Dear PAO,

My family owns a land situated in the province and this has been occupied by a government agency for a long time. During his last days, my father expressed his wish that payment for the said land be collected from the government. I have coordinated with the concerned government agency regarding the payment; however, I heard that our claim may already be barred by laches. Is laches a bar to our claim for payment? What are the remedies of a registered owner like us in this particular situation?

Eduardo

Dear Eduardo,

Basic is the rule that the government may take private property for public use after payment of just compensation. This is exactly in accordance with Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides that: “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Your claim for just compensation is not barred by laches. Laches is defined as “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.” (Lorenzo, et. al. v. Eustaquio and Children, GR 209435, Aug. 10, 2022, Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando)

The remedies of the land owner in case of expropriation were discussed in the case of Heirs of Mariano and Mariano v. City of Naga, GR 197743, Oct. 18, 2022, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, stated that:

“In Sec. of the DPWH v. Spouses Tecson (Sec. of DPWH), 27 the Court edifyingly elucidated that:

“x x x Laches is principally a doctrine of equity which is applied to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation or in an injustice. This doctrine finds no application in this case, since there is nothing inequitable in giving due course to respondents’ claim. Both equity and the law direct that a property owner should be compensated if his property is taken for public use. Neither shall prescription bar respondents’ claim following the long-standing rule “that where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner’s action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe.

“When a property is taken by the government for public use, jurisprudence clearly provides for the remedies available to a landowner. The owner may recover his property if its return is feasible or, if it is not, the aggrieved owner may demand payment of just compensation for the land taken. For failure of respondents to question the lack of expropriation proceedings for a long period of time, they are deemed to have waived and are estopped from assailing the power of the government to expropriate or the public use for which the power was exercised. What is left to respondents is the right of compensation. The trial and appellate courts found that respondents are entitled to compensation. The only issue left for determination is the propriety of the amount awarded to respondents.

“The more recent case of Republic v. Spouses Nocom (Spouses Nocom) echoed with approval the foregoing jurisprudential teaching, recognizing that the respondents therein “had no other remedy but to file a suit against petitioner for the recovery of possession of the property and for payment of reasonable compensation.”

Applying the afore-cited decision to your situation, laches is a doctrine of equity which is applied to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation or in an injustice. There is nothing inequitable in your family’s claim for just compensation since equity and law recognize that right. The registered owner of the land has legal remedies in case of non-payment of compensation for his or her property taken for public use. He or she may recover the property, if feasible, and if not, may demand payment of the just compensation at the time the property was taken.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. 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.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]