This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-12-07 |
TOSINO v. SPS. ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE-ROSARIO AND BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Civil Case No. U-4359 is likewise not barred by laches. Laches means 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. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. As the Court explained in the preceding paragraphs, the Torbela siblings instituted Civil Case No. U-4359 five years after Dr. Rosario's repudiation of the express trust, still within the 10-year prescriptive period for enforcement of such trusts. This does not constitute an unreasonable delay in asserting one's right. A delay within the prescriptive period is sanctioned by law and is not considered to be a delay that would bar relief. Laches apply only in the absence of a statutory prescriptive period. [75] | |||||
|
2006-08-03 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, petitioners' assertions in support of their right to relief are factual ones, such as whether Avendaño fulfilled his obligations under the letter-agreement or whether he actually demanded from respondent the execution of a contract to sell. All these issues were joined and ventilated adequately in the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Evidence for both parties was presented and evaluated. We shall therefore desist from reexamining the evidence submitted by the parties, or analyzing or weighing the evidence all over again.[14] | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actuations of the court null and void, because of that court's want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[15] Thus, whenever it appears to the court in the course of a proceeding that an indispensable party has not been joined, it is the duty of the court to stop the trial and order the inclusion of such party.[16] | |||||