[G.R. No. 128576. August 13, 2002.

] 1/5 share; Jacoba Radaza, 1/5 share; Ramona Radaza,

1/5 share; Vicente Radaza, 1/20 share; Felicito Radaza,
MARIANO A. VELEZ, SR. (deceased), ATTY. PURO M. 1/20 share; Rosario Radaza, 1/20 share; and Jose
VELEZ, ATTY. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, ENGR. Radaza, Jr., 1/20 share. chanro b1es vi rt ua1 1aw 1i bra ry

PLUTARCO M. VELEZ and SARAH VDA. DE VELEZ

(for herself and her children by the late HOMER M. On April 14, 1975, Respondents, the surviving children of
VELEZ, namely PATRICIA, HAYDEE, HOMER, JR., Ramona Radaza-Demetrio and Jose Radaza, Sr.,
RUBY, FE VAL and HANAH, all surnamed instituted a complaint for Partition of Real Estate with
VELEZ), Petitioners, v. REV. FRANCISCO DEMETRIO Damages against petitioners, the heirs of the late
(deceased), CELERINA DEMETRIO FIANZA, Mariano Velez, Sr., docketed as Civil Case No. 4686 of
TARCILO DEMETRIO, LEVITA FERNANDEZ the Court of First Instance of Cagayan de Oro City,
DEMETRIO JUAN (for herself and her children), Branch 17. They alleged that sometime in 1947, they
ANGELA, VALDEHUEZA RADAZA, FELECITO RADAZA discovered that the property had been claimed and
and JOSE RADAZA, JR., Respondents. fenced in by Mariano Velez, Sr., and that they were
denied entry thereto. Due to financial reasons, it took
DECISION them several years before instituting the complaint. In
the meantime, they tried earnestly to recover ownership
and possession of the land through extra-legal means. 2
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On the other hand, petitioners averred that the property
had been partitioned among the heirs of Felix Radaza
This is a petition for review of decision of the Court of and Estefania Abrogar; that Mariano Velez, Sr. purchased
Appeals dated March 22, 1996 in CA-G.R. CV No. 30381, the shares of Severo Radaza and Jacoba Radaza in 1936;
reversing and setting aside the decision of the then Court that on May 30, 1947, Filomeno sold his share as well as
of First Instance of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 17.chanrobles .com : virtual law lib rary
Ramona’s share to Mariano Velez, Sr.; that the share of
Jose was likewise sold to Mariano Velez, Sr. by his wife
The spouses Felix Radaza and Estefania Abrogar were the Ciriaca Bacarro Radaza; and that since his acquisition of
owners of a ten-hectare agricultural land situated in the property, Mariano Velez, Sr., by himself and through
Puntod, Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro City. Upon their his heirs, has been in open, notorious, public and
death, ownership of the land passed by intestate uninterrupted possession of the same in the concept of
succession to their surviving children namely — Ramona, owners, and have exercised fully the attributes of its
Severo, Filomeno and Jacoba, — and grandchildren by ownership. 3
their son, Jose, Sr. namely — Vicente, Felicito, Rosario
and Jose, Jr. On March 12, 1938, the land was registered After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment as
under Original Certificate of Title No. 7678 1 in the follows:
chanrob1es vi rt ua1 1aw 1i bra ry

names of Severo Radaza, 1/5 share; Filomeno Radaza,

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considerations,
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants Hence, the instant petition for review.
and against the plaintiffs and the Court hereby: chanrob 1es vi rtual 1aw lib rary

The issues raised by petitioners are: whether the shares

1. Orders the dismissal of the complaint filed by the of Ramona Radaza and Jose Radaza were sold to Mariano
plaintiffs; Velez, Sr. and whether respondents are guilty of laches.

2. Declares the defendants as the absolute owners of the As regards the first issue, the findings of facts by the trial
property in litigation; court conflict with those of the Court of Appeals. The trial
court was morally convinced that the shares of Ramona
3. Declares the plaintiffs never again to molest nor Radaza and Jose Radaza, Sr. were sold to Mariano Velez,
disturb the defendants in their lawful, peaceful and Sr. on two different transactions and occasions. On the
rightful ownership, possession and enjoyment of the other hand, the Court of Appeals held that the alleged
property in litigation; sale made by Ramona Radaza to Filomeno of her 1/5
share and the subsequent sale made by Filomeno to
4. On the counterclaim, orders the plaintiffs, jointly and Mariano Velez, Sr. of his share and that of Ramona’s and
severally, to pay the defendants the amount of the sale made by Ciriaca Radaza to Mariano Velez of the
P20,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as shares of the heirs of Jose Radaza, Sr., were of no force
attorney’s fee; and and effect 7 for there was no evidence presented in
support thereof. The testimonies offered by petitioners to
5. Orders the plaintiffs to pay the costs. establish the alleged transactions were pure hearsay.

