Province of Cebu v. Spouses Galvez

 

Province of Cebu v. Spouses Galvez

G.R. No. 214115

February 15, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Petitioner and the City of Cebu entered into a compromise agreement which the Court of First Instance approved on July 15, 1974. The agreement provided for the return of the donated realties to petitioner, except those which were already utilized by the City of Cebu for parks, shrines and roads-right-of-way, with the proviso that petitioner alone would shoulder any liability in connection with the realties which were previously sold to third parties. As a result, the City of Cebu remitted to the petitioner the amount of PHP187,948.93, representing the deposits given by the buyers of the donated realties, including the payment of respondents. For failure of petitioner to execute the necessary deeds of sale relative to the portion of Lot No. 526-B and Lot No. 1072 (subject realties) in their favor, respondents filed an action for specific performance and damages 15 on July 25, 1994. In their Complaint, respondents averred that they were innocent purchasers for value of the subject realties, and that the award of the bid in their favor during the public auction was a valid and binding contract. According to them, they attempted to pay the balance of the purchase price, but their payments were refused by the City Treasurer of Cebu because of the pendency of Civil Case No. 238-BC; hence, they had to await the outcome of the case. Thenceforth, by virtue of the compromise agreement between them and the City of Cebu, petitioner was bound to comply with the contracts of sale which were already perfected before the advent of Civil Case No. 238-C. Respondents likewise stressed that on August 1, 1994, they paid the remaining balance of their purchase of the subject realties to petitioner, which was confirmed by then Governor Pablo P. Garcia in a letter dated July 12, 2001.  Contrarily, petitioner challenged the validity of respondents' purchase of the subject realties, asseverating that it was in violation of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of First Instance. In any event, even if the contracts of sale over the subject realties were perfected, petitioner argued that respondents' failure to pay the three remaining installments automatically rescinded the sale, as specifically provided for in the contract. Petitioner averred further that respondents' cause of action was already barred by estoppel and prescription as they allowed almost 29 years to elapse before filing a complaint for specific performance.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not respondents were guilty of laches.

 

HELD:

                No, respondents are not guilty of laches. Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that, which, by exercising diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is the 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. In the instant case, as found by the courts a quo, respondents had continuously and repeatedly communicated in writing their intent to obtain title from petitioner to no avail. Whence, petitioner's defense of laches has no leg to stand on.