This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-04-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, although it is a recognized principle that a person dealing on a registered land need not go beyond its certificate of title, it is also a firmly settled rule that where there are circumstances which would put a party on guard and prompt him to investigate or inspect the property being sold to him, such as the presence of occupants/tenants thereon, it is expected from the purchaser of a valued piece of land to inquire first into the status or nature of possession of the occupants. As in the common practice in the real estate industry, an ocular inspection of the premises involved is a safeguard that a cautious and prudent purchaser usually takes. Should he find out that the land he intends to buy is occupied by anybody else other than the seller who, as in this case, is not in actual possession, it would then be incumbent upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the occupant's possessory rights. The failure of a prospective buyer to take such precautionary steps would mean negligence on his part and would preclude him from claiming or invoking the rights of a "purchaser in good faith."[8] It has been held that "the registration of a later sale must be done in good faith to entitle the registrant to priority in ownership over the vendee in an earlier sale."[9] | |||||
|
2010-10-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We find no sufficient reason to disturb these findings. The factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and respect and are even binding on this Court particularly where, as here, the findings of the trial and appellate courts concur.[37] Although this rule is subject to certain exceptions, we find none obtaining in this case. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Respondents had prior knowledge of the sale of the questioned portion to Agaton Pagaduan as the same deed of sale that conveyed the northern portion to them, conveyed the southern portion to Agaton Pagaduan.[15] Thus the subsequent issuance of TCT No. T-5425, to the extent that it affects the Pagaduan's portion, conferred no better right than the registration which was the source of the authority to issue the said title. Knowledge gained by respondents of the first sale defeats their rights even if they were first to register the second sale. Knowledge of the first sale blackens this prior registration with bad faith.[16] Good faith must concur with the registration.[17] Therefore, because the registration by the respondents was in bad faith, it amounted to no registration at all. | |||||
|
2007-02-23 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is the first to register the second sale because such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. For the second buyer to displace the first, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer's rights) from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration.[13] | |||||
|
2006-04-25 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The requirement of the law is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith.[16] The rationale behind this was laid out in Uraca v. Court of Appeals:[17] | |||||
|
2005-01-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Prior registration of the subject property does not by itself confer ownership or a better right over the property. Article 1544 requires that before the second buyer can obtain priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e., in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer's rights)¾from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration or failing registration, by delivery of possession.[55] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Otherwise stated, where it is an immovable property that is the subject of a double sale, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.[14] The requirement of the law then is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith.[15] The rationale behind this is well-expounded in Uraca vs. Court of Appeals,[16] where this Court held:"Under the foregoing, the prior registration of the disputed property by the second buyer does not by itself confer ownership or a better right over the property. Article 1544 requires that such registration must be coupled with good faith. Jurisprudence teaches us that "(t)he governing principle is primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer's right except where the second buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first, as provided by the Civil Code. Such knowledge of the first buyer does not bar her from availing of her rights under the law, among them, to register first her purchase as against the second buyer. But in converso, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his right even if he is first to register the second sale, since such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. This is the price exacted by Article 1544 of the Civil Code for the second buyer being able to displace the first buyer, that before the second buyer can obtain priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer's right) from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration or failing registration, by delivery of possession." (Emphasis supplied) | |||||