SO ORDERED. 4 To prove the alleged sale of Ramona’s share to Filomeno,

petitioners capitalized on the affidavit and testimony of
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which Francisco, who stated that in the middle 1930s, Ramona
reversed and set aside the lower court’s decision, to wit: chanrob1e s sold her share to his father, Filomeno, who paid Ramona
three cows in consideration thereof; and that since then
virtua l 1aw lib rary

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby they had been in exclusive possession of the said
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one entered property up to the time the same was sold to Mariano
directing the partition of the property covered by OCT Velez, Sr. by his father. On the witness stand, Francisco
No. 7678 in the portion of 2/5 to the plaintiffs-appellants testified that he returned to the disputed land sometime
and 3/5 to the defendants-appellees. Costs against the in 1936 and that his father built a house inside the lot. 8
appellees. 5 However, the Court of Appeals ruled that it is improbable
that he witnessed or could have had personal knowledge
The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was of the alleged sale because he started residing on the
denied by the appellate court. 6 land in question from 1930 up to 1935 and that for three
years thereafter, or up to February 28, 1938, he was the alleged sale.
enlisted in the Philippine Constabulary at Camp Kethly in
Lanao. Such facts do not directly and convincingly Anent the second issue, the principle of laches finds no
establish the alleged sale of the portion of Ramona application in this case.
Radaza to Filomeno Radaza, hence, the same cannot be
logically inferred. Laches is the failure of or neglect for an unreasonable
and unexplained length of time to do that which by
As regards the shares of Jose Radaza, Sr.’s children exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
which were allegedly sold by their mother, the Court of earlier, or to assert a right within reasonable time,
Appeals found nothing in the record to indicate that warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto
Ciriaca was authorized by Vicente, Felicito, Rosario and has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. 10
Jose, Jr. to make the alleged sale to Mariano Velez, Sr.
Petitioners insist that Ciriaca sold her children’s shares Fundamentally, laches is an equitable doctrine, its
but the pertinent documents were lost during the war. To application is controlled by equitable considerations. 11
prove this alleged sale, petitioners again invoke Francisco Concomitantly, it is a better rule that courts, under the
Radaza’s statement that the wife and heirs of Jose principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by
Radaza, Sr. sold their respective shares to the spouses the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when
Mariano Velez, Sr. and Patricia Mercado. However, the to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result. 12
Court of Appeals observed that even Felicito, the son of
Ciriaca, had no knowledge of the sale. With more reason, Petitioners invoke laches against the respondents for
Francisco Radaza, who is a stranger to such alleged sale, their failure to protest their occupation of the subject
cannot have any basis in making this statement. land since 1947. They allege that respondents slept on
their rights because it took them twenty eight (28) years
Another piece of evidence petitioners offered to prove the before they instituted this case.
alleged sale was the testimony of Isabelo Tabian, a
former tenant of Ciriaca Radaza, who testified that The Court of Appeals held that laches could not have set
Ciriaca told him, "Beloy I am going to take the land from in because the specific act of repudiation of the co-
you because there is difficulty in coming over this place ownership was made only on March 27, 1974, when
and I am afraid I might get drown(ed). I might as well petitioners registered the affidavit of adverse claim
sell the land to Etoy (Mariano Velez, Sr)." Tabian further executed by Mariano Velez and had the same annotated
testified that he delivered the land to Ciriaca. Thereafter, on respondents’ title with respect to the 3/5 portion of
Sario Echem, a tenant of Mariano Velez, Sr., approached the land. It held that only then did the period of
him asking for help in plowing the land which he was prescription start to run. However, since this case was
formerly cultivating. 9 While the Court of Appeals did not filed on April 14, 1975 and only for a 3/5 portion thereof,
squarely rule on the weight of Tabian’s testimony, the then no prescription can be counted in favor of
same was likewise hearsay and cannot serve as proof of petitioners for the remaining 2/5. 13
 DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated
We agree with the Court of Appeals. March 22, 1996 in CA-G.R. CV No. 30381 is AFFIRMED.
1ibra ry
chanrob1e s virtua1 1aw

The land involved was registered under the Torrens SO ORDERED.

