This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Estoppel by deed is "a bar which precludes one party from asserting as against the other party and his privies any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material facts asserted in it."[48] We have previously cautioned against the perils of the misapplication of the doctrine of estoppel: Estoppel has been characterized as harsh or odious, and not favored in law. When misapplied, estoppel becomes a most effective weapon to establish an injustice, inasmuch as it shuts a man's mouth from speaking the truth and debars the truth in a particular case. Estoppel cannot be sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference; it must be clearly proved in all its essential elements by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. x x x.[49] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Hermogenes Lopez (Hermogenes) was the father of the Lopez siblings. During Hermogenes' lifetime, he applied with the Bureau of Lands for a homestead patent over a parcel of land, with an area of 19.4888 hectares, located in Barrio dela Paz, Antipolo, Rizal. Hermogenes' application was docketed as Homestead Patent No. 138612. After ascertaining that the land was free from claim of any private person, the Bureau of Lands approved Hermogenes' application. In 1939, Hermogenes submitted his final proof of compliance with the residency and cultivation requirements of the Public Land Act. As a matter of course, the aforesaid parcel of land was surveyed by a government surveyor and the resulting plan H-138612 was approved by the Director of Lands on 7 February 1939. The Director of Lands, thereafter, ordered the issuance of the homestead patent in Hermogenes' name. The patent was subsequently transmitted to the Register of Deeds of Rizal for transcription and issuance of the corresponding certificate of title[9] in Hermogenes' name.[10] | |||||
|
2007-03-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Regarding petitioner's second argument, we hold that it cannot impugn respondent's claim on the basis of laches. Laches is the failure or negligence to assert a right within a reasonable time, giving rise to a presumption that a party has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[16] It is not a mere question of lapse or passage of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be asserted.[17] | |||||
|
2007-02-09 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| While, generally, petitioners' failure to comply with the procedural requirements prescribed under the Rules of Court would warrant the dismissal of the petition,[18] fundamental considerations of substantial justice persuade the Court to have the present case decided on the merits rather than dismissed on a technicality.[19] It is settled that the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very strict and technical sense. These are used only to help secure rather than override substantial justice. The stringent application of the rules must yield to the demands of substantial justice.[20] | |||||