This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-21 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Lee, it is true, allowed the respondent spouses to continue occupying the premises even after the sale. This development, however, is not without basis or practical reason. The spouses' continuous possession of the property was by virtue of a one-year lease[20] they executed with respondent Lee six days after the sale. As explained by the respondent spouses, they insisted on the lease arrangement as a condition for the sale in question. And pursuant to the lease contract aforementioned, the respondent Ongs paid and Lee collected rentals at the rate of P25,000.00 a month. Contrary thus to the petitioner's asseveration, respondent Lee, after the sale, exercised acts of dominion over the said property and asserted his rights as the new owner. So, when the respondent spouses continued to occupy the property after its sale, they did so as mere tenants. While the failure of the vendee to take exclusive possession of the property is generally recognized as a badge of fraud, the same cannot be said here in the light of the existence of what appears to be a genuine lessor-lessee relationship between the spouses Ong and Lee. To borrow from Reyes vs. Court of Appeals,[21] possession may be exercised in one's own name or in the name of another; an owner of a piece of land has possession, either when he himself physically occupies the same or when another person who recognizes his right as owner is in such occupancy. | |||||
|
2003-02-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we do not think that respondents' causes of action in Civil Case No. A-2032 are now barred by estoppel and laches. The essence of estoppel and laches 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 the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it although there is no absolute rule as to what constitutes staleness of demand as each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances.[28] | |||||