Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. REGALADO SANTIAGO AND ROSITA PALABYAB v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 148777 2007-10-18	ESTATE OF LATE ENCARNACION VDA. DE PANLILIO v. GONZALO DIZON VELASCO, JR., J.
In Santiago v. Court of Appeals, we explained that 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."[64]
	GR No. 161758 2007-06-08	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. CELSO OÑATE VELASCO, JR., J.
In Felix Gochan and Sons Realty Corporation, we held that "[t]hough laches applies even to imprescriptible actions, its elements must be proved positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature which could not be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and can not be resolved in a motion to dismiss (emphases supplied)."[48] In the same vein, we explained in Santiago v. Court of Appeals that 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."[49]
	GR NO. 132887 2005-08-11	MANILA BANKING CORPORATION v. EDMUNDO S. SILVERIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Taken together with the other circumstances surrounding the sale, Edmundo's failure to exercise acts of dominium over the subject properties buttresses TMBC's position that the former did not at all intend to be bound by the contract of sale. In Suntay,[46] as reiterated in such cases as Santiago v. Court of Appeals,[47] Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation[48] and Ramos v. Heirs of Ramos, Sr.,[49] we held that "the most proturberant index of simulation is the complete absence of an attempt in any manner on the part of the [ostensible buyer] to assert his rights of ownership over the [properties] in question." The supposed buyer's failure to take exclusive possession of the property allegedly sold or, in the alternative, to collect rentals, is contrary to the principle of ownership.[50] Such failure is a clear badge of simulation that renders the whole transaction void pursuant to Article 1409 of the Civil Code.[51]
	GR No. 130876 2003-12-05	FRANCISCO ALONSO v. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Finally, petitioners' right of action is barred neither by prescription nor by laches. This action seeks a declaration of nullity of private respondent's reconstituted title on the ground, among others, of lack of jurisdiction. Such action does not prescribe.[21] As for laches, we must not lose sight of the basic postulate that it is a doctrine of equity which should never be used as a shield for fraud or wrongdoing by the very party responsible therefor.[22] The private respondent, operating under its previous name, was an active participant in the wrongful use and subsequent disappearance of the source document used in the reconstitution. Under such circumstances, private respondent cannot invoke laches to defeat petitioners' right to assail the validity of the reconstituted title because laches cannot be applied when manifest wrong or injustice will result.[23]