Pelaez, Marc Rayjen E. LLB I-Manresa Legal Writing 6:00-7:00 pm Monday July 11, 2011 Banogon v Zerna G.R.

No. L-35469, October 9, 1987 154 SCRA 593 Facts: Petitioners Encarnacion Banogon, Zosima Munoz, and Davidina Munoz

against respondents Lelchor Zerna, De Cornelio Francisco Zerna, and Hon. Cipriano Vamenta, Jr., filed a petition for certiorari to review the orders of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental on March 6, 1957 concerning the said courts original decision on a land in dispute way back on February 9, 1926. The dismissal of the said motion happened on the courts ground that the motion for review was filed out of time taking thirty years after. The petitioners basically argue that 1926 court judgement had not become final and executory because according to their interpretation of Sec. 38 of the Land Registration Act, the said land in dispute had not yet been registered in favour of the private respondents which should have been so after one year upon the issuance of the decree of registration. At final, the court dismissed this petition for review of judgement. Legal issue: Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of laches and are deserving of a

case review for having delayed not only 31 days but 31 years in asserting the claim of fraud in the failure of the respondents to issue a decree of land registration Holding: dismissed. Reasoning: The court holds the petitioners guilty of laches hence their petition is Although 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 the entry of the decree, it should not be given a literal interpretation, the legislature intended Section 38 for the petitioners to be presented before the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree. The petitioners should have not delayed their assertion of fraud. Laches bars their petition now for it is clearly contrary to law and logic and even ordinary common sense. Statutes must be given reasonable construction; there can be no possible reason for requiring the complaining party to wait until the final decree is entered before urging their claim of fraud. Policy: The litigants must be aware that the administration of justice must not be

delayed, once a judgement has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. The courts time is too valuable and

limited to evade the operation of a decision final and executory such as the case at bar. Hence, misinterpretations of law frustrate the ends of justice and must be disallowed.