system in the name of respondents and their
predecessor-in-interest in 1938. The evidence shows that Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.
only 3/5 of the land was sold to Mariano Velez, Sr. and
the 2/5 thereof remains in the name of respondents. The
land being undivided, only the rights of the co-owners
were transferred, thereby making the buyer another co-
owner of the property. It is noteworthy that petitioners
did not transfer the title of the land in their name.
Instead, they merely annotated their claim over the 3/5
portion of the land. This leads to no other conclusion but
a tacit recognition that ownership over the 2/5 share of
the land does not belong to them. Article 494 of the Civil
Code provides that prescription does not run against a
co-owner "so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes
the co-ownership." chanrob1es vi rt ua1 1aw 1i bra ry

Moreover, laches may not prevail against specific

provision of law, since equity, which has been defined as
"justice outside legality" is applied in the absence of and
not against statutory law or rules of procedure. 14 Under
the Property Registration Decree, no title to registered
land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall
be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. 15 It
is well-settled that prescription and laches can not apply
to registered land covered by the Torrens system. 16
Applying the above principles, respondents being the
registered owner of the land can rest secure, without the
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting
in the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the possibility of
losing his land. 17

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is

G.R. No. 101041 November 13, 1991 After trial in Civil Case No. B-398, a decision was rendered in
favor of Naval who was declared the lawful owner and possessor
HON. JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, petitioner, of the disputed land. Carlos was ordered to vacate the land.
vs.
HON. JUDGE BERNARDO LL. SALAS and GEORGE Thereafter, respondent Carlos, through counsel, moved to
CARLOS, respondents. activate the archived criminal cases. Having declared Naval the
lawful owner and possessor of the contested land in Civil Case
G.R. No. 101296 November 13, 1991 No. B-398, Judge Villamor dismissed the criminal cases against
her and her co-accused.
HON. JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, petitioner,
vs. Judge Villamor likewise granted execution pending appeal of his
ANTONIO T. GUERRERO and HON. PEARY G. ALEONAR, decision in Civil Case No. B-398. This order was challenged by
Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 21, Region VII, Cebu Carlos in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, both without
City, respondents. success.

Ramon Ve Salazar for petitioner. Afterwards, Carlos filed an administrative case, A.M. No. RTJ-87-
105, against Judge Villamor, charging him with having issued
Antonio T. Guerrero for private respondent. illegal orders and an unjust decision in Civil Case No. B-398. On
November 21, 1988, this Court, in an En Banc resolution,
summarily dismissed the administrative case.
Henry R. Savellon for respondent.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the administrative case,
respondent Carlos filed a civil action for damages (Civil Case No.
CEB-6478) against Judge Villamor for knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment when he dismissed the five (5) criminal cases
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.: against Naval, et al.

In 1977, Civil Case No. B-398 (Gloria Naval vs. George Carlos) The summons in Civil Case No. CEB-6478 was served upon
for recovery of ownership of a parcel of coconut land was filed Judge Villamor on December 10, 1987. The next day (December
and subsequently raffled to the sala of the petitioner, Judge 11, 1987), instead of answering the complaint, Judge Villamor
Adriano Villamor. While the civil case was pending there, issued in Criminal Cases Nos. N-0989 to 0993 an order of direct
respondent Carlos filed Criminal Cases Nos. N-989, N-990, N- contempt against Carlos and his lawyer. Attorney Antonio T.
991, N-992 and N-993 for qualified theft against Gloria Naval and Guerrero, "for degrading the respect and dignity of the court
her helpers. The criminal cases were also assigned to the sala of through the use of derogatory and contemptous language before
Judge Villamor. the court," and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for five (5) days and to pay a fine of P500.
Due to the pendency of Civil Case No. B-398, the criminal cases
were temporarily archived.
Carlos immediately filed in this Court a petition for certiorari with a On May 20, 1991, a Manifestation was filed by Judge Villamor
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against praying Judge Salas to dismiss Civil Case No. CEB-8823 but the
the Judge (G.R. Nos. 82238-42). We promptly restrained Judge motion was denied by respondent Judge on July 2, 1991 (pp. 13-
Villamor from enforcing his Order of Contempt against Carlos and 16, Rollo of G.R. No. 101041).
Attorney Guerrero. On November 13, 1989, we annulled the
contempt order. (See pp. 26-34, Rollo of G.R. No. 101041.) Hence, this second petition for certiorari and prohibition with
restraining order (G.R. No. 101041).
Back to Civil Case No. CEB-6478; Judge Villamor filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court On August 21, 1991, a Resolution was issued by this Court: 1)
granted the motion. The order of dismissal was affirmed by the temporarily restraining Judge Salas from further proceeding in
Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 20657, June 26, 1990). Carlos Civil Case No. CEB-8823; and 2) granting the petitioner's prayer
appealed to this Court which also denied the petition. (p. that this case be consolidated with G.R. No. 101296 (pp. 37-
125, Rollo of G.R. No. 101296.) 39, Rollo of G.R. No. 101041).

