Brief For Appellants

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
SPS. ARSENIO DE GUZMAN

And FRANCISCA P. DE GUZMAN
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
-Versus-
CA-G.R. NO. CV-102142
RTC CASE NO. 253-SD (03)
RTC-Br. 89, Baloc, Sto. Domingo
Nueva Ecija
RE : Sum Of Money, et.al.
EDGARDO T. TINIO And The
Heirs Of SOLEDAD T. VDA. DE TINIO,
Rep. by EDGARDO T. TINIO
Defendants-Appellees
x------------------------------------------------------x
COMPLIANCE
COME NOW, plaintiffs-appellants thru the undersigned counsel unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully aver that ;
1.) In compliance with the Resolution promulgated by this Honorable Court
on August 14, 2014, a copy of which was received by the undersigned counsel on
August 29, 2014, directing the herein plaintiff-appelants to submit proofs of receipt
(Registry Return Card or Post Master’s Certification) showing the exact date when
the Appellants’ Brief was received by the herein defendants-appellees, herein
plaintiffs-appellants by counsel hereby respectfully submits the following hereto
attached proof of of such receipts, to wit ;
a. Postmaster’s Certification certifiying that the said Appellants’ Brief was
received by the Defendants-Applellees, represented by Edgardo Tinio on August 8,
2014, as per attached Annex “A”;
(1)
b. Postmaster’s Certification certifying that the said Appellants’ Brief was
likewise received by the defendants-appellees’ counsel Atty. Evelyn J. Magno on
August 8, 2014, as per attached Annex “B”.
Very respectfully submitted .
Cabanatuan City for the City of Manila, September 8, 2014 .
ATTY. JEREMIAS C. GARCIA

Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Appellants
# 408-C, CERIN Bldg., Maharlika Hi-way
Opposite Metro Bank and Prudential Life
Brgy. Dicarma, Cabanatuan City
PTR.No. . CBN-0437731, Cab, City-12-27-2013
IBP No 880711,12-27-13, N.E. Chapter
Roll No. 45770, MCLE IV-0002636
COPY FURNISHED:
ATTY. EVELYN J. MAGNO EDGARDO T. TINIO

Diaz Street, Marcos District, #205, Maestrang Kikay,
Talavera, Nueva Ecija Talavera, Nueva Ecija
3114 3114
COMPLIANCE
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
For lack of adequate facilities and due to distance, copy of the foregoing
Compliance was served to this Honorable Court, and other parties by registered
mail .
(2)
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

-Versus-
CA-G.R. NO. CV-102142
RTC-Br. 89, Baloc, Sto. Domingo
Nueva Ecija
x------------------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
T O F I L E A P P E L L A N T S’ B R I E F
Plaitiffs-Appellants, through their undersigned counsel unto this Honorable
Court very respectfully states, that ;
1.)On May 23, 2014, the undersigned counsel received copy of the Notice of
this Honorable Court dated May 13, 2014, requiring the submission of the required
appellants’ brief in this case within 45 days from receipt of said notice..
2.) Appellants have forty five (45) days from above-said date of May 23,
2014, or until July 8, 2014, within which to file their brief.
3.) It is unfortunate, however, that the undersigned counsel’s present

professional workload is unusually heavy that he reasonably believes that he will
be unable to finish and file the appellants brief on or before July 8, 2014 .
Consequently, the undersigned most respectfully requests that they be given an
additional period of time within which to file said brief .
PRAYER
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully moved and prayed of
this Honorable Court that appellants be given an extension of thirty (30) days from
July 8, 2014, or until August 7, 2014, within which to file their brief in this case .
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed for .
Cabanatuan City for the City of Manila, July 7, 2014 .

Opposite Metro Bank and Prudential Life
PTR.No. . CBN-0437731, Cab, City-12-27-2013
IBP No 880711,12-27-13, N.E. Chapter
Roll No. 45770, MCLE IV-0002636
COPY FURNISHED:

3114 3114
COMPLIANCE
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
For lack of adequate facilities and due to distance, copy of the foregoing
Motion was served to this Honorable Court, and other parties by registered mail .

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

-Versus-
CA-G.R. NO. CV-102142
RTC-Br. 89, Baloc, Sto.
Domingo
Nueva Ecija
x-------------------------------------------------x
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANTS
Plaitiffs-Appellants, through their undersigned counsel unto
this Honorable Court of Appeals, very respectfully submit this brief,
and respectfully state that ;
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES
1.)On May 23, 2014, the undersigned counsel received

copy of the Notice of this Honorable Court dated May 13, 2014,
requiring the submission of the required appellants’ brief in this
case within 45 days from receipt of said notice, or until July 8,
2014, within which to file their brief.
2.) On July 7, 2014, herein plaintiffs-appellants due to the

unfinished previous professional commitments of their herein
counsel, they were constrained to file a motion for an extension of
Thirty (30) days to file the instant brief or until August 7, 2014.
3.) Without waiting to receive copy of the notice/order of this

Honorable Court allowing/granting said motion for extension and
prior to the expiration of the date of said requested extension
(which is on August 7, 2014), this brief for the appellants is hereby
respectfully submitted .
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
4.) This is an action for Sums of Money and/or Specific

Performance and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ
of Preliminary Attachment filed at the Regional Trial Court Branch
89, of Baloc Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, by the plaintiffs Spouses
Arsenio De Guzman (now aged 92) and Francisca P. De Guzman
(who already died on May 26, 2012, at age 88) against the
defendants Dr. Edgardo T. Tinio, and the heirs of Soledad T.
Vda. De Tinio, represented by defendant Dr. Edgardo T. Tinio .
After trial thereof, which clearly proved the obligations of the
defendants to the herein plaintiffs, the said Honorable Court,
rendered a Decision on October 30, 2013, DISMISSING the
instant case on the ground of prescription and laches. Portion of
said Decision (including the dis-positive portion thereof) states :
“… the obligation of the defendants to the

plaintiffs as principal (in the First cause of Action)
being heirs of the Soleda Vda. De Tinio and as
guarantor (in the Second cause of Action) to the
obligation of Dr. Antonio Tinio and signatory to the
subject Memorandum of Understanding are clearly
proven… What saved the defendants was that the
plaintiffs lodged their claim before the court at a time
when said claims have already prescribed …
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, premises
considered, the cause of actions having already
prescribed and barred by laches, let this case be as
it is hereby ordered DISMISSED . “
5.) Thus, this appeal .
STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE CASE
6.) Sometime in February, 1996, the heirs of the late

Soledad T. Vda. De Tinio, through the herein defendant-appelle
Dr. Edgardo T. Tinio, approached the herein plaintiffs-appellants
to borrow the amount of One Million Three Hundred Ninety Four
Thousand Five Hundred Eighty One Pesos and Seventeen
Centavos (P1,394,581.17) with which to redeem the real
property of their mother the deceased Soledad Vda. De Tinio
from the mortgagee bank Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for
brevity, which real property is particularly embraced and covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-35540 (ANNEX “A” of the
Complaint, Page 9, Records), of the Registry of Deeds of Nueva
Ecija . It was then the agreement of said parties that a Deed of
Real Estate Mortgage over the said real property (TCT NO. NT-
35540) shall be executed by the said heirs of the late Soleda
Vda. De Tinio in favor of the plantiffs-appellants as a security for
the payment of said amount (P1,394,581.17) that shall be
extended to them by the plaintiffs . On February 14, 2006, herein
plaintiffs-appellants accompanied by the cousin of Dr. Edgardo
Tinio named Elmer Tichangco went to the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) and paid the said amount (P1,394,581.17)
evidenced by official receipt No.1831211,dated February 14,
1996, (Exhibit “A”, Page 202, Records) representing and
corresponding to the full payment of the obligation of the real
estate mortgage of the subject real property (TCT NO. NT-35540)
. That from that time onward (i.e. from the time of said payment of
said mortgage on February 14, 2006), plaintiffs-appellants
repeatedly demanded from the defendants-appellees particularly
to defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio the execution of the real estate
mortgage over the said redeemed property in their favor, or in lieu
thereof the payment to them of the said amount of
P1,394,581.17 . But unfortunately, despite repeated demands,
they failed to do so up to the present time .
7.) With respect to the second cause of action, sometime in

