This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-01-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| There is no absolute rule on what constitutes laches. It is a creation of equity and applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon one's rights but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation. The question of laches, we said, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and each case must be decided according to its particular circumstances.[24] Verily, in a number of cases, it had been held that laches, the essence of which is the neglect to assert a right over a long period of time, may prevent recovery of a titled property.[25] | |||||
|
2003-03-05 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' last argument that they are not guilty of laches in enforcing their rights to the property is irrelevant. Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[48] It does not involve mere lapse or passage of time, but is principally an impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right, which has become under the circumstances inequitable or unfair to permit.[49] Petitioners' insistence that they are not negligent in asserting their right over the property proceeds from the wrong premise that they have a right to enforce over the disputed property as co-owners. There can be no delay in asserting a right where the right does not exist. | |||||