This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| First, assuming that Miguela sold to the petitioners the subject property, the petitioners cannot be deemed to be purchasers in good faith. To be deemed a purchaser in good faith, there must be absence of notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property.[39] The established facts show that the spouses Perez had been in possession of the subject property since 1991, while the petitioners purchased the subject property only on July 24, 1994. Had the petitioners actually verified the status of the subject property before they purchased it, they would have known of the spouses Perez's interest therein. More importantly, the land registration court has confirmed the spouses Perez's title over the subject property on March 1, 1994 or months prior to the petitioners' purchase. As the RTC and the CA correctly ruled, the petitioners were deemed to have been placed on constructive notice of the spouses Perez's title since the registration proceedings are in rem.[40] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| However, petitioners are barred from raising this issue as it constitutes a collateral attack on the decree of registration. The record shows that petitioners had participated in the land registration proceeding by filing their opposition to Villadares' application for registration. Petitioners' alleged possession of the property prior to Villadares' filing of the application for registration was, in fact, the meat of their opposition in the land registration proceeding. And in a proceeding for land registration, whether with or without opposition, the final judgment of the court confirming the title of the applicant or oppositor, as the case may be, and ordering its registration in his name constitutes res judicata against the whole world.[17] | |||||