the year 2003, defendant-appelle Edgardo T. Tinio rediscounted
to the herein plaintiff-appellant Franscisca De Guzman a City
Trust Check (Exhibit “B”, Page 203, Records) dated November
6, 1993, of which his half-brother Dr. Antonio Tinio was the payee
in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Forty Two Thousand
and Ninety Pesos (P1,542,090.00), at the rediscounted
rate/amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,500,000.00) . In regards to which, said defendant Dr.
Edgardo Tinio and his half-brother Dr. Antonio Tinio executed a
Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit “C”, Page 204, Records)
in favor of the said plaintiff-appellant and pursuant thereof, Dr.
Edgardo Tinio pledged and delivered to the possession of said
plaintiff-appellant a certain certificate of title bearing TCT. No.NT-
31794 (Exhibit “D”, Page 205, Records) registered in the name of
his late mother Soledad Vda. De Tinio, as further security in case
the said rediscounted check is dishonored for payment by the
drawee bank. Prior to the maturity of the said check, defendant-
appellee Dr. Edgardo Tinio went to the house of the herein
plaintiff-appellants and told them not to encash the said check as
the same had no funds . By reason of which, she did not encash
it on maturity date, and just opted to rely and keep the said
certificate of title in her possession to answer for the value of the
check, and honestly believed that defendant-appelle Dr. Edgardo
Tinio would surely pay them the said rediscounted and redeem
the said title from them at any given time . In the years that
followed, as the herein plaintiffs-appellants have no interest to
own the land embraced by said title in their possession, they just
kept on repeatedly demanding for the payment of the said
amount of (P1,542,090.00) representing the amount of said
check but unfortunately, defendant-appellant Edgardo Tinio
failed to pay the same .
8.) On December 3, 2003, plaintiffs sent a Demand Letter

dated December 3, 2003, (Exhibit “E”, Page 207, Records) to
defendant-appelle Dr. Edgardo Tinio requesting him to visit them
for purposes of discussing with them their said obligations to the
plaintiffs, but to no avail. Consequently, plaintiffs filed this case
against the defendants in 2003, at the Regional Trial Court of
Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. Which Trial Court, after trial
thereof, as mentioned earlier, DISMISSED the same on the
grounds of prescription and laches . After a month or so,
defendants filed a motion with the said Honorable Trial Court,
seeking the release of the subject two titles in the possession of
the plaintiffs but the said motion was denied on the ground that
this instant appeal was already perfected .
ASSIGMENT OF ERROR/S
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT

THE CLAIMS OF THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE ALREADY
PRESCRIBED (WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST CAUSE
OF ACTION) AND BARRED BY LACHES (WITH
RESPECT TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION) .
II
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING

THAT THE FACT OF THE CONTINUING POSSESSION
BY THE PLAINTIFFS OF THE TWO TRANSFER
CERTIFICATE OF TITLES GUARANTEEING PAYMENT
OF THE DEFENDANTS’ OBLIGATIONS IS CLEAR
PROOF OF A VALIDLY AND CONTINUOSLY EXISTING
OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS AND
THEREFORE CANNOT BE JUST MADE SUBJECT OF
PRESCRIPTION AND/OR LACHES AT THE TIME THE
INSTANT CASE WAS FILED .
ARGUMENTS
9.) Since the two above-stated assignment of errors are related

to each other, they shall be jointly discussed .
10.) In view of the clear findings of the trial court which clearly
and indisputably proved the obligations of the herein defendants-
appellees to the herein plaintiffs-appellants, plaintiffs-appellants
will just primarily emphasize the discussion of the above-said two
assignment of errors .
11.) It is respectfully submitted that prescription and laches

have not yet set into operation and/or cannot be made applicable
in the two respective causes of actions filed against the
defendants in this case on the following factual and legal
grounds, to wit ;
11.1 With respect to the first cause of action, the

Amended Judicial Affidavit of plaintiff Arsenio De Guzman
dated June 25, 2008, (Exhibit “F” Page 221, Records), which
is his direct examination in this case clearly stated that,(with
emphasis supplied) he personally know defendant Edgardo
Tinio, his mother the late Soledad Vda. De Tinio and his
sister Alicia T. Tinio, and that the defendant Edgardo Tinio
requested his wife Francisca De Guzman to lend him the
amount of P1,394,581.17 with which to redeem or to pay the
mortgage loan involving the property mortgaged by the late
Soleda Vda. De Tinio with the LBP and they agreed to
extend to them the loan requested; that sometime on
February 14, 1996, he and his wife and Elmer Tichangco, a
representative of Edgardo Tinio went to the LBP,
Cabanatuan City Branch for the purpose of paying the said
mortgaged loan; that he was personally present on February
14, 1996,when his wife Francisca De Guzman paid the
(LBP), Cabanatuan City Branch the sum of One Million
Three Hundred Ninety Four Thousand Five Hudred Eighty
One and 17/100 Pesos (P1,394,581.17) in full settlement of
the mortgage loan of the late Soledad T.Vda. De Tinio with
the said bank and the bank delivered to his wife the official
receipt bearing serial No.1831211 (Exhibit “A”, Page 202,
Records) dated February 14, 1996, and the owner’s
duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-35540
(ANNEX “A” of the Complaint, Page 9, Records), of the
Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, registered in the name of
Soledad Tichangco Vda. De Tinio, that he and his wife
agreed to lend Dr. Edgardo Tinio and his co-heir the amount
they needed to redeem the mortgage on the property
mortgaged by their late mother, upon the agreement that Dr.
Tinio and his co-heir shall execute a deed of real estate
mortgage over the same property redeemed from the LBP in
their favor to secure the payment of their loan from them in
the sum of P1,394,581.17,that defendant Dr. Edgardo
Tinio frequently travels from the Philippines to the
United States and every time he arrives in the
Philippines they reminded him and requested him to
execute the real estate mortgage over the same property
redeemed from the LBP as agreed upon but up to the
present Dr.Tinio and his co defendant have not executed the
agreed Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in their favor neither
have they paid their indebtedness to them in the sum of
P1,394,581.17 .
11.2 It is worthy to note that plaintiffs in the said period

of time honestly believed and fully trusted the defendants
that they would not abandon nor deny their said obligation to
them, it was only during the cross examination of defendant
Dr. Edgardo Tinio, when it was plainly revealed to them the
real intention of the defendants, that defendants were not
only abandoning their obligation but they were also denying
the same through unfounded/fabricated lies. Portion of said
cross examination of defendant Dr Edgardo Tinio is
hereunder quoted for quick reference , as follows ;
ATTY.ANNANG : This title (TCT NT-35540) was

handed
to me by the plaintiffs-spouses Arsenio
and
Francisca De Guzman, my question is
how is
It that this title is in the possession of the
Plaintiffs?
DR. TINIO : Because she asked me for safekeeping

Mrs. De Guzman .(sic)
ATTY.ANNANG : Are you related to Mrs. De

Guzman
that you are telling the court that she
asked
you to give her the title for safekeeping?
DR. TINIO : I have no blood relationship with her
ATTY.ANNANG : Why then you entrusted the

duplicate
Copy of this TCT No.NT-35540?
DR. TINIO : Because she asked me that upon
learning
that one of the titles in the house was lost,
she
asked me for safekeeping. She is a very
good
friend of my mother so I gave it to her. I
deli-
vered it to Mr. and Mrs.Arsenio De
Guzman .
ATTY.ANNANG : Why you did not deposit it to the

bank in
order to be more safe than upon the
custody
of the friend as according to you?
DR. TINIO : Because she is a good friend of mine .

She is
collecting some of the rentals of my
property.I
don’t know if she got an understanding
with my
mother .
ATTY.ANNANG : She is your friend up to the

present ?
DR. TINIO : I don’t know about them . I consider them

as
friend . But it all depends on them .
ATTY.ANNANG : The title was given to the plaintiffs
because it was intended as a security for
the
payment of your obligations to them.
Is that correct ?
DR. TINIO : I don’t have any obligation to them .

Probably
my mother but not me .
ATTY.ANNANG : You are lecturing. I don’t like that.

We
are officers of the Court. I had been a
Judge
for eighteen (18) years.The lawyers
appearing
before me are very respectful .
Upon knowing that this title in the name of
your mother was mortgaged to the Land
Bank of the Philippines, do you now admit
that your said mother was then indebted
to
the said banking institution ?
DR. TINIO : That is what I said so but I don’t know .

