This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-08-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We find this feeble. Assuming for the sake of argument that respondent already occupied the lot in question in 1956, we cannot put all the blame on petitioners if respondent and her husband were not impleaded. It must be remembered that there were many people who occupied the subject land. If petitioners committed an oversight in not impleading respondent, she, having an interest on the land, should have intervened in the cases just like what the other occupants did. This, she did not do. It is simply impossible for her not to know that there were on-going court cases involving the land she is occupying. She testified that the lot she is occupying is bounded on the east by the lot of one Wenceslao Urmaneta.[54] As can be gleaned from the decision of the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases[55] of Republic of the Philippines v. Marita Madrid, et al., and Teodoro de la Cruz v. Silverio Corpuz, et al., this Urmaneta was one of the defendants in the accion publiciana case and was an intervenor in the reversion case filed by the Republic. Contrary to the posture of an adjacent neighbor, respondent exhibited a lethargic stance. Her failure to join and to get involved in the proceedings in order to protect her rights, if there were any, over the land shows her apathy on the matter. This lack of concern and inaction on her part show that she failed to protect any right she had on the land. The laches of one nullifies the laches of the other. One who seeks equity must himself be deserving of equity.[56] While all the people around her were fighting tooth and nail over Lot 7035-A, respondent simply watched on the sidelines, oblivious of what the courts will pronounce on the matter. Acting the way she did, she does not deserve equity. | |||||