Lawyerly

GR No. 172505

2014-10-01

LEONEN, J.

As a general rule, this court through its appellate jurisdiction can only decide on matters or issues raised by the parties.[42] However, the rule admits of exceptions.[43] When the unassigned error affects jurisdiction over the subject matter[44] or when the consideration of the error is necessary for a complete resolution of the case,[45] this court can still decide on these issues.

GR No. 172505

2014-10-01

ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. FERRO CHEMICALS

LEONEN, J.

As a general rule, this court through its appellate jurisdiction can only decide on matters or issues raised by the parties.[42] However, the rule admits of exceptions.[43] When the unassigned error affects jurisdiction over the subject matter[44] or when the consideration of the error is necessary for a complete resolution of the case,[45] this court can still decide on these issues.

GR No. 210252

2014-06-25

VILMA QUINTOS v. PELAGIA I. NICOLAS

VELASCO JR., J.

Laches is 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. It is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable period, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it.[30] The principle is a creation of equity which, as such, is applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon one's right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation. As an equitable defense, laches does not concern itself with the character of the petitioners' title, but only with whether or not by reason of the respondents' long inaction or inexcusable neglect, they should be barred from asserting this claim at all, because to allow them to do so would be inequitable and unjust to petitioners.[31]

GR No. 179909

2010-01-25

FAR EAST BANK v. SPS. ERNESTO AND LEONOR C. CAYETANO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Notwithstanding the nullity of the real estate mortgage executed by Tabing and her husband, we find that the equity principle of laches is applicable in the instant case. Laches 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.[22] Its essential elements are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of; (2) delay in asserting complainant's right after he had knowledge of the defendant's conduct and after he has an opportunity to sue; (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.[23]

GR No. 175788

2009-06-30

ENRIQUITA ANGAT v. REPUBLIC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We also observe that Federico and Enriquita failed to provide any explanation why it took them 40 years from the burning of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite on 7 June 1959, before instituting the reconstitution proceedings. The failure of Federico and Enriquita to immediately seek the reconstitution of TCT No. T-4399, and their procrastination for four decades before actually filing their Petition, had allowed laches to attach. Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[34] In Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. Court of Appeals, we denied, on the ground of laches, therein petitioners' petition for reconstitution of title, which was filed only 19 years after the original of said title was allegedly lost or destroyed. [35]

GR No. 150206

2009-03-13

HEIRS OF TEOFILO GABATAN v. CA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Moreover, our rules recognize the broad discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned. Thus, the Court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal in these instances: (a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent. [11]

GR No. 178309

2009-01-27

AKLAN COLLEGE v. PERPETUO ENERO

NACHURA, J.

(6) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent.[30]

GR NO. 144103

2005-08-31

DELA CRUZ v. SABINA MIGUEL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Laches has been defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition or relations of the property or parties. It is based on public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim. It is different from and applies independently of prescription. While prescription is concerned with the fact of delay, laches is concerned with the effect of delay. Prescription is a matter of time; laches is principally a question of inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded on some change in the condition of the property or the relation of the parties. Prescription is statutory; laches is not. Laches applies in equity, whereas prescription applies at law. Prescription is based on a fixed time, laches is not.[32] 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 the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[33]

GR No. 149992

2004-08-20

HI-TONE MARKETING CORPORATION v. BAIKAL REALTY CORPORATION

TINGA, J.

While the procedural rule is that a party is required to indicate in his brief an assignment of errors and only those assigned shall be considered by the appellate court in deciding the case,[57] it is equally settled that appellate courts have ample authority to rule on matters not assigned as errors in an appeal, if these are indispensable or necessary to the just resolution of the pleaded issues.[58] This Court has allowed the consideration of other grounds not raised or assigned as errors specifically in the following instances: 1) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the contemplation of the law; 3) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; 4) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; 5) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and 6) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned is dependent.[59]

GR No. 112905

2000-02-03

HEIRS OF PEDRO LOPEZ v. HONESTO C. DE CASTRO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Even granting that petitioners did not really have actual knowledge of private respondents' application for registration, yet after discovering that the land was already registered in the name of private respondents, petitioners should have immediately sought recourse in law to protect their rights. As it turned out, they let almost seven (7) years to pass from such discovery before they acted to revive what already was a dormant judgment. Hence, they filed the separate action "for execution of judgment and cancellation of titles" of private respondents because more than five (5) years had elapsed since the promulgation of the decision directing the issuance of a decree of registration.[37] Under these circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that petitioners neglected for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, they could or should have done earlier. They neglected or omitted to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that they either had abandoned or declined to assert it.[38] In short, they were guilty of laches.