(TSN, April 26, 2012, p.15-17)
11.3 Based from the foregoing established facts,

showing that there was clear agreement between the herein
parties regarding the payment by the plaintiffs of the
mortgaged loan of the subject lot (TCT NO. NT-35540) of
defendants’ late mother with the mortgagee bank (LBP)
which payment in the amount of P1,394,581.17 is evidenced
by the issuance of the official receipt dated February 14,
2006, (Exhibit “A”, Page 202, Records) of such payment
issued and given to the plaintiff Francisca De Guzman with a
clear indication as appearing thereon that she was the one
who paid it, and the subsequent release of the title of said lot
to the possession of the plaintiffs, and the continuing
possession by the plaintiffs of said redeemed title is clear
indication that defendants-appellees had a validly existing
and continuing obligation to the plaintiffs-appellants with
respect to the afore-said lot . There was also the reliance of
the plaintiffs of their possession of said title and said LBP
official receipt of such payment as their clear security for the
money they lent to the defendants-appelles, honestly
believing that at any given time defendants-appellees
through defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio who frequently travels
abroad will execute the real estate mortgage thereof or just
pay them and redeem said title from them, along with
plaintiffs continuing reminder and request, and demand for
such execution of real estate mortgage or payment thereof,
and there was also the continuous refusal by the defendants
to comply with their promise (i.e. by putting into writing what
they agreed upon regarding the said redeemed property)
showing that their real intention was to abandon and deny
their obligations .All of these facts indicate that the said
claims of the herein plaintiffs cannot be made subject to the
prescription of action of such claims whether the reckoning
point thereof is ten or six years, much less by laches ,
otherwise, grave injustice would be unnecessarily imputed to
them. Furthermore, plaintiffs clearly alleged in their
Opposition To The Motion To Dismiss dated June 23, 2004,
(Page 83, Records) that the said receipt of such payment
with the (LBP) is equivalent to an obligation in writing of the
defendants-appellees, the said LBP official receipt is similar
to a promissory note or a loan reduced into writing, because
it represents a debt acknowledged by the defendants-
appellees and the same was used by the defendants-
appellees with-which to redeem the mortgage constituted on
the property mortgaged to (LBP) by their mother, Soledad T.
Tinio, when she was still alive from whom the defendants are
to inherit . With the money loaned by the plaintiffs to the
defendants, the latter were able to save the said property
from foreclosure of the mortgage constituted on the same.
Said receipt of payment issued by the (LBP) in payment of
the mortgage loan obtained by the defendants’ mother is an
evidence in writing of the obligation obtained by the
defendants from the plaintiffs and it being so, it is submitted
that the plaintiffs’ right of action to collect from the
defendants prescribed in ten (10) years. The right of action
of the plaintiff accrued as of February 14, 1996, which is the
date when the plaintiffs paid the (LBP) and which is also the
date of issuance of the receipt of payment issued to the
plaintiffs by the said bank. In other words it is respectfully
submitted that the first cause of action (referring to the
amount of obligation extended by the plaintiffs to the
defendants to redeem said lot bearing TCT NO. NT-35540)
of the plaintiffs prescribes in ten (10) years or after February
14, 2006 . Thus, the applicable provision of the law (Civil
Code) on prescription of action in this first cause of action is
Article 1144 not Article 1145, which provision is hereunder
cited for quick reference (with emphasis supplied) as
follows ;
“Article 1144. The following actions must be brought
within ten years from the time the cause of action
accrues:
(1)Upon a written contract;

(2)Upon an obligation created by law;
(3)Upon a judgment “
10.4 Further still, the now clearly revealed real intention of

the defendants-appellees to abandon and deny their
obligation to the plaintiffs-appellants, which was kept hidden
and undetected by the plaintiffs-appellants in the past due to
their full trust and confidence on the defendants-appellees
that they will not abandon much less deny their said
obligation , only shows that defendants-appellees should be
precluded for being in estoppel, their acts being
characterized by bad faith, from claiming the right of
prescription in the given facts and circumstances .Otherwise,
it would be rewarding the clearly unfair, unjust acts of the
defendants-appellees at the expense of the suffering of the
plaintiffs for their clearly honest to goodness act of trusting
the defendants-appellees .
11.5 With respect to the second cause of action, the

Judicial Affidavit of Francisca De Guzman dated May 20,
2008, (Exhibit “G”, Page 195, Records) clearly stated, that
defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio also owed her the sum of
P1,542,090.00; that this loan is evidenced by a personal
check (Exhibit “B”, Page 203, Records) bearing serial No.
890253 drawn by one Wilfredo Moquerra on November 6,
1993 in the amount of P1,542,090.00 in favor of one Dr.
Antonio Tinio, which check Dr. Edgardo Tinio requested her
to encash on a rediscounted rate of P1,500,000.00,; that she
has another evidence to prove such indebtedness of
P1,542,090.00 that is the Memorandum Of Understanding
(Exhibit “C”, Page 204, Records) whereby defendant-
appellee Dr. Edgardo Tinio acknowledged his obligation to
her in the sum of P1,542,090.00; that to guarantee payment
of that rediscounted check in case it would be dishonored or
unpaid, Dr. Edgardo Tinio gave her a title of a real property
bearing Tranfer Certificate of Title No.NT-31794 (Exhibit “D”,
Page 205, Records) for the purpose of executing a mortgage
contract involving the said property to answer for the
payment of his debt with her in case the check he requested
to encash would be dishonored; that said obligation of Dr.
Edgardo Tinio remains unpaid up to this time; that he has not
executed a real estate mortgage contract; that when Dr.
Tinio and his sister failed to pay the amount of
P1,394,581.17 which they owed to her, in 1997, she and her
husband began demanding upon Dr. Edgardo Tinio and his
sister, the latter through him, to either pay their indebtedness
to them in the amount of P1,394,581.17 or to execute a
mortgage contract over the property redeemed by her from
the LBP with the money they borrowed from her and her
husband, but Dr. Tinio failed and refused to do either of the
two (2) demands upon him and his sister ; that later, on
December 3, 2002, they sent Dr. Tinio a Demand Letter
(Exhibit “E, Page 207, Records) to either pay their obligation
or to execute a deed of real estate mortgage they promised
to execute to secure the payment of their debt to them; that
the demand letter dated December 3, 2002, was sent to Dr.
Tinio by registered mail, which she believes Dr. Tinio
received the letter because it was not sent back to her up to
the present time; that in their said demand letter they also
mentioned the indebtedness of Dr. Tinio to them in the
amount of P1,542,090.00 but he failed and refused to settle
his said obligation or to comply with his commitment to
execute a real estate mortgage contract to secure the
payment of his said obligation of P1,542,090.00; that Dr.
Tinio did not send a reply to the letter, thus, she and her
husband instructed their lawyer to file a complaint against
the defendants . During cross-examination plaintiff-appellant
Francisca De Guzman further testified, (as contained/cited in
Page 16 of Decision of the Trial Court) that, when the
subject rediscounted check matured, she did not encash it
with the drawee bank because Dr. Edgardo Tinio asked her
not to encash the same as he would take care of it . She
took his word to be true because he handed her a title as if it
was a payment for the check, the title would answer for the
check . Likewise on cross-examination (TSN August 17,
2010, Pages 10-12) , plaintiff Arsenio De Guzman testified
that, they did not have an agreement that he will encash the
check on its due date ; that, they agreed that in case the
check will be dishonored, the title of his mother which he
(Dr. Tinio) gave him would answer for the amount of the
check ; that he did not encash the check on due date
because Dr. Tinio went to their house and told him not to
encash the check for it has no funds; that Dr. Tinio went to
him before the due date of the check . After due date of the
check, Dr. Tinio no longer returned to see him because Dr.
Tinio was already in the U.S. ; that he did not exert any effort
to see Dr. Tinio for him to pay the value of the check
because he considered him as a friend, the mother of Dr.
Tinio is the best friend of his mother; that when Dr. Tinio was
unable to pay his obligation he kept the title handed to him
by Dr. Tinio; that he asked Dr. Tinio to execute a Real Estate
Mortgage to cover the amount of the check but he only made
promises.
11.6 It is likewise worthy to note that just like in the first

