This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. Where there is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defects or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto.[34] | |||||
|
2010-10-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| One is considered a purchaser in good faith if he buys the property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse claims and interest of another person in the same property.[32] Well-settled is the rule that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property.[33] "However, this rule shall not apply when the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation."[34] "His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor's title will not make him an innocent purchaser for value if it later develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defect had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like situation."[35] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The determination of whether Villarosa is a purchaser in good faith is a factual issue which is generally outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review. Indeed, this Court is not a trier of facts, and the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[24] However, the rule has its recognized exceptions,[25] one of which obtains in this case, i.e., there is a conflict between the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and those of the trial court. | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The question of whether or not a person is a purchaser in good faith is a factual matter that will generally be not delved into by this Court, since only questions of law may be raised in petitions for review.[27] | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse claims and interest of another person in the same property. The honesty of intention which constitutes good faith implies a freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry.[30] As the Court enunciated in Lim v. Chuatoco:[31] | |||||
|
2007-01-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellees; (7) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[39] After going over the evidence on record, we do not find any of the exceptions that would warrant our departure from the general rule. We fully agree in the finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that it was petitioner Manliclic who was negligent in driving the PRBLI bus which was the cause of the collision. In giving credence to the version of the respondent, the trial court has this say:x x x Thus, which of the two versions of the manner how the collision took place was correct, would be determinative of who between the two drivers was negligent in the operation of their respective vehicle. | |||||
|
2006-04-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, spouses Cipriano Hernandez and Julia Zoleta cannot be considered as purchasers in good faith because they had knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry.[38] The Court notes that Santiago was not residing in Lot No. 379 at the time of the sale. He was already 81 years old, too old to cultivate and maintain an 18-hectare land. These circumstances should have prompted the spouses to further inquire who was actually tilling the land. Had they done so, they would have found that Teodulo and his family are the ones possessing and cultivating the land as owners thereof. | |||||
|
2006-02-28 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith lies upon one who asserts that status, and the onus cannot be discharged by mere invocation of the legal presumption of good faith.[62] | |||||