This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-02-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A petition for review under Section 32 is a remedy separate and distinct from a motion for new trial and the right to the remedy is not affected by the denial of such a motion irrespective of the grounds upon which it may have been presented. Thus, where petitioners acquired their interest in the land before any final decree had been entered, the litigation was therefore in effect still pending and, in these circumstances, they can hardly be considered innocent purchasers in good faith.[67] | |||||
|
2003-12-08 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Sumulong spouses, nevertheless, argue that assuming the Bank's title over the contested property is a nullity, they were nevertheless innocent purchasers for value who have better rights than the petitioner. One is considered an innocent purchaser who acquired the property for a valuable consideration not knowing that the title of the vendor or grantor was null and void.[22] | |||||