This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The principle of laches 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.[26] The time-honored rule anchored on public policy is that relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim or demand has become "stale," or who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time, or who lias not been vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly or inattention. In other words, public policy requires, for peace of society, the discouragement of claims grown stale for non-assertion; thus laches is an impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right which has become, under the circumstances, inequitable or unfair to permit.[27] | |||||
|
2001-09-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Where a party allows 4 years or more to lapse before instituting court action to enforce his claim, such action would be barred by laches.[11] It took petitioner in this case 18 years before filing suit to annul the proceedings in LRC No. N-164-M. We have consistently held that a party's long inaction or passivity in asserting his rights over disputed property precludes him from recovering the same.[12] The law helps the vigilant but not those who sleep on their rights.[13] We are constrained to conclude that no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in finding that laches had set in to prevent petitioner from assailing the jurisdiction of the court in LRC No. N-164-M. | |||||