This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Anent laches, the Court finds it unavailing in this case in view of the proximity of the period when the co-ownership was expressly repudiated and when the herein complaint was filed. Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[53] More so, laches is a creation of equity and its application is controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud and injustice. Neither should its application be used to prevent the rightful owners of a property from recovering what has been fraudulently registered in the name of another.[54] | |||||
|
2008-07-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' contention lacks merit. The policy of our judicial system is to encourage full adjudication of the merits of an appeal. Procedural niceties should be avoided in labor cases as the provisions of the Rules of Court are applied only in a suppletory manner. Indeed, rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a party of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of noncompliance with the process required.[14] Moreover, averments in the pleadings, not the title, are controlling[15] in determining the nature of the proceeding. | |||||