Unfazed by these setbacks, Carlos and his counsel, Attorney The sole issue here is: whether or not Judges Aleonar and Salas
Antonio Guerrero, filed separate complaints for damages against may take cognizance of the actions for damages against Judge
Judge Villamor for knowingly rendering an unjust order of Villamor for allegedly having rendered an unjust order of direct
contempt. contempt against Carlos and Attorney Guerrero which this Court
subsequently annulled.
Attorney Guerrero's complaint for damages (Civil Case No. CEB-
8802) was raffled to Branch 21, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, The answer is no.
presided over by Judge Peary G. Aleonar. Carlos' complaint for
damages was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-8823 and raffled As very aptly held by this Court in a Resolution it issued in
to Branch 8, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City presided over by connection with a previous case filed by respondent Carlos
Judge Bernardo LL. Salas. against Judge Villamor, over a similar action for "Damages and
Attorney's Fees Arising From Rendering an Unjust Judgment," in
On March 30, 1990, Judge Villamor filed a motion to dismiss Civil dismissing the five (5) criminal cases for qualified theft which he
Case No. CEB-8802 but it was denied by Judge Aleonar (p. (respondent Carlos) had filed against Gloria P. Naval and others
33, Rollo of G.R. No. 101296). —

Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition with restraining Indeed, no Regional Trial Court can pass upon and
order docketed as G.R. No. 101296. scrutinize, and much less declare as unjust a judgment of
another Regional Trial Court and sentence the judge
On September 19, 1991, this Court issued a temporary thereof liable for damages without running afoul with the
restraining order against Judge Aleonar to stop him from principle that only the higher appellate courts, namely, the
proceeding in Civil Case No. CEB-8802 (pp. 45-46, Rollo of G.R. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, are vested with
No. 101296). authority to review and correct errors of the trial courts.
 (George D. Carlos vs. CA, G.R. No. 95560, November 5, WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions for certiorari are
1990; p. 125, Rollo of G.R No. 101296.) GRANTED, Civil Cases Nos. CEB-8802 and CEB-8823,
respectively, pending in the salas of respondents Judge Peary G.
To allow respondent Judges Aleonar and Salas to proceed with Aleonar and Judge Bernardo LL. Salas, are hereby dismissed.
the trial of the actions for damages against the petitioner, a co- The temporary restraining orders issued by this Court in these
equal judge of a co-equal court, would in effect permit a court to cases are hereby made permanent. No costs.
review and interfere with the judgment of a co-equal court over
which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review. The SO ORDERED.
various branches of a Court of First Instance (now the Regional
Trial Court) being co-equal, may not interfere with each other's Narvasa, CJ., Cruz, Feliciano and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
cases, judgments and orders (Parco vs. Court of Appeals, 111
SCRA 262).

This Court has already ruled that only after the Appellate Court, in
a final judgment, has found that a trial judge's errors were
committed deliberately and in bad faith may a charge of
knowingly rendering an unjust decision be levelled against the
latter (Garcia vs. Alconcel, 111 SCRA 178; Sta. Maria vs. Ubay,
87 SCRA 179; Gahol vs. Riodique, 64 SCRA 494).

Nowhere in this Court's decision annulling Judge Villamor's order

of direct contempt (G.R. Nos. 82238-42, November 13, 1989) can
there be found a declaration that the erroneous order was
rendered maliciously or with conscious and deliberate intent to
commit an injustice. In fact, a previous order of direct contempt
issued by Judge Villamor against Carlos' former counsel was
sustained by this Court (Jaynes C. Abarrientos, et al. vs. Judge
Villamor, G.R. No. 82237, June 1, 1988).

At most, the order of direct contempt which we nullified may only

be considered an error of judgment for which Judge Villamor may
not be held criminally or civilly liable to the respondents.

A judge is not liable for an erroneous decision in the absence of

malice or wrongful conduct in rendering it (Barroso vs. Arche, 67
SCRA 161).