Encarnacion Banogon vs Melchor Zerna

G.R. No. L-35469 – 154 SCRA 593 – 238 Phil. 580 – Legal Ethics – Speedy and Proper Administration of Justice

Civil Law – Land Titles and Deeds – Land Registration; Failure to Register – Laches – Prescriptive Period of questioning Torrens title

In 1926, Melchor Zerna won a land dispute case against Filomeno Banogon. In 1945, Filomeno died. In 1957 or thirty one years later, Encarnacion Banogon, heir of Filomeno, filed a petition for review alleging fraud against the 1926 decision. An opposition was filed by Zerna in the same year. Banogon’s counsel repeatedly failed to set for hearing and in 1971 or fourteen years later, Zerna filed a motion to dismiss which was granted. The court ruled that the petition for review was already barred by laches.

Banogon argued that laches had not set in because the 1926 decision never became final and executory because the land subject of the case was never registered by Zerna. Hence, to Banogon, if there was someone guilty of laches, it was Zerna. Banogon anchored his argument on the provision of the Land Registration Act which allows aggrieved parties to re-open a case within one year after entry of the decree.

ISSUE: Whether or not Banogon’s suit should prosper.

HELD: No. Banogon’s counsel misread the law. His clients slept on their rights. Laches already set in. In fact, the jurisprudence cited by Banogon’s counsel is contrary to their position. Clearly, there was an error on the part of the counsel of Banogon:

It is conceded that no decree of registration has been entered and section 38 of the Land Registration Act provides that a petition for review of such a decree on the grounds of fraud must be filed ‘within one year after entry of the decree.’ Giving this provision a literal interpretation, it may at first blush seem that the petition for review cannot be presented until the final decree has been entered. But on further reflection, it is obvious that such could not have been the intention of the Legislature and that what it meant would have been better expressed by stating that such petitioners must be presented before the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree. Statutes must be given a reasonable construction and there can be no possible reason for requiring the complaining party to wait until the final decree is entered before urging his claim of fraud. We therefore hold that a petition for review under section 38, supra, may be filed at any time after the rendition of the court’s decision and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree of registration.

The Supreme Court also took time to remind lawyers to judiciously study facts and laws so as to avoid the filing of improper cases such as this case where the filing of motions and pleadings was way out of time. One reason why there is a degree of public distrust for lawyers is the way some of them misinterpret the law to the point of distortion in a cunning effort to achieve their purposes. As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary. Lawyers do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts.

Read full text