Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • One Years Ago. A Motion To Amend That Decision Was Filed On March 6, 1957, Thirty One Years Later. This Was Followed

    Uploaded by

    Jakie Cruz
    65 views1 page
    The petitioners argued that the original judgment was not yet final because the disputed land had not been registered. However, the court held that the petitioners were barred by laches, as they delayed asserting their claim for 31 years after the original decision became final. The court emphasized that litigation must end at some point and attempts to prolong cases through technicalities frustrate justice.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Banogan v Zerna

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioners argued that the original judgment was not yet final because the disputed land had not been registered. However, the court held that the petitioners were barred by laches, as they delayed asserting their claim for 31 years after the original decision became final. The court emphasized that litigation must end at some point and attempts to prolong cases through technicalities frustrate justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views1 page

    One Years Ago. A Motion To Amend That Decision Was Filed On March 6, 1957, Thirty One Years Later. This Was Followed

    Uploaded by

    Jakie Cruz
    The petitioners argued that the original judgment was not yet final because the disputed land had not been registered. However, the court held that the petitioners were barred by laches, as they delayed asserting their claim for 31 years after the original decision became final. The court emphasized that litigation must end at some point and attempts to prolong cases through technicalities frustrate justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BANOGAN V.

    ZERNA

    Facts:
    The original decision in this case was rendered by the cadastral court way back on February 9, 1926, sixty
    one years ago. A motion to amend that decision was filed on March 6, 1957, thirty one years later. This was followed
    by an amended petition for review of the judgment on March 18, 1957, and an opposition thereto on March 26, 1957.
    On October 11, 1971, or after fourteen years, a motion to dismiss the petition was filed. The petition was dismissed
    on December 8, 1971, and the motion for reconsideration was denied on February 14, 1972. The petitioners then
    came to us on certiorari to question the orders of the respondent judge. The respondent court dismissed the petition
    for review of the decision rendered in 1926 on the ground that it had been filed out of time, indeed thirty one years too
    late. Laches, it was held, had operated against the petitioners.
    The petitioners contend that the said judgment had not yet become final and executory because the land in
    dispute had not yet been registered in favor of the private respondents. The said judgment would become so only
    “after one year from the issuance of the decree of registration.” If anyone was guilty of laches, it was the private
    respondents who had failed to enforce the judgment by having the land registered in their the pursuant thereto.
    For their part, the private respondents argue that the decision of February 9, 1926, became final and
    executory after 30 days, same not having been appealed by the petitioners during that period. They slept on their
    rights for thirty one years before it occurred to them to question the judgment of the cadastral court.
    It is shown that it is against their contentions and that under this doctrine they should not have delayed in
    asserting their claim of fraud. Their delay was not only for thirty one days but for thirty one years. Laches bars their
    petition now. Their position is clearly contrary to law and logic and to even ordinary common sense.

    Issue:
    W/N petitioners are already barred by laches.

    Held:
    YES. This Court has repeatedly reminded litigants and lawyers alike that litigation must end and terminate
    sometime and somewhere, and it is assent essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a
    judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict.
    Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put
    an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them. There should be a greater
    awareness on the part of litigants that the time of the judiciary, much more so of this Court, is too valuable to be
    wasted or frittered away by efforts, far from commendable, to evade the operation of a decision final and executory,
    especially so, where, as shown in this case, the clear and manifest absence of any right calling for vindication, is
    quite obvious and indisputable.
    One reason why there is a degree of public distrust for lawyers is the way some of them misinterpret the law
    to the point of distortion in a cunning effort to achieve their purposes. By doing so, they frustrate the ends of justice
    and at the same time lessen popular faith in the legal profession as the sworn upholders of the law. While this is not
    to say that every wrong interpretation of the law is to be condemned, as indeed most of them are only honest errors,
    this Court must express its disapproval of the adroit and intentional misreading designed precisely to circumvent or
    violate it. As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. They
    do not discharge this duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary, especially this
    Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A judicious study of the facts and the law should advise them when a case,
    such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not
    advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the
    attention of the courts.

    You might also like