Consuelo v. Pangasinan

Summary

This case involves a property dispute where Aurora Morales-Vivar claimed that Conrado Almazora fraudulently transferred a 572 square meter property in Laguna to his name after the title was entrusted to him for safekeeping in 1945. Aurora's heirs filed a damages case in 1996 after learning of the fraudulent transfer and subsequent sale. The Supreme Court affirmed lower court decisions dismissing the case, ruling that petitioners were barred by laches for their 50-year delay in asserting ownership rights and that the action had prescribed under the 10-year limitation period for constructive trust claims under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. The Court emphasized the principle that 'the law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights' and found insufficient evidence of fraud. The decision reinforces the doctrines of laches and prescription as defenses against stale claims in property disputes.