	GR No. 172505 2014-10-01	ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. FERRO CHEMICALS LEONEN, J.
As a general rule, this court through its appellate jurisdiction can only decide on matters or issues raised by the parties.[42] However, the rule admits of exceptions.[43] When the unassigned error affects jurisdiction over the subject matter[44] or when the consideration of the error is necessary for a complete resolution of the case,[45] this court can still decide on these issues.
	GR No. 172505 2014-10-01	ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. FERRO CHEMICALS LEONEN, J.
As a general rule, this court through its appellate jurisdiction can only decide on matters or issues raised by the parties.[42] However, the rule admits of exceptions.[43] When the unassigned error affects jurisdiction over the subject matter[44] or when the consideration of the error is necessary for a complete resolution of the case,[45] this court can still decide on these issues.
	GR No. 210252 2014-06-25	VILMA QUINTOS v. PELAGIA I. NICOLAS VELASCO JR., J.
Laches is 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. It is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable period, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it.[30] The principle is a creation of equity which, as such, is applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping upon one's right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation. As an equitable defense, laches does not concern itself with the character of the petitioners' title, but only with whether or not by reason of the respondents' long inaction or inexcusable neglect, they should be barred from asserting this claim at all, because to allow them to do so would be inequitable and unjust to petitioners.[31]
	GR No. 179909 2010-01-25	FAR EAST BANK v. SPS. ERNESTO AND LEONOR C. CAYETANO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Notwithstanding the nullity of the real estate mortgage executed by Tabing and her husband, we find that the equity principle of laches is applicable in the instant case. Laches 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.[22] Its essential elements are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of; (2) delay in asserting complainant's right after he had knowledge of the defendant's conduct and after he has an opportunity to sue; (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.[23]
	GR No. 175788 2009-06-30	ENRIQUITA ANGAT v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We also observe that Federico and Enriquita failed to provide any explanation why it took them 40 years from the burning of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite on 7 June 1959, before instituting the reconstitution proceedings. The failure of Federico and Enriquita to immediately seek the reconstitution of TCT No. T-4399, and their procrastination for four decades before actually filing their Petition, had allowed laches to attach. Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[34] In Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. Court of Appeals, we denied, on the ground of laches, therein petitioners' petition for reconstitution of title, which was filed only 19 years after the original of said title was allegedly lost or destroyed. [35]
	GR No. 150206 2009-03-13	HEIRS OF TEOFILO GABATAN v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, our rules recognize the broad discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned. Thus, the Court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal in these instances: (a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent. [11]
	GR No. 178309 2009-01-27	AKLAN COLLEGE v. PERPETUO ENERO NACHURA, J.
(6) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent.[30]
	GR NO. 144103 2005-08-31	DELA CRUZ v. SABINA MIGUEL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Laches has been defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in the assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another because of the inequity founded on some change in the condition or relations of the property or parties. It is based on public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains that relief will be denied to a stale demand which otherwise could be a valid claim. It is different from and applies independently of prescription. While prescription is concerned with the fact of delay, laches is concerned with the effect of delay. Prescription is a matter of time; laches is principally a question of inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded on some change in the condition of the property or the relation of the parties. Prescription is statutory; laches is not. Laches applies in equity, whereas prescription applies at law. Prescription is based on a fixed time, laches is not.[32] 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 the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[33]
	GR No. 149992 2004-08-20	HI-TONE MARKETING CORPORATION v. BAIKAL REALTY CORPORATION TINGA, J.
While the procedural rule is that a party is required to indicate in his brief an assignment of errors and only those assigned shall be considered by the appellate court in deciding the case,[57] it is equally settled that appellate courts have ample authority to rule on matters not assigned as errors in an appeal, if these are indispensable or necessary to the just resolution of the pleaded issues.[58] This Court has allowed the consideration of other grounds not raised or assigned as errors specifically in the following instances: 1) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the contemplation of the law; 3) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; 4) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; 5) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and 6) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned is dependent.[59]
	GR No. 112905 2000-02-03	HEIRS OF PEDRO LOPEZ v. HONESTO C. DE CASTRO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Even granting that petitioners did not really have actual knowledge of private respondents' application for registration, yet after discovering that the land was already registered in the name of private respondents, petitioners should have immediately sought recourse in law to protect their rights. As it turned out, they let almost seven (7) years to pass from such discovery before they acted to revive what already was a dormant judgment. Hence, they filed the separate action "for execution of judgment and cancellation of titles" of private respondents because more than five (5) years had elapsed since the promulgation of the decision directing the issuance of a decree of registration.[37] Under these circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that petitioners neglected for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, they could or should have done earlier. They neglected or omitted to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that they either had abandoned or declined to assert it.[38] In short, they were guilty of laches.

CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BALANGA v. CA