Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • 2 Nieto Vs Meycauayan

    Transféré par

    Jessa Lo
    323 vues2 pages
    Laches is not determined solely based on the passage of time. For laches to apply, four elements must be present: (1) conduct by the defendant giving rise to the complaint, (2) unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in asserting their rights despite having notice and opportunity to file suit, (3) lack of notice by the defendant that the plaintiff would assert their claim, and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant if relief was granted. In this case, the plaintiff filed suit only 10 months after demanding the defendant vacate the property, which does not constitute unreasonable delay. Moreover, laches cannot be used to defeat justice or allow fraud and injustice.

    Description originale:

    Case Digest

    Titre original

    2 Nieto vs Meycauayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Laches is not determined solely based on the passage of time. For laches to apply, four elements must be present: (1) conduct by the defendant giving rise to the complaint, (2) unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in asserting their rights despite having notice and opportunity to file suit, (3) lack of notice by the defendant that the plaintiff would assert their claim, and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant if relief was granted. In this case, the plaintiff filed suit only 10 months after demanding the defendant vacate the property, which does not constitute unreasonable delay. Moreover, laches cannot be used to defeat justice or allow fraud and injustice.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    323 vues2 pages

    2 Nieto Vs Meycauayan

    Transféré par

    Jessa Lo
    Laches is not determined solely based on the passage of time. For laches to apply, four elements must be present: (1) conduct by the defendant giving rise to the complaint, (2) unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in asserting their rights despite having notice and opportunity to file suit, (3) lack of notice by the defendant that the plaintiff would assert their claim, and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant if relief was granted. In this case, the plaintiff filed suit only 10 months after demanding the defendant vacate the property, which does not constitute unreasonable delay. Moreover, laches cannot be used to defeat justice or allow fraud and injustice.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 2

    Laches is not concerned only with the mere lapse of time.

    Heirs of Nieto vs. Mun. of Meycauayan


    540 SCRA 100
    Facts: Anacleto Nieto was the registered owner of a parcel of land,
    The property is being used by respondent, Municipality of Meycauayan,
    Bulacan, which constructed an extension of the public market therein.
    Upon Anacletos death on 1993, his wife, Sixta P. Nieto, and
    children collated all the documents pertaining to his estate. Petitioners
    discovered that the missing copy of the title was in the possession of the
    respondent.
    In 1994, petitioners formally demanded from respondent the return
    of the possession and full control of the property, and payment of a
    monthly rent with interest from January 1964. Respondent did not
    comply with petitioners demand.
    Respondent alleged that the property was donated to it and that
    the action was already time-barred because 32 years had elapsed since
    it possessed the property.
    The RTC did not rule in favor of petitioners because of its finding
    that the case was already barred by prescription. Hence, this petition.

    Issue: Whether or not the action of petitioner to recover the lands is


    barred by laches

    Ruling: NO. Even if we apply the doctrine of laches to registered


    lands, it would still not bar petitioners claim. It should be stressed that
    laches is not concerned only with the mere lapse of time.
    The following elements must be present in order to constitute
    laches:
    (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 complainants rights, the complainant having
    had knowledge or notice, of the defendants 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.
    In this case, the first element of laches occurred the moment
    respondent refused to vacate the property, upon petitioners demand,
    on February 23, 1994. The filing of the complaint on December 28,
    1994, after the lapse of a period of only ten months, cannot be
    considered as unreasonable delay amounting to laches.
    Furthermore, the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to defeat
    justice or to perpetrate fraud and injustice. Petition is hereby granted.

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi