Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DELFINA VDA. DE RIGONAN AND SPS. VALERIO LAUDE AND VISMINDA LAUDE v. ZOROASTER DERECHO REPRESENTING HEIRS OF RUBEN DERECHO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 194964-65 2016-01-11	UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO v. BANGKO SENTRAL PILIPINAS LEONEN, J.
Prescription is the mode of acquiring or losing rights through the lapse of time.[62] Its purpose is "to protect the diligent and vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights."[63]
	GR No. 182908 2014-08-06	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO I. NARVASA v. IMBORNAL PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
An implied trust arises, not from any presumed intention of the parties, but by operation of law in order to satisfy the demands of justice and equity and to protect against unfair dealing or downright fraud.[44] To reiterate, Article 1456 of the Civil Code states that"[i]f property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes."
	GR No. 171904 2013-08-07	BOBBY TAN v. GRACE ANDRADE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Besides, the Court observes that laches had already set in, thereby precluding the Andrades from pursuing their claim. Case law defines laches as the "failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it."[47]
	GR No. 167995 2009-09-11	JULITA V. IMUAN v. JUANITO CERENO PERALTA, J.
Laches is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. This equitable defense is based upon grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society.[39]
	GR No. 148788 2007-11-23	SOLEDAD CAÑEZO v. CONCEPCION ROJAS NACHURA, J.
In light of the disquisitions, we hold that there was no express trust or resulting trust established between the petitioner and her father. Thus, in the absence of a trust relation, we can only conclude that Crispulo's uninterrupted possession of the subject property for 49 years, coupled with the performance of acts of ownership, such as payment of real estate taxes, ripened into ownership. The statutory period of prescription commences when a person who has neither title nor good faith, secures a tax declaration in his name and may, therefore, be said to have adversely claimed ownership of the lot.[38] While tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership and do not prove title to the land, nevertheless, when coupled with actual possession, they constitute evidence of great weight and can be the basis of a claim of ownership through prescription.[39] Moreover, Section 41 of Act No. 190 allows adverse possession in any character to ripen into ownership after the lapse of ten years. There could be prescription under the said section even in the absence of good faith and just title.[40]
	GR No. 150175 2007-02-05	ERLINDA PILAPIL v. HEIRS OF MAXIMINO R. BRIONES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Other than prescription of action, respondents' right to recover possession of the disputed properties, based on implied trust, is also barred by laches. The defense of laches, which is a question of inequity in permitting a claim to be enforced, applies independently of prescription, which is a question of time. Prescription is statutory; laches is equitable.[29]
	GR NO. 162037 2006-11-29	HEIRS OF ENRIQUE DIAZ v. ELINOR A. VIRATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Laches is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. This equitable defense is based upon grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society.[84] Indeed, while it is true that a Torrens Title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession of his registered property by reason of laches.[85] However, In the case at bar, laches cannot be appreciated in petitioners' favor.
	GR NO. 169898 2006-10-27	SPS. ANITA AND HONORIO AGUIRRE v. HEIRS OF LUCAS VILLANUEVA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, the action is barred by laches which is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. This equitable defense is based upon grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society.[18]
	GR NO. 162037 2006-08-07	HEIRS OF ENRIQUE DIAZ v. ELINOR A. VIRATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Laches is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. This equitable defense is based upon grounds of public policy, which requires the discouragement of stale claims for the peace of society.[84] Indeed, while it is true that a Torrens Title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession of his registered property by reason of laches.[85] However, In the case at bar, laches cannot be appreciated in petitioners' favor.