cause of action, plaintiffs in the said period of time honestly
believed and fully trusted defendant-appellee Dr. Edgardo
Tinio that he would not abandon nor deny his said obligation
to them, it was only when he (Dr. Edgardo Tinio) testified in
Court, that it was plainly revealed to them that the real
intention of defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio was not only to
abandon his obligation but also to deny the same through
diversionary tactics coupled with unfounded/fabricated lies.
Portion of his (Dr. Edgardo Tinio) testimony showing his
diversionary scheme and lies as contained/cited in page 21
of the Decision of the Trial Court stated ; that, Dr. Antonio
Tinio (his half-brother) was the one who rediscounted the
subject check; that, he was asked by his d half-brother to
guarantee said check; that he does not know if his half-
brother paid for the amount found(sic) in the check ; that
plaintiffs did not demand that he pay the check, they never
talked about it ; that sometime in 2003, he received
summons from the Court that was when he came to know
that his said half-brother did not pay the value of the check .
11.7 Based from the foregoing established facts, like in

the first cause of action, these facts clearly show that, there
was clear agreement between the herein parties regarding
defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio’s obligation to the plaintiffs-
appellants concerning the rediscounted check which was
further supported by a written agreement denominated as
Memorandum Of Understanding(Exhibit “C”, Page 204,
Records) pursuant to which, defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio
delivered the title of his mother bearing TCT-No.NT-31794
(Exhibit“D”,Page 205, Records) as security for the payment
of his obligation thereof .The continuing possession by the
plaintiffs of said title (TCT-No.NT-31794) is a clear proof that
defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio had a validly existing and
continuing obligations to the plaintiffs pursuant to the afore-
said Memorandum Of Understanding which concerns the
rediscounted check and the pledged title lot thereof . The
reliance of the plaintiffs of their possession of said title as
their clear security for the money they paid for the
rediscounted check, and their honest belief that at any given
time defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio who frequently travels
abroad will execute the real estate mortgage regarding the
pledged title (TCT-No.NT-31794) thereof or just pay them
and redeem said title from them, and the plaintiffs continuing
reminder and request, and demand for such execution of
real estate mortgage or payment thereof, and the
continuous refusal by the defendants to comply with his
promises (i.e. by executing e real estate mortgage in their
favor over the said pledged title TCT-No.NT-31794), these
all clearly show that just like in the first cause of action
defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio’s real intention was to abandon
and deny his said obligations .All of these facts indicate that
the said claims of the herein plaintiffs cannot be made
subject to prescription or by laches , otherwise, grave
injustice would be unnecessarily suffered by them and
imputed to them. Worst of all, it would be rewarding the
clearly unfair, unjust acts of defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio at
the expense of the suffering of the plaintiffs-appellants for
their clearly honest to goodness act of trusting the said
defendant-appellee .
JURISPRUDENCE
12. In support of the foregoing arguments the following

pronouncements of the Supreme Court are hereunder quoted, as
follows ;
“ The essence of laches or “stale demands” is the failure

or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or
should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned or declined to assert it. It is not concerned with
mere lapse of time; the fact of delay, standing alone, being
insufficient to constitute laches.
In addition, it is a rule of equity and applied not to

penalize neglect or sleeping on one's rights, but rather to
avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a
clearly unfair situation. There is no absolute rule as to what
constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be
determined according to its particular circumstances.
Ultimately, the question of laches is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court and, being an equitable doctrine, its
application is controlled by equitable considerations. It
cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud and
injustice. It is the better rule that courts, under the principle
of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute
of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so, a
manifest wrong or injustice would result. (Insurance of The
Philippine Islands Corporation Versus Spouses Vidal S.
Gregorio And Julita Gregorio, G.R. NO.174104, February 14,
2011.)
“ Prescription as understood and used in this

jurisdiction does not simply mean a mere lapse of time.
Rather, there must be a categorical showing that due to
plaintiff’s negligence, inaction, lack of interest, or intent
to abandon a lawful claim or cause of action, no action
whatsoever was taken, thus allowing the statute of
limitations to bar any subsequent suit. (Pablo R. Antonio
Versus Engr. Emilio M. Morales as Sole Proprietor of
E. M. Morales & Associates,G.R. No. 65552, January
23, 2007).”
PRAYER
Wherefore, in view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court Of Appeals that justice be done to the plaintiffs-
appellants by ORDERING the defendants to pay their obligations to
the plaintiffs plus damages and incidental expenses incurred by the
plaintiffs in this case as indicated in their Complaint, in other words, that
the judgment of the lower Court be REVERSED with cost against the
defendants .
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise

prayed for .
Cabanatuan City for the City of Manila, August ___, 2014 .
ATTY. JEREMIAS C.
GARCIA
# 408-C, CERIN Bldg., Maharlika Hi-
way
PTR.No. . CBN-0437731, Cab, City-12-27-
2013
IBP No 880711,12-27-13, N.E. Chapter
Roll No. 45770, MCLE IV-0002636
COPY FURNISHED:
3114 3114
COMPLIANCE
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13, of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure)
For lack of adequate facilities and due to distance, copy/copies of

the foregoing Appellants’ Brief was/were served to the other parties
by registered mail .
ATTY. JEREMIAS C.
GARCIA
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

-Versus-
CA-G.R. NO. CV-102142

x---------------------------------------------x
SUBJECT INDEX
Pages
1. Statement of Material Dates ……………………………… 1

2. Statement of the Case ……………………………………… 2
3. Statement of Facts of the Case ……………………………. 2
4. Assignment of Errors
1. Errors No. 1 and 2 ……………………………………… 4
5. Argument …………………………………………………. 4
1. Discussion of First and Second Errors …………………..... 4
6. Jurisprudence …………………………………………….. 11
7. Relief …………………………………………………….. 12
Table Of Cases Cited
1. Insurance of the Philippine Islands Corporation Versus Spouses

Vidal S.Gregorio and Julita Gregorio, G.R.No.174104, February 14,
2011 ………………………………………………………………….. 11
2. Pablo R. Antonio Versus Engr. Emilio M. Morales & Associates
G.R. No.65552, January 23, 2007 …………………………………… 12
Codes
1.Civil Code --- Art.1144………………………………………………. 8

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

-Versus-
CA-G.R. NO. CV-102142
RTC-Br. 89, Baloc,
Sto. Domingo Nueva Ecija
x-------------------------------------------------x
Plaitiffs-Appellants, through their undersigned counsel unto

this Honorable Court of Appeals, very respectfully submit this brief,
and respectfully state that ;
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES
1.)On May 23, 2014, the undersigned counsel received

copy of the Notice of this Honorable Court dated May 13, 2014,
requiring the submission of the required appellants’ brief in this
case within 45 days from receipt of said notice, or until July 8,
2014, within which to file their brief.
2.) On July 7, 2014, herein plaintiffs-appellants due to the

unfinished previous professional commitments of their herein
counsel, they were constrained to file a motion for an extension of
Thirty (30) days to file the instant brief or until August 7, 2014.
3.) Without waiting to receive copy of the notice/order of this

Honorable Court allowing/granting said motion for extension and
prior to the expiration of the date of said requested extension
(which is on August 7, 2014), this brief for the appellants is hereby
respectfully submitted .
(1.)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
4.) This is an action for Sums of Money and/or Specific

Performance and Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ
of Preliminary Attachment filed at the Regional Trial Court Branch
89, of Baloc Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, by the plaintiffs Spouses
Arsenio De Guzman (now aged 92) and Francisca P. De Guzman
(who already died on May 26, 2012, at age 88) against the
defendants Dr. Edgardo T. Tinio, and the heirs of Soledad T.
Vda. De Tinio, represented by defendant Dr. Edgardo T. Tinio .
After trial thereof, which clearly proved the obligations of the
defendants to the herein plaintiffs, the said Honorable Court,
rendered a Decision on October 30, 2013, DISMISSING the
instant case on the ground of prescription and laches. Portion of
said Decision (including the dis-positive portion thereof) states :
“… the obligation of the defendants to the
plaintiffs as principal (in the First cause of Action)
being heirs of the Soleda Vda. De Tinio and as
guarantor (in the Second cause of Action) to the
obligation of Dr. Antonio Tinio and signatory to the
subject Memorandum of Understanding are clearly
proven… What saved the defendants was that the
plaintiffs lodged their claim before the court at a time
when said claims have already prescribed …
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, premises
considered, the cause of actions having already
prescribed and barred by laches, let this case be as
it is hereby ordered DISMISSED . “
5.) Thus, this appeal .
STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE CASE
6.) Sometime in February, 1996, the heirs of the late

