This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Laches, in a general sense, 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; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[22] | |||||
|
2015-07-08 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals thus failed to account for the crucial fact that the issue of jurisdiction was invoked by respondent only upon her elevation to it of the case. It failed to recognize that respondent had all the opportunity to raise this issue before the very tribunal whom she claims to have had no competence to rule on the appeal, but that it was only after the same tribunal ruled against her twice — first, in its initial Resolution and second, in denying her reconsideration — that she saw it fit to assail its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals failed to see through respondent's own failure to seasonably act and failed to realize that she was guilty of estoppel by laches, taking "an unreasonable . . . length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier[.]"[63] | |||||
|
2012-04-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Regalado v. Go,[30] the Court held that laches should be clearly present for the Sibonghanoy[31] doctrine to apply, thus: Laches is defined as 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, it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it." | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Regalado v. Go,[20] the Court held that laches should be clearly present for the Sibonghanoy[21] doctrine to apply, thus: Laches is defined as 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, it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it." | |||||
|
2009-07-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Despite the pendency of this case for around 18 years, the exception laid down in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy[21] and clarified recently in Figueroa v. People[22] cannot be applied. First, because, as a general rule, the principle of estoppel by laches cannot lie against the government.[23] No injustice to the parties or to any third person will be wrought by the ruling that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the instituted probate proceedings. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Sibonghanoy,[47] the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed by the Surety[48] almost 15 years after the questioned ruling had been rendered.[49] At several stages of the proceedings, in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, the Surety invoked the jurisdiction of the said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for final adjudication on the merits. It was only when the adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction.[50] | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| her active participation in the trial court proceedings. Estoppel or laches may also bar lack of jurisdiction as a ground for nullity especially if raised for the first time on appeal by a party who participated in the proceedings before the trial court, as what happened in this case.[34] For these reasons, the present petition should be dismissed for utter lack of merit. The extraordinary action to annul a final judgment is restricted to the grounds specified in the rules. The reason for the restriction is to prevent this extraordinary action from being used | |||||