Civil Code Volume IV Obligations Contracts .pdf

Preview of PDF document civil-code-volume-iv-obligations-contracts.pdf

Page 1 2 3 4561006

Text preview

Art. 1106


(7) ‘Prescription’ Distinguished from ‘Laches’
Mapa III v. Guanzon
77 SCRA 387
While prescription is concerned with the FACT of delay,
laches deals with the EFFECT of unreasonable delay.
David v. Bandin
GR 48322, Apr. 8, 1987
FACTS: A and B, husband and wife, died intestate, leaving
two children, X and Y. X had been administering the property
until her death in Feb. 15, 1955. Plaintiffs, the children of Y,
were given their shares of the fruits of the property, though
irregular and at times little, depending on the amount of the
harvest. On April 23, 1963, plaintiffs, the children of Y, sent a
letter of demand to the heirs of X for partition, and on June 14,
1963, or within a period of approximately 8 years from X’s death,
filed their complaint against X’s heirs.
HELD: Plaintiffs cannot be held guilty of laches, nor is
their claim barred by prescription. Plaintiffs were not guilty of
negligence nor did they sleep on their rights.
Prescription generally does not run in favor of a co-heir or
co-owner as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the coownership. While implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10
years, the rule does not apply where a fiduciary relation exists
and the trustee recognizes the trust.
Gallardo v. Intermediate Appellate Court
GR 67742, Oct. 29, 1987
In determining whether a delay in seeking to enforce a right
constitutes laches, the existence of a confidential relationship
between the parties is an important circumstance for consideration. A delay under such circumstance is not as strictly regarded
as where the parties are strangers to each other. The doctrine
of laches is not strictly applied between near relatives, and the
fact that parties are connected by ties of blood or marriage tends
to excuse an otherwise unreasonable delay.