We deny the petition. Ultimately, however, the question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, since it is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations. Clearly, these are factual matters over which the Supreme Court will not venture to make any determination for we are not a trier of facts. The issue whether or not private respondent's suit is barred by laches will be best ventilated in a full-blown proceeding before the trial court, for what is involved here is not a mere trifle but sizable parcels of land covered by two certificates of title, which private respondent claims to be part of her successional rights from her grandparents in representation of her father. True or not, private respondent must be given ample opportunity to prove her claim, and the petitioner to debunk the same.
Petitioner likewise avers that prescription has set in to extinguish private respondent's claim.
Prescription may be effectively pleaded in a motion to dismiss if the complaint shows on its face that the action had already prescribed at the time it was filed. In the case at bench, the only way by which we can determine whether or not prescription has set in is the date of the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. Unfortunately, however, both the trial court and the public respondent Court of Appeals found that petitioner failed to attach to his answer a copy of his alleged titles nor even to allege therein the dates when these titles were supposedly issued. Thus, the court was left with nothing to effectively compute prescription. We find no substantial evidence in the records, apart from the self-serving averments of the petitioner, to disturb this factual finding of both courts.