Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DESAMPARADOS M. SOLIVA v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF MARCELO M. VILLALBA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 148777 2007-10-18	ESTATE OF LATE ENCARNACION VDA. DE PANLILIO v. GONZALO DIZON VELASCO, JR., J.
According to settled jurisprudence, "laches" means "the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by the exercise of due diligence could or should have been done earlier."[62] Verily, laches serves to deprive a party guilty of it of any judicial remedies. Its elements are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom the defendant claims, giving rise to the situation 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 as 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 in which the defendant bases the suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred.[63]
	GR No. 161758 2007-06-08	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. CELSO OÑATE VELASCO, JR., J.
Laches is defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by the exercise of due diligence could or should have been done earlier.[46] Verily, laches serves to deprive a party guilty of it to any judicial remedies. Its elements are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom the defendant claims, giving rise to the situation 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 as 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 in which the defendant bases the suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred.[47]
	GR No. 138463 2006-10-30	HEIRS OF CIPRIANO REYES: RICARDO REYES v. JOSE CALUMPANG VELASCO JR., J.
Under this time-honored doctrine, relief has been denied to litigants who, by sleeping on their rights for an unreasonable length of time either by negligence, folly or inattention have allowed their claims to become stale. Vigilantibus, sed non dormientibus, jura subveniunt. The laws aid the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.[24] (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)