Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co. vs The Deputy Executive Secretary G.R. No. 79538 FACTS: On October 12, 1965, petitioner entered into a timber license agreement with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources wherein it was issued an exclusive license to cut, collect and remove timber except prohibited species within a specified portion of public forest land located in the municipality of Maddela, province of Nueva Vizcaya from October 12, 1 965 until June 30, 1 990. However, on August 18, 1983, the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development, issued a memorandum order stopping all logging operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces, and cancelling the logging concession of petitioner and nine other forest concessionaires, pursuant to presidential instructions. He sought reconsideration to President Marcos on the ground that he was not given the opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of its logging operations but same was not granted. Barely one year thereafter, approximately one-half of the area formerly covered by petitioner’sTLA was re-award ed to Twin Peaks Development and R ealty Corporation under a new TLA, while the other half was allowed to be logged by Filipinas Loggers, Inc. without the benefit of a formal award or license. The latter entities were controlled or owned by relatives or cronies of deposed President Ferdinand Marcos Soon after the change of government in February 1986, petitioner sent a letter to the Office of the President, and another letter to Minister of Natural Resources. [MNR], seeking: (1) the reinstatement of its cancelled timber license Agr eement; (2) the revocation of TLA No. 356 which issued to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corpor ation and, (3) the issuance o f an order allowing petitioner to take possession of all logs found in the concession area. However, petitioner 's request was denied. Petitioner moved for reconsideration to the Ministry of Natural Resources and office of the President, however same was denied for lack of merit. Petitioner filed with the Court a petition for certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, ISSUE: Whether or not petit ioner has the right to seek t he nullification of the Bureau orders cancelling his timber license agreement and the granting of TLA to private respondent, which were issued way back in 1983 and 1984, respectively. HELD: NO. The failure of petitioner to file the pet ition for certiorari within a reasonable period of time renders the petitioner susceptible to the adverse legal consequences of laches. The rule is that unreasonable delay on the part of a plaintiff in seeking to enforce an alleged right may,
