This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The decisive question here is whether or not the petitioner was a purchaser in good faith of the property in litis. The standard is that for one to be a purchaser in good faith in the eyes of the law, he should buy the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property, and should pay a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property.[1] He buys the property with the belief that the person from whom he receives the property was the owner and could convey title to the property.[2] Indeed, a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts that should put a reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith.[3] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Basic is the rule that a buyer of a piece of land which is in the actual possession of persons other than the seller must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in possession. Otherwise, without such inquiry, the buyer can hardly be regarded as a buyer in good faith. When a man proposes to buy or deal with realty, his duty is to read the public manuscript, i.e., to look and see who is there upon it and what his rights are. A want of caution and diligence which an honest man of ordinary prudence is accustomed to exercise in making purchases is, in contemplation of law, a want of good faith. The buyer who has failed to know or discover that the land sold to him is in adverse possession of another is a buyer in bad faith.[43] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Based on the foregoing, it is clear that RBSI chose to close its eyes to facts which should have put a reasonable man on his guard.[40] Far from being prudent, RBSI hastily granted the loan without investigation, and placed full faith on the false documents submitted by Fidela. Consequently, it cannot now claim that it acted in good faith on the belief that there was no defect in the title of Fidela. | |||||
|
2003-02-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| At any rate, petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proof that they were purchasers of the three (3) parcels of land in good faith. For, as we ruled in Embrado v. Court of Appeals,[30] the burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon him who asserts that status, which is not discharged by simply invoking the ordinary presumption of good faith, i.e., that everyone is presumed to act in good faith, since the good faith that is here essential is integral with the very status which must be established. | |||||