This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-07-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| (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.[32] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| AZNAR insists that since there was no Torrens title on file in 1964, insofar as the vendors, AZNAR, and the Register of Deeds are concerned, the subject property was unregistered at the time. The contention is untenable. The fact that the certificate of title over the registered land is lost does not convert it into unregistered land. After all, a certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. This Court agrees with the petitioners that AZNAR should have availed itself of the legal remedy of reconstitution of the lost certificate of title, instead of registration under Act 3344. We note that in Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying, AZNAR, beset with the similar problem of a lost certificate of title over a registered land, sought the reconstitution thereof. It is unfortunate that, in the instant case, despite the sale of the subject property way back in 1964 and the existence of the remedy of reconstitution at that time, AZNAR opted to register the same under the improper registry (Act 3344) and allowed such status to lie undisturbed.[25] (italics supplied) In the instant case, petitioner MCIAA did not bother to have the lost title covering Lot No. 4763-D reconstituted at any time, notwithstanding the fact that the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in 1958, or more than fifty years ago. Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt. Laws must come to the assistance of the vigilant, not of the sleepy.[26] As a matter of fact, this entire controversy may very well have been avoided had it not been for petitioner's negligence. | |||||
|
2005-08-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| All the four (4) elements of laches prescribed by this Court in the case of Go Chi Gun, et al. v. Co Cho, et al.[42] and reiterated in the cases of Mejia de Lucas v. Gamponia,[43] Miguel v. Catalino[44] and Claverias v. Quingco[45] are present in the case at bar, to wit:(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; | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| All the four (4) elements of laches prescribed by this Court in the case of Go Chi Gun, et al. v. Co Cho, et al.[42] and reiterated in the cases of Mejia de Lucas v. Gamponia,[43] Miguel v. Catalino[44] and Claverias v. Quingco[45] are present in the case at bar, to wit: (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.[46] Petitioners' inaction for forty-five (45) years reduced their right to recover the subject property into a stale demand. | |||||