Private respondents to cause the segregation of the
disputed portion presently oocupied by the petitioner and reconvey the same
to the latter and after segregation to order the RoD to issue a new certificate
of title covering said portion in favor of the petitioner.
 The said lands, having been surveyed and thereafter registered, it follows that
monuments were placed therein to indicate their respective boundaries. It is
hardly persuasive that private respondents' predecessor, Dominga Balanga,
believing that she has a rightful claim to the overlapped portions, did not make
any move to question the placement of the monuments.
o She could have easily objected to the placement and pointed out
that the placement of the monuments excluded the overlapped
portions from her property. However, no such objection was made.
o These facts could only be construed to mean that private
respondents' predecessor, Dominga Balanga, never believed that
she has a right and legal claim to the overlapped portion. There
appears to be no evidence to support claims of repeated demands
against petitioner to refrain from cultivating the contested portion,
much less an action filed in court to enforce such demands.
 Besides, considering that petitioner and his predecessor or predecessors
have been in continuous possession in the concept of an owner, for almost
fifty (50) years (from August 15, 1919, when the property was registered, up
to February, 1966, when the private respondents caused the placement of
two (2) monuments inside his land), the latter if they have any right at all to
the overlapped portion, are guilty of laches.
 In the case of Caragay-Layno v CA:
o "Of significance is the fact, as disclosed by the evidence, that for
twenty (20) years from the date of registration of title in 1947 up to
1967 when this suit for recovery of possession was instituted,
neither the deceased DE VERA up to the time of his death in 1951,
nor his successors-in-interest, had taken steps to possess or lay
adverse claim to the disputed portion. They may, therefore be said
to be guilty of laches as would effectively derail their cause of
action. Administrator ESTRADA took interest in recovering the said
portion only when he noticed the discrepancy in areas in the
Inventory of Property and in the title."