Soledad T. Vda. De Tinio, through the herein defendant-appelle
Dr. Edgardo T. Tinio, approached the herein plaintiffs-appellants
to borrow the amount of One Million Three Hundred Ninety Four
Thousand Five Hundred Eighty One Pesos and Seventeen
Centavos (P1,394,581.17) with which to redeem the real
property of their mother the deceased Soledad Vda. De Tinio
from the mortgagee bank Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for
brevity, which real property is particularly embraced and covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-35540 (ANNEX “A”of the
Complaint, Page 9, Records)
(2.)
of the Registry of Deeds of Nueva Ecija . It was then the

agreement of said parties that a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage
over the said real property (TCT NO. NT-35540) shall be
executed by the said heirs of the late Soleda Vda. De Tinio in
favor of the plantiffs-appellants as a security for the payment of
said amount (P1,394,581.17) that shall be extended to them by
the plaintiffs . On February 14, 2006, herein plaintiffs-appellants
accompanied by the cousin of Dr. Edgardo Tinio named Elmer
Tichangco went to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and
paid the said amount (P1,394,581.17) evidenced by official
receipt No.1831211,dated February 14, 1996, (Exhibit “A”, Page
202, Records) representing and corresponding to the full
payment of the obligation of the real estate mortgage of the
subject real property (TCT NO. NT-35540) . That from that time
onward (i.e. from the time of said payment of said mortgage on
February 14, 2006), plaintiffs-appellants repeatedly demanded
from the defendants-appellees particularly to defendant Dr.
Edgardo Tinio the execution of the real estate mortgage over the
said redeemed property in their favor, or in lieu thereof the
payment to them of the said amount of P1,394,581.17 . But
unfortunately, despite repeated demands, they failed to do so up
to the present time
7.) With respect to the second cause of action, sometime in

the year 2003, defendant-appelle Edgardo T. Tinio rediscounted
to the herein plaintiff-appellant Franscisca De Guzman a City
Trust Check (Exhibit “B”, Page 203, Records) dated November
6, 1993, of which his half-brother Dr. Antonio Tinio was the payee
in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Forty Two Thousand
and Ninety Pesos (P1,542,090.00), at the rediscounted
rate/amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,500,000.00) . In regards to which, said defendant Dr.
Edgardo Tinio and his half-brother Dr. Antonio Tinio executed a
Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit “C”, Page 204, Records)
in favor of the said plaintiff-appellant and pursuant thereof, Dr.
Edgardo Tinio pledged and delivered to the possession of said
plaintiff-appellant a certain certificate of title bearing TCT. No.NT-
31794 (Exhibit “D”, Page 205, Records) registered in the name of
his late mother Soledad Vda. De Tinio, as further security in case
the said rediscounted check is dishonored for payment by the
drawee bank. Prior to the maturity of the said check, defendant-
appellee Dr. Edgardo Tinio went to the house of the herein
plaintiff-appellants and told them not to encash the said check as
the same had no funds . By reason of which, she did not encash
it on maturity date, and just opted to rely and keep the said
certificate of title in her possession to answer for the value of the
check, and honestly believed that defendant-appelle Dr. Edgardo
Tinio would surely pay them the said rediscounted and redeem
the said title from them at any given time . In the years that
followed, as the herein plaintiffs-appellants have no interest to
own the land embraced by said title in their possession, they just
kept on repeatedly demanding for the payment of the said
(3.)
amount of (P1,542,090.00) representing the amount of said
check but unfortunately, defendant-appellant Edgardo Tinio
failed to pay the same .
8.) On December 3, 2003, plaintiffs sent a Demand Letter

dated December 3, 2003, (Exhibit “E”, Page 207, Records) to
defendant-appelle Dr. Edgardo Tinio requesting him to visit them
for purposes of discussing with them their said obligations to the
plaintiffs, but to no avail. Consequently, plaintiffs filed this case
against the defendants in 2003, at the Regional Trial Court of
Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. Which Trial Court, after trial
thereof, as mentioned earlier, DISMISSED the same on the
grounds of prescription and laches . After a month or so,
defendants filed a motion with the said Honorable Trial Court,
seeking the release of the subject two titles in the possession of
the plaintiffs but the said motion was denied on the ground that
this instant appeal was already perfected .
ASSIGMENT OF ERROR/S
I
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT

THE CLAIMS OF THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE ALREADY
PRESCRIBED (WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST CAUSE
OF ACTION) AND BARRED BY LACHES (WITH
RESPECT TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION) .
II
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING

THAT THE FACT OF THE CONTINUING POSSESSION
BY THE PLAINTIFFS OF THE TWO TRANSFER
CERTIFICATE OF TITLES GUARANTEEING PAYMENT
OF THE DEFENDANTS’ OBLIGATIONS IS CLEAR
PROOF OF A VALIDLY AND CONTINUOSLY EXISTING
OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS AND
THEREFORE CANNOT BE JUST MADE SUBJECT OF
PRESCRIPTION AND/OR LACHES AT THE TIME THE
INSTANT CASE WAS FILED .
ARGUMENTS
9.) Since the two above-stated assignment of errors are

related to each other, they shall be jointly discussed .
10.) In view of the clear findings of the trial court which clearly
and indisputably proved the obligations of the herein
defendants-
(4.)
appellees to the herein plaintiffs-appellants, plaintiffs-appellants
will just primarily emphasize the discussion of the above-said two
assignment of errors .
11.) It is respectfully submitted that prescription and laches

have not yet set into operation and/or cannot be made applicable
in the two respective causes of actions filed against the
defendants in this case on the following factual and legal
grounds, to wit ;
11.1 With respect to the first cause of action, the

Amended Judicial Affidavit of plaintiff Arsenio De Guzman
dated June 25, 2008, (Exhibit “F” Page 221, Records), which
is his direct examination in this case clearly stated that,(with
emphasis supplied) he personally know defendant Edgardo
Tinio, his mother the late Soledad Vda. De Tinio and his
sister Alicia T. Tinio, and that the defendant Edgardo Tinio
requested his wife Francisca De Guzman to lend him the
amount of P1,394,581.17 with which to redeem or to pay the
mortgage loan involving the property mortgaged by the late
Soleda Vda. De Tinio with the LBP and they agreed to
extend to them the loan requested; that sometime on
February 14, 1996, he and his wife and Elmer Tichangco, a
representative of Edgardo Tinio went to the LBP,
Cabanatuan City Branch for the purpose of paying the said
mortgaged loan; that he was personally present on February
14, 1996,when his wife Francisca De Guzman paid the
(LBP), Cabanatuan City Branch the sum of One Million
Three Hundred Ninety Four Thousand Five Hudred Eighty
One and 17/100 Pesos (P1,394,581.17) in full settlement of
the mortgage loan of the late Soledad T.Vda. De Tinio with
the said bank and the bank delivered to his wife the official
receipt bearing serial No.1831211 (Exhibit “A”, Page 202,
Records) dated February 14, 1996, and the owner’s
duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-35540
(ANNEX “A” of the Complaint, Page 9, Records), of the
Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, registered in the name of
Soledad Tichangco Vda. De Tinio, that he and his wife
agreed to lend Dr. Edgardo Tinio and his co-heir the amount
they needed to redeem the mortgage on the property
mortgaged by their late mother, upon the agreement that Dr.
Tinio and his co-heir shall execute a deed of real estate
mortgage over the same property redeemed from the LBP in
their favor to secure the payment of their loan from them in
the sum of P1,394,581.17,that defendant Dr. Edgardo
Tinio frequently travels from the Philippines to the
United States and every time he arrives in the
Philippines they reminded him and requested him to
execute the real estate mortgage over the same property
redeemed from the LBP as agreed upon but up to the
present Dr.Tinio and his co defendant have not executed the
agreed Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in their favor neither
have
(5.)
they paid their indebtedness to them in the sum of
P1,394,581.17 .
11.2 It is worthy to note that plaintiffs in the said period

of time honestly believed and fully trusted the defendants
that they would not abandon nor deny their said obligation to
them, it was only during the cross examination of defendant
Dr. Edgardo Tinio, when it was plainly revealed to them the
real intention of the defendants, that defendants were not
only abandoning their obligation but they were also denying
the same through unfounded/fabricated lies. Portion of said
cross examination of defendant Dr Edgardo Tinio is
hereunder quoted for quick reference , as follows ;
ATTY.ANNANG : This title (TCT NT-35540) was

handed
to me by the plaintiffs-spouses Arsenio
and
Francisca De Guzman, my question is
how is
It that this title is in the possession of the
Plaintiffs?
DR. TINIO : Because she asked me for safekeeping
Mrs. De Guzman .(sic)
ATTY.ANNANG : Are you related to Mrs. De

Guzman
that you are telling the court that she
asked
you to give her the title for safekeeping?
DR. TINIO : I have no blood relationship with her
ATTY.ANNANG : Why then you entrusted the

duplicate
Copy of this TCT No.NT-35540?
DR. TINIO : Because she asked me that upon

learning
that one of the titles in the house was lost,
she
asked me for safekeeping. She is a very
good
friend of my mother so I gave it to her. I
deli-
vered it to Mr. and Mrs.Arsenio De
Guzman .
ATTY.ANNANG : Why you did not deposit it to the

bank in
order to be more safe than upon the
custody
of the friend as according to you?
DR. TINIO : Because she is a good friend of mine .

