Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SEVERO SALES v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 194964-65 2016-01-11	UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO v. BANGKO SENTRAL PILIPINAS LEONEN, J.
Notarization creates a presumption of regularity and authenticity on the document. This presumption may be rebutted by "strong, complete and conclusive proof"[150] to the contrary. While notarial acknowledgment "attaches full faith and credit to the document concerned[,]"[151] it does not give the document its validity or binding effect. When there is evidence showing that the document is invalid, the presumption of regularity or authenticity is not applicable.
	GR No. 161380 2014-04-21	AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY v. SPS. JOSE AND MAGDALENA YBAÑEZ BERSAMIN, J.
The Court also observes in Sales v. Court of Appeals,[44] a case involving parties to a deed of donation who had agreed to register the instrument under Act No. 3344 but failed to do so, that the "better right" of a third party relates to "other titles which a party might have acquired independently of the unregistered deed such as title by prescription."[45] But the exception does not obviously apply to the Spouses Ybañez because they acquired their right from Adriano who did not hold any legal or equitable interest in Lot No. 18563 that he could validly transfer to the Spouses Ybañez.
	GR No. 168263 2008-07-21	SPS. EDGARDO AND NATIVIDAD FIDEL v. ESPINELI QUISUMBING, J.
Anent the third issue, can petitioners be considered buyers in good faith? Our ruling on this point is: no, they cannot be considered buyers in good faith. For we find that petitioners were only able to register the sale of the property and Tax Declaration No. 16304 in their name; they did not have a Torrens title. Unlike a title registered under the Torrens System, a tax declaration does not constitute constructive notice to the whole world. The issue of good faith or bad faith of a buyer is relevant only where the subject of the sale is a registered land but not where the property is an unregistered land.[15]
	GR NO. 149738 2007-08-28	QUINTIN B. BELGICA v. MARILYN LEGARDE BELGICA CORONA, J.
Finally, it must be noted that Atty. Balguma, the notary public who notarized the SPA, testified that petitioner signed the document in his presence. The testimony of a notary public (who is an officer of the court) enjoys greater credence than that of an ordinary witness, specially if the latter's testimony consists of nothing more than mere denials.[20] Petitioner denied signing the aforementioned documents and invoked forgery but presented no competent evidence to support his accusation. His testimony paled in comparison with that of Atty. Balguma who stated in no uncertain terms that petitioner signed the documents in his presence.
	GR NO. 148280 2007-07-10	LORETA AGUSTIN C v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner's claim that Augusto was not empowered to dispose of the subject lot in order to pay off an alleged debt she owed to Rosario, is not worthy of belief. The clear and unmistakable tenor of the Special Power of Attorney reveals that petitioner specifically authorized Augusto to sell the subject lot and to settle her obligations to third persons. The Special Power of Attorney is a duly notarized document and, as such, is entitled, by law, to full faith and credit upon its face.[32] Notarization vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof.[33] Rather than challenging its validity, petitioner admitted in open court that she signed the Special Power of Attorney with a full appreciation of its contents[34] and without reservation.[35]
	GR NO. 152483 2006-07-14	RURAL BANK OF SIATON v. FELIX MACAJILOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While the findings of the lower courts that RBSI was a mortgagee-buyer in bad faith is in accord with the evidence on record, we must point out, however, that they overlooked the fact that the subject property is an unregistered piece of land. As we ruled in David v. Bandin,[41] which was reiterated in Sales v. Court of Appeals,[42] "the issue of good faith or bad faith of a buyer is relevant only where the subject of the sale is a registered land but not where the property is an unregistered land. One who purchases an unregistered land does so at his peril. His claim of having bought the land in good faith, i.e., without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, the property, would not protect him if it turns out that the seller does not actually own the property." Nevertheless, the application of this doctrine will not affect the outcome of this case. RBSI bought the property during the auction sale at its own peril and must suffer the consequences of its failure to investigate the true owners of the subject property who turned out to be respondents Macajilos brothers. Although the discussion on RBSI's bad faith would now seem superfluous given the application of this doctrine, the finding of bad faith is still relevant in the resolution of the last issue with respect to the award of damages.