This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners mistakenly rely on the Court's holding in Po Lam v. Court of Appeals.[28] The case involves a dispute over two parcels of lands with notice of lis pendens annotated on the titles. The trial court declared the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner spouses Po Lam as owners of the properties and ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens on both titles. The Register of Deeds was only able to cancel the annotation on one of the titles. During the pendency of the appeal to the Court of Appeals, the two properties were sold to the petitioners. It was only after four years that the petitioners had the notice of lis pendens on the title of the other property cancelled. New certificates of titles were issued to petitioners. In declaring that the spouses Po Lam are not purchasers in bad faith, we ruled, thus:A possessor in good faith has been defined as "one who is unaware that there exists a flaw which invalidates his acquisition of the thing (See Article 526, Civil Code). Good faith consists in the possessor's belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner of the same and could convey his title (Piño v. CA, 198 SCRA 434 [1991]). In this case, while petitioners bought Lot No. 2581 from LAHCO while a notice of lis pendens was still annotated thereon, there was also existing a court order canceling the same. Hence, petitioners cannot be considered as being "aware of a flaw which invalidates their acquisition of the thing" since the alleged flaw, the notice of lis pendens, was already being ordered cancelled at the time of the purchase. On this ground alone, petitioners can already be considered buyers in good faith. (Emphasis ours.) | |||||
|
2006-10-23 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| In Spouses Po Lam v. Court of Appeals, we held that the filing of a notice of lis pendens in effect (1) keeps the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment so as to prevent the defeat of the latter by successive alienations; and (2) binds the purchaser of the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that will be promulgated there on whether such a purchaser is a bona fide purchaser or not; but (3) does not create a non-existent right or lien. The cancellation of a notice of pendency terminates the effects of such notice; thus, the buyers of the property cannot be considered transferees pendente lite and purchasers in bad faith.[66] This ruling holds true for petitioner FMC. Similar to the aforementioned case, petitioner FMC bought the property pending appeal. The title carried no notice of lis pendens and the private respondent did not cause the reannotation of or the attorney's lien. Thus, petitioner FMC could not be considered a transferee pendente lite and buyer in bad faith. | |||||