She is
collecting some of the rentals of my
property.I
don’t know if she got an understanding
with my
mother .
ATTY.ANNANG : She is your friend up to the

present ?
(6.)
DR. TINIO : I don’t know about them . I consider them
as
friend . But it all depends on them .
ATTY.ANNANG : The title was given to the plaintiffs

because it was intended as a security for
the
payment of your obligations to them.
Is that correct ?
DR. TINIO : I don’t have any obligation to them .

Probably
my mother but not me .
ATTY.ANNANG : You are lecturing. I don’t like that.

We
are officers of the Court. I had been a
Judge
for eighteen (18) years.The lawyers
appearing
before me are very respectful .
Upon knowing that this title in the name of
your mother was mortgaged to the Land
Bank of the Philippines, do you now admit
that your said mother was then indebted
to
the said banking institution ?
DR. TINIO : That is what I said so but I don’t know .

(TSN, April 26, 2012, p.15-17)
11.3 Based from the foregoing established facts,

showing that there was clear agreement between the herein
parties regarding the payment by the plaintiffs of the
mortgaged loan of the subject lot (TCT NO. NT-35540) of
defendants’ late mother with the mortgagee bank (LBP)
which payment in the amount of P1,394,581.17 is evidenced
by the issuance of the official receipt dated February 14,
2006, (Exhibit “A”, Page 202, Records) of such payment
issued and given to the plaintiff Francisca De Guzman with a
clear indication as appearing thereon that she was the one
who paid it, and the subsequent release of the title of said lot
to the possession of the plaintiffs, and the continuing
possession by the plaintiffs of said redeemed title is clear
indication that defendants-appellees had a validly existing
and continuing obligation to the plaintiffs-appellants with
respect to the afore-said lot . There was also the reliance of
the plaintiffs of their possession of said title and said LBP
official receipt of such payment as their clear security for the
money they lent to the defendants-appelles, honestly
believing that at any given time defendants-appellees
through defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio who frequently travels
abroad will execute the real estate mortgage thereof or just
pay them and redeem said title from them, along with
plaintiffs continuing reminder and request, and demand for
such execution of real estate mortgage or payment thereof,
and there was also the continuous refusal by the defendants
to comply with their promise (i.e. by putting into writing what
they agreed upon regarding the said redeemed property)
showing that their real intention was to abandon and
deny their
(7.)
obligations . All of these facts indicate that the said claims of
the
herein plaintiffs-appellants cannot be made subject to the
prescription of action of such claims whether the reckoning
point thereof is ten or six years, much less by laches ,
otherwise, grave injustice would be unnecessarily imputed to
them. Furthermore, plaintiffs clearly alleged in their
Opposition To The Motion To Dismiss dated June 23, 2004,
(Page 83, Records) that the said receipt of such payment
with the (LBP) is equivalent to an obligation in writing of the
defendants-appellees, the said LBP official receipt is similar
to a promissory note or a loan reduced into writing, because
it represents a debt acknowledged by the defendants-
appellees and the same was used by the defendants-
appellees with-which to redeem the mortgage constituted on
the property mortgaged to (LBP) by their mother, Soledad T.
Tinio, when she was still alive from whom the defendants are
to inherit . With the money loaned by the plaintiffs to the
defendants, the latter were able to save the said property
from foreclosure of the mortgage constituted on the same.
Said receipt of payment issued by the (LBP) in payment of
the mortgage loan obtained by the defendants’ mother is an
evidence in writing of the obligation obtained by the
defendants from the plaintiffs and it being so, it is submitted
that the plaintiffs’ right of action to collect from the
defendants prescribed in ten (10) years. The right of action
of the plaintiff accrued as of February 14, 1996, which is the
date when the plaintiffs paid the (LBP) and which is also the
date of issuance of the receipt of payment issued to the
plaintiffs by the said bank. In other words it is respectfully
submitted that the first cause of action (referring to the
amount of obligation extended by the plaintiffs to the
defendants to redeem said lot bearing TCT NO. NT-35540)
of the plaintiffs prescribes in ten (10) years or after February
14, 2006 . Thus, the applicable provision of the law (Civil
Code) on prescription of action in this first cause of action is
Article 1144 not Article 1145, which provision is hereunder
cited for quick reference (with emphasis supplied) as
follows ;
“Article 1144. The following actions must be brought

within ten years from the time the cause of action
accrues:
(1)Upon a written contract;

(2)Upon an obligation created by law;
(3)Upon a judgment “
10.4 Further still, the now clearly revealed real intention of

the defendants-appellees to abandon and deny their
obligation to the plaintiffs-appellants, which was kept hidden
and undetected by the plaintiffs-appellants in the past due to
their full trust and confidence on the defendants-appellees
that they will not abandon much less deny their said
obligation , only shows that
(8.)
defendants-appellees should be precluded for being in
estoppel, their acts being characterized by bad faith, from
claiming the
right of prescription in the given facts and
circumstances .Otherwise, it would be rewarding the clearly
unfair, unjust acts of the defendants-appellees at the
expense of the suffering of the plaintiffs for their clearly
honest to goodness act of trusting the defendants-
appellees .
11.5 With respect to the second cause of action, the

Judicial Affidavit of Francisca De Guzman dated May 20,
2008, (Exhibit “G”, Page 195, Records) clearly stated, that
defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio also owed her the sum of
P1,542,090.00; that this loan is evidenced by a personal
check (Exhibit “B”, Page 203, Records) bearing serial No.
890253 drawn by one Wilfredo Moquerra on November 6,
1993 in the amount of P1,542,090.00 in favor of one Dr.
Antonio Tinio, which check Dr. Edgardo Tinio requested her
to encash on a rediscounted rate of P1,500,000.00,; that she
has another evidence to prove such indebtedness of
P1,542,090.00 that is the Memorandum Of Understanding
(Exhibit “C”, Page 204, Records) whereby defendant-
appellee Dr. Edgardo Tinio acknowledged his obligation to
her in the sum of P1,542,090.00; that to guarantee payment
of that rediscounted check in case it would be dishonored or
unpaid, Dr. Edgardo Tinio gave her a title of a real property
bearing Tranfer Certificate of Title No.NT-31794 (Exhibit “D”,
Page 205, Records) for the purpose of executing a mortgage
contract involving the said property to answer for the
payment of his debt with her in case the check he requested
to encash would be dishonored; that said obligation of Dr.
Edgardo Tinio remains unpaid up to this time; that he has not
executed a real estate mortgage contract; that when Dr.
Tinio and his sister failed to pay the amount of
P1,394,581.17 which they owed to her, in 1997, she and her
husband began demanding upon Dr. Edgardo Tinio and his
sister, the latter through him, to either pay their indebtedness
to them in the amount of P1,394,581.17 or to execute a
mortgage contract over the property redeemed by her from
the LBP with the money they borrowed from her and her
husband, but Dr. Tinio failed and refused to do either of the
two (2) demands upon him and his sister ; that later, on
December 3, 2002, they sent Dr. Tinio a Demand Letter
(Exhibit “E, Page 207, Records) to either pay their obligation
or to execute a deed of real estate mortgage they promised
to execute to secure the payment of their debt to them; that
the demand letter dated December 3, 2002, was sent to Dr.
Tinio by registered mail, which she believes Dr. Tinio
received the letter because it was not sent back to her up to
the present time; that in their said demand letter they also
mentioned the indebtedness of Dr. Tinio to them in the
amount of P1,542,090.00 but he failed and refused to settle
his said obligation or to comply with his commitment to
execute a real estate mortgage contract to secure the
payment of his said obligation of P1,542,090.00; that
(9.)
Dr. Tinio did not send a reply to the letter, thus, she and her
husband instructed their lawyer to file a complaint against
the
defendants . During cross-examination plaintiff-appellant
Francisca De Guzman further testified, (as contained/cited in
Page 16 of Decision of the Trial Court) that, when the
subject rediscounted check matured, she did not encash it
with the drawee bank because Dr. Edgardo Tinio asked her
not to encash the same as he would take care of it . She
took his word to be true because he handed her a title as if it
was a payment for the check, the title would answer for the
check . Likewise on cross-examination (TSN August 17,
2010, Pages 10-12) , plaintiff Arsenio De Guzman testified
that, they did not have an agreement that he will encash the
check on its due date ; that, they agreed that in case the
check will be dishonored, the title of his mother which he
(Dr. Tinio) gave him would answer for the amount of the
check ; that he did not encash the check on due date
because Dr. Tinio went to their house and told him not to
encash the check for it has no funds; that Dr. Tinio went to
him before the due date of the check . After due date of the
check, Dr. Tinio no longer returned to see him because Dr.
Tinio was already in the U.S. ; that he did not exert any effort
to see Dr. Tinio for him to pay the value of the check
because he considered him as a friend, the mother of Dr.
Tinio is the best friend of his mother; that when Dr. Tinio was
unable to pay his obligation he kept the title handed to him
by Dr. Tinio; that he asked Dr. Tinio to execute a Real Estate
Mortgage to cover the amount of the check but he only made
promises.
11.6 It is likewise worthy to note that just like in the first

