Laches; elements
Laches is the
failure or neglect, for an unreasonable 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 a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either
abandoned it or has declined to assert it. [1] It has also been defined as
such neglect or omission to assert a right taken in conjunction with the lapse
of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will
operate as a bar in equity.[2]
The four elements of laches are: (a) conduct on the part of the defendant, or
of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint
is made and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (b) 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; (c) 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 (d) injury
or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.
The four elements of laches are: (a) conduct on the part of the defendant, or
of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint
is made and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (b) 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; (c) 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 (d) injury
or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.
[1] Cormero vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 247 SCRA 291 [1995];
Bailon-Casilao vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 738 [1988]; Villamor vs. Court
of Appeals, 126 SCRA 574 [1988]; Marcelino vs. Court of Appeals, 210 SCRA
444, 447 [1992]; Ching vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 9, 17 [1990].
[2] Heirs of Bationg-Lacamen vs. Heirs of Laruan, 65 SCRA 125 [1975]; Victoriano vs. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 19, 24 [1991]; Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189, 196 [1993].
[2] Heirs of Bationg-Lacamen vs. Heirs of Laruan, 65 SCRA 125 [1975]; Victoriano vs. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 19, 24 [1991]; Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189, 196 [1993].
