Laches may bar recovery of property
DearPAO, Myparentsboughtacertainland fromtheDonin1990.Hischildren wouldliketorecoverthelandon thegroundthattheirlatefather allegedlysoldthethelandwithout thewrittenconsentoftheirmother. Further,theyclaimedthatthesale wasvoidsincetheirmotherdidnot giveherconsenttothetransaction. Cantheyrecoverthelandfromus?
Junipher
Dear Junipher,
The disposition of the property of the spouses is specifically governed by Article 96 of the Family Code of the Philippines which states that:
“The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for a proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
“In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the community properties, the other spouse may assume the sole powers of administration. These powers do not include the disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. X x xx”.
The afore-stated provision of law clearly requires the written consent of the spouses with respect to the disposition of properties belonging to the absolute community, otherwise, the transaction is void. This may be the legal basis of the heirs of Don in their intention to recover the property. However, laches may have set in, thus, barring the possible recovery of said property.
Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable or unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier warranting a presumption that he has abandoned his right or declined to assert it ( Agraet.al. vs.Philippine NationalBank, GR 133317, June 29, 1999, Ponente: Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, Jr.).
The failure of the heirs of Don for unreasonable or unexplained length of time to initiate the appropriate action for the recovery of the property may be considered as laches. The court, in one of its decision, titled Romerovs.Natividad (GR 161943, June 28, 2005), has cited the case of Vda.DeLimavs.Tio where the recovery of property sold by the husband was barred by laches. The Supreme Court, speaking through Honorable former Associate Justice Cancio Garcia, said in the case of Romerovs.Natividadand Natividad-Mejorada(Supra) that:
“In Vda.DeLimavs.Tio, 32 SCRA 516, where the plaintiff’s paraphernal property was sold in 1936 by her husband without her consent and her action to recover it was filed only in 1964, or after 28 years, we likewise ruled:
“‘It is now an established doctrine that inaction and neglect convert what otherwise could be a valid claim into a stale demand x x x Such passivity in the face of what might have given rise to an action in court is visited with the loss of such a right. That in essence is what laches signifies. Nor does ignorance resulting from inexcusable negligence suffice to explain such failure to file seasonably the necessary suit.’ (181 SCRA at 207-208) (Emphasis supplied).
Applying the above quoted decision in your situation, the heirs of Don can no longer recover the property sold by their father in 1990 because laches has already set in. They may have a legal ground under Article 96 of the Family Code of the Philippines to recover the property sold by their father without the consent of their mother, but it is also important to emphasize that their inaction for almost 30 years (1990 to 2020) converted their valid claim into a stale demand.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.