cause of action, plaintiffs in the said period of time honestly
believed and fully trusted defendant-appellee Dr. Edgardo
Tinio that he would not abandon nor deny his said obligation
to them, it was only when he (Dr. Edgardo Tinio) testified in
Court, that it was plainly revealed to them that the real
intention of defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio was not only to
abandon his obligation but also to deny the same through
diversionary tactics coupled with unfounded/fabricated lies.
Portion of his (Dr. Edgardo Tinio) testimony showing his
diversionary scheme and lies as contained/cited in page 21
of the Decision of the Trial Court stated ; that, Dr. Antonio
Tinio (his half-brother) was the one who rediscounted the
subject check; that, he was asked by his d half-brother to
guarantee said check; that he does not know if his half-
brother paid for the amount found(sic) in the check ; that
plaintiffs did not demand that he pay the check, they never
talked about it ; that sometime in 2003, he received
summons from the Court that was when he came to know
that his said half-brother did not pay the value of the check .
11.7 Based from the foregoing established facts, like

in the
(10.)
first cause of action, these facts clearly show that, there was
clear agreement between the herein parties regarding
defendant
Dr. Edgardo Tinio’s obligation to the plaintiffs-appellants
concerning the rediscounted check which was further
supported by a written agreement denominated as
Memorandum Of Understanding(Exhibit “C”, Page 204,
Records) pursuant to which, defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio
delivered the title of his mother bearing TCT-No.NT-31794
(Exhibit“D”,Page 205, Records) as security for the payment
of his obligation thereof .The continuing possession by the
plaintiffs of said title (TCT-No.NT-31794) is a clear proof that
defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio had a validly existing and
continuing obligations to the plaintiffs pursuant to the afore-
said Memorandum Of Understanding which concerns the
rediscounted check and the pledged title lot thereof . The
reliance of the plaintiffs of their possession of said title as
their clear security for the money they paid for the
rediscounted check, and their honest belief that at any given
time defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio who frequently travels
abroad will execute the real estate mortgage regarding the
pledged title (TCT-No.NT-31794) thereof or just pay them
and redeem said title from them, and the plaintiffs continuing
reminder and request, and demand for such execution of
real estate mortgage or payment thereof, and the
continuous refusal by the defendants to comply with his
promises (i.e. by executing e real estate mortgage in their
favor over the said pledged title TCT-No.NT-31794), these
all clearly show that just like in the first cause of action
defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio’s real intention was to abandon
and deny his said obligations .All of these facts indicate that
the said claims of the herein plaintiffs cannot be made
subject to prescription or by laches , otherwise, grave
injustice would be unnecessarily suffered by them and
imputed to them. Worst of all, it would be rewarding the
clearly unfair, unjust acts of defendant Dr. Edgardo Tinio at
the expense of the suffering of the plaintiffs-appellants for
their clearly honest to goodness act of trusting the said
defendant-appellee .
JURISPRUDENCE
12. In support of the foregoing arguments the following

pronouncements of the Supreme Court are hereunder quoted, as
follows ;
“ The essence of laches or “stale demands” is the

failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained
length of time to do that which, by exercising due
diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus,
giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to
assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it. It is
not concerned with mere lapse of time; the
(11.)
fact of delay, standing alone, being insufficient to

constitute laches.
In addition, it is a rule of equity and applied not to

penalize neglect or sleeping on one's rights, but rather to
avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a
clearly unfair situation. There is no absolute rule as to
what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case
is to be determined according to its particular
circumstances. Ultimately, the question of laches is
addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, being
an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by
equitable considerations. It cannot be used to defeat
justice or perpetrate fraud and injustice. It is the better
rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be
guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the
doctrine of laches when to do so, a manifest wrong or
injustice would result. (Insurance of The Philippine
Islands Corporation Versus Spouses Vidal S. Gregorio
And Julita Gregorio, G.R. NO.174104, February 14,
2011.)”
“ Prescription as understood and used in this

jurisdiction does not simply mean a mere lapse of time.
Rather, there must be a categorical showing that due to
plaintiff’s negligence, inaction, lack of interest, or intent
to abandon a lawful claim or cause of action, no action
whatsoever was taken, thus allowing the statute of
limitations to bar any subsequent suit. (Pablo R. Antonio
Versus Engr. Emilio M. Morales as Sole Proprietor of
E. M. Morales & Associates,G.R. No. 65552, January
23, 2007).”
PRAYER
Wherefore, in view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court Of Appeals that justice be done to the plaintiffs-
appellants by ORDERING the defendants to pay their obligations to
the plaintiffs plus damages and incidental expenses incurred by the
plaintiffs in this case as indicated in their Complaint, in other words, that
the judgment of the lower Court be REVERSED with cost against the
defendants .
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise

prayed for .
Cabanatuan City for the City of Manila, August 4, 2014 .

PTR.No. CBN-0437731, Cab, City-12-27-
2013
IBP No 880711,12-27-13, N.E. Chapter
Roll No. 45770, MCLE IV-0002636
(12.)
COPY FURNISHED:

3114 3114
COMPLIANCE
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13, of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure)
For lack of adequate facilities and due to distance, copy/copies of

the foregoing Appellants’ Brief was/were served to the other parties
by registered mail .
(13.)
Republic of the Philippines)
City of Cabanatuan )SS
x----------------------------------x
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I CHRISTIAN P. FRANCISCO, office staff of Atty. Jeremias C.
Garcia Law Office, with office address at 408-C Cerin Bldg. Maharlika
Highway,Cabanatuan City, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, depose and say;
That on August 4, 2014, I served two copies of the foregoing Brief

for the Appellants through registered mail at Cabanatuan City Post
office on the following::
ATTY. EVELYN J. MAGNO

Counsel for the Defendants-Appellees
Diaz Street, Marcos District
3114, Nueva Ecija Registry Receipt No:______
DR. EDGARDO T. TINIO

#205, Maestrang Kikay, Talaver
3114, Nueva Ecija Registry Receipt No:______
with postage fully pre-paid, as evidenced by the Registry

Receipts hereto attached
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

_______________________________, here in Cabanatuan City.
CHRISTIAN P. FRANCISCO
Affiant
Driver’s Lic. No.: C05-12-009285
Issued by: LTO-Cabanatuan City
SUBCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

_______________________, here at Cabanatuan City.
G.R. No. 165552 January 23, 2007
PABLO R. ANTONIO, JR., Petitioner,

vs.
ENGR. EMILIO M. MORALES as Sole Proprietor of E. M. MORALES &
ASSOCIATES, Respondent.
DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 of
the Court of Appeals dated June 11, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 80001 and its Resolution2 of
September 21, 2004 denying the motion for reconsideration.
Records show that on December 18, 1995, E. M. Morales & Associates filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 56, Makati City a complaint for a sum of money
(based upon an oral contract) against Pablo R. Antonio, Jr., petitioner, and Design
Consultancy, Inc., docketed as Civil Case No. 95-1796.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on two grounds: (1) plaintiff’s failure to
attach to the complaint a certificate of non-forum shopping; and (2) plaintiff’s lack of legal
capacity to sue, plaintiff being a sole proprietorship.
On September 30, 1996, respondent Engr. Emilio M. Morales, as plaintiff, filed an

