Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RITA JUCO v. HEIRS OF TOMAS SIY CHUNG FU

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 179638 2013-07-08	MIRANDA v. PABLO R. MIRANDA DEL CASTILLO, J.
An action for revival of judgment is a new and independent action.[44] It is different and distinct from the original judgment sought to be revived or enforced.[45] As such, a party aggrieved by a decision of a court in an action for revival of judgment may appeal the decision, but only insofar as the merits of the action for revival is concerned. The original judgment, which is already final and executory, may no longer be reversed, altered, or modified.[46]
	GR No. 178352 2008-06-17	VIRGILIO S. DELIMA v. SUSAN MERCAIDA GOIS YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
A decision issued by a court is final and executory when such decision disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court, such as when after the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal, no appeal has been perfected.[19]
	GR NO. 143188 2007-02-14	FLORENTINO PINEDA v. HEIRS OF ELISEO GUEVARA TINGA, J.
Whether or not the elements of laches are present is a question involving a factual determination by the trial court. There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances.[10] Laches is not concerned with the mere lapse of time, rather, the party must have been afforded an opportunity to pursue his claim in order that the delay may sufficiently constitute laches.[11] Without prejudging the instant case, an apparent delay in the enforcement of one's claim does not automatically constitute laches. The party charged with negligence or omission in invoking his right must be afforded the opportunity to raise his defenses, which can be accommodated only in a contentious proceeding.
	GR NO. 169973 2006-06-26	PLACEWELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION v. IRENEO B. CAMOTE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner's contention that respondent is guilty of laches is without basis. Laches has been defined as the failure of 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, or to assert a right within reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. Thus, the doctrine of laches presumes that the party guilty of negligence had the opportunity to do what should have been done, but failed to do so. Conversely, if the said party did not have the occasion to assert the right, then, he can not be adjudged guilty of laches. Laches is not concerned with the mere lapse of time, rather, the party must have been afforded an opportunity to pursue his claim in order that the delay may sufficiently constitute laches.[13]