This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-11-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In this case, respondents (defendants-appellants below) did not present any evidence in support of their defense, as they failed to take advantage of all the opportunities they had to do so. The Court stressed in Heirs of Anacleto B. Nieto vs. Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan,[10] that: x x x laches is not concerned only with the mere lapse of time. The following elements must be present in order to constitute laches: | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| However, in Heirs of Anacleto B. Nieto v. Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan,[35] the Court had recognized the jurisprudential thread regarding the exception to the foregoing doctrine that while it is true that a Torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover possession of his registered property by reason of laches. | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Felipe and his wife also claim that Marciana, et al's action was barred by laches. But there is no basis for such claim. Laches has been 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.[34] | |||||
|
2010-09-27 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice, of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.[37] | |||||