Amended Complaint, attaching thereto a certificate of non-forum shopping.
The RTC issued an Order admitting the amended complaint and denying petitioner’s
motion to dismiss. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied,
prompting him to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 59309, which remained pending for more than six years.
Feeling that the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 59309 would be indefinite, respondent filed
with the RTC a motion to dismiss his complaint.lavvphil.net
On August 1, 2001, the RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 95-1796 without prejudice pursuant
to Section 2, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
On August 3, 2001, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a manifestation that the
RTC dismissed without prejudice Civil Case No. 95-1796. However, it was only on August
27, 2002, or after more than one year, that the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution
directing petitioner to comment on respondent’s manifestation.
On September 17, 2002, petitioner filed his comment.
On June 11, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing his petition in CA-
G.R. SP No. 59309.
Meanwhile, on September 23, 2002, respondent filed anew a complaint for the collection of
a sum of money, this time with Branch 215 of the Quezon City RTC, docketed as Civil
Case No. Q-02-47835.
Forthwith, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription
considering that under Article 1145 of the Civil Code, actions based on oral contracts
prescribe in six years. Petitioner maintains that from August 14, 1995, when he received
respondent’s last letter of demand, to September 23, 2002, when respondent filed Civil Case
No. Q-02-47835, more than seven years had elapsed; and that the first case, Civil Case No.
95-1796, did not interrupt the running of the period.
However, the RTC denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss and his subsequent motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner seasonably filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80001.
On June 11, 2004, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision dismissing the petition in
CA-G.R. SP No. 80001. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in a
Resolution dated September 21, 2004.
Hence, the present petition raising the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in
holding that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s
motion to dismiss the complaint by reason of prescription.
The petition lacks merit.
Articles 1139, 1145 and 1155 of the Civil Code provide:
ART. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.
xxx
ART. 1145. The following actions must be commenced within six years:
(1) Upon an oral-contract
(2) Upon a quasi-contract.
xxx
ART. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court,
when there is written extra-judicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written
acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor.
In the early case of US v. Serapio,3 this Court held that under the Civil Code, the
prescription of an action refers to the time within which an action must be brought after the
right of action has accrued. The prescriptive statutes serve to protect those who are diligent
and vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. The rationale behind the prescription of
actions is to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of
time, thus surprising the parties or their representatives when the facts have become obscure
from the lapse of time or the defective memory or death or removal of the witnesses.4
Prescription applies even to the most meritorious claims.
Prescription as understood and used in this jurisdiction does not simply mean a mere lapse
of time. Rather, there must be a categorical showing that due to plaintiff’s negligence,
inaction, lack of interest, or intent to abandon a lawful claim or cause of action, no action
whatsoever was taken, thus allowing the statute of limitations to bar any subsequent
suit.1avvphi1.net
Petitioner’s invocation of prescription is misplaced. We recall that on December 18, 1995,

respondent initially filed with the RTC of Makati City Civil Case No. 95-1796. While it was
later dismissed without prejudice to his own motion, we note that the dismissal sought was
not for the purpose of voluntarily abandoning his claim. On the contrary, respondent’s
intention was to expedite the enforcement of his rights. Understandably, he felt frustrated at
the snail’s pace at which his case was moving. As mentioned earlier, CA-G.R. SP No.
59309 remained pending before the Court of Appeals for six (6) long years.
We further observe that respondent acted swiftly after the dismissal of his case without
prejudice by the Makati RTC. He immediately filed with the Court of Appeals a
manifestation that Civil Case No. 95-1796 was dismissed by the lower court. But the Court
of Appeals acted on his manifestation only after one year. This delay, beyond respondent’s
control, in turn further caused delay in the filing of his new complaint with the Quezon City
RTC. Clearly, there was no inaction or lack of interest on his part.
The statute of limitations was devised to operate primarily against those who slept on their
rights and not against those desirous to act but could not do so for causes beyond their
control.5 Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the RTC, Branch 215,
Quezon City did not gravely abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to
dismiss respondent’s complaint and ruled that respondent’s filing of the complaint in Civil
Case No. Q-02-47835 is not barred by prescription.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80001. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
RENATO C. CORONA ADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1
Rollo, pp. 36-43. Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and
concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
2
Ibid., pp. 45-46.
3
23 Phil. 584 (1912).
4
Sinaon v. Soroñgon, G.R. No. 59879, May 13, 1985, 136 SCRA 407, 410; Peñales
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73611, October 27, 1986, 145 SCRA 223,
228.
5
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 43179, June 27, 1985, 137 SCRA 220, 228.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
Decision 6 G.R. No. 159213

We concur with the CA’s ruling th
at respondent’s action did not yet
prescribe. The legal provision governin
g this case was not Article 1146 of
the
Civil Code
,
16
but Article 1144 of the
Civil Code
, which states:
Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten
years from the time the cause of action accrues:
(1)
Upon a written contract;
(2)
Upon an obligation created by law;
(3)
Upon a judgm

Brief For Appellants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brief For Appellants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SPS. ARSENIO DE GUZMAN

Honorable Court most respectfully aver that ;

1.) In compliance with the Resolution promulgated by this Honorable Court

the Appellants’ Brief was received by the herein defendants-appellees, herein

plaintiffs-appellants by counsel hereby respectfully submits the following hereto

attached proof of of such receipts, to wit ;

a. Postmaster’s Certification certifiying that the said Appellants’ Brief was

received by the Defendants-Applellees, represented by Edgardo Tinio on August 8,

2014, as per attached Annex “A”;

likewise received by the defendants-appellees’ counsel Atty. Evelyn J. Magno on

August 8, 2014, as per attached Annex “B”.

Very respectfully submitted .

Cabanatuan City for the City of Manila, September 8, 2014 .

ATTY. JEREMIAS C. GARCIA

ATTY. EVELYN J. MAGNO EDGARDO T. TINIO

ATTY. JEREMIAS C. GARCIA

SPS. ARSENIO DE GUZMAN

Plaitiffs-Appellants, through their undersigned counsel unto this Honorable

Court very respectfully states, that ;

3.) It is unfortunate, however, that the undersigned counsel’s present

Cabanatuan City for the City of Manila, July 7, 2014 .

ATTY. EVELYN J. MAGNO EDGARDO T. TINIO

ATTY. JEREMIAS C. GARCIA

SPS. ARSENIO DE GUZMAN

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANTS

Plaitiffs-Appellants, through their undersigned counsel unto

this Honorable Court of Appeals, very respectfully submit this brief,

and respectfully state that ;

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

1.)On May 23, 2014, the undersigned counsel received

2.) On July 7, 2014, herein plaintiffs-appellants due to the

3.) Without waiting to receive copy of the notice/order of this

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

4.) This is an action for Sums of Money and/or Specific

“… the obligation of the defendants to the

5.) Thus, this appeal .

STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE CASE

6.) Sometime in February, 1996, the heirs of the late

7.) With respect to the second cause of action, sometime in

8.) On December 3, 2003, plaintiffs sent a Demand Letter

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING

9.) Since the two above-stated assignment of errors are related

11.) It is respectfully submitted that prescription and laches

11.1 With respect to the first cause of action, the

11.2 It is worthy to note that plaintiffs in the said period

ATTY.ANNANG : This title (TCT NT-35540) was

DR. TINIO : Because she asked me for safekeeping

ATTY.ANNANG : Are you related to Mrs. De

DR. TINIO : I have no blood relationship with her

ATTY.ANNANG : Why then you entrusted the

ATTY.ANNANG : Why you did not deposit it to the

DR. TINIO : Because she is a good friend of mine .

ATTY.ANNANG : She is your friend up to the

DR. TINIO : I don’t know about them . I consider them

DR. TINIO : I don’t have any obligation to them .

ATTY.ANNANG : You are lecturing. I don’t like that.

DR. TINIO : That is what I said so but I don’t know .

11.3 Based from the foregoing established facts,

(1)Upon a written contract;

10.4 Further still, the now clearly revealed real intention of

11.5 With respect to the second cause of action, the