Lawyerly

GR No. 179874

2015-06-22

ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO v. SPS. MARIA JERERA

PERALTA, J.

In Rufloe v. Burgos[66], the Court held that a forged deed of sale is null and void and conveys no title, for it is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have; nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.[67] Due to the forged Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 14, 1970, Servillano acquired no right over the subject property which he could convey to his daughter, Maria. All the transactions subsequent to the falsified sale between the Servillano and his daughter are likewise void, namely, the Deeds of Absolute Sale of the subject property that Servillano executed on May 25, 1971 and November 24, 1977 in favor his daughter, as well as the Self-Adjudication of Real Property.

GR No. 186622

2014-01-22

PEBLIA ALFARO v. SPS. EDITHO AND HERA DUMALAGAN

PEREZ, J.

The aforesaid provision clearly states that the rule on double or multiple sales applies only when all the purchasers are in good faith. In detail, Art. 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, from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration or failing registration, by delivery of possession.[31]

GR No. 176308

2009-05-08

ANGEL M. PAGADUAN v. SPS. ESTANISLAO AND FE POSADAS OCUMA

TINGA, J.

This lack of a trust relationship does not inure to the benefit of the respondents. Despite a host of jurisprudence that states a certificate of title is indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world, it merely confirms or records title already existing and vested, and it cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can it be used for the perpetration of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others.[11]

GR No. 143573

2009-01-30

ADORACION ROSALES RUFLOE v. LEONARDA BURGOS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The issue concerning the validity of the deed of sale between the Rufloes and Delos Reyes had already been resolved with finality in Civil Case No. M-7690 by the RTC of Pasay City which declared that the signatures of the alleged vendors, Angel and Adoracion Rufloe, had been forged.[12] It is undisputed that the forged deed of sale was null and void and conveyed no title. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have, nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.[13] Due to the forged deed of sale, Delos Reyes acquired no right over the subject property which she could convey to the Burgos siblings. All the transactions subsequent to the falsified sale between the spouses Rufloe and Delos Reyes are likewise void, including the sale made by the Burgos siblings to their aunt, Leonarda.

GR NO. 169447

2007-02-26

D'ORO LAND REALTY v. MAGHANO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

For the same reason, the lower courts erred in applying the principle of caveat emptor in the instant case. The rule simply requires the purchaser of real property to be aware of the alleged title of the vendor such that one who buys without checking the vendor's title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure.[28] While a buyer of registered land need not go beyond its certificate of title, the buyer is obliged to investigate or inspect the property sold to him when there are circumstances that would put him on guard, such as the presence of occupants other than the registered owner. The buyer cannot claim ignorance of any defect in the vendor's title if, in neglecting to verify the nature of the occupant's possession, the latter should turn out to have a better right to the property than the registered owner.

GR NO. 164801

2006-06-30

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Thus, as a general rule, where the land sold is in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the purchaser must go beyond the certificate of title and make inquiries concerning the actual possessor. A buyer of real property which is in possession of another must be wary and investigate the rights of the latter. Otherwise, without such inquiry, the buyer cannot be said to be in good faith and cannot have any right over the property.[6] We explained this principle in Consolidated Rural Bank (Cagayan Valley), Inc. v. Court of Appeals and also held therein that this rule likewise applies to mortgagees of real property[7] As this Court explained in the case of Spouses Mathay v. Court of Appeals: 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 of course, expected from the purchaser of a valued piece of land to inquire first into the status or nature of possession of the occupants, i.e., whether or not the occupants possess the land en concepto de dueño, in the concept of the owner. As is the common practice in the real estate industry, an ocular inspection of the premises involved is a safeguard 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 thereby preclude him from claiming or invoking the rights of a "purchaser in good faith."

GR NO. 167412

2006-02-22

JUANITA NAVAL v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

It is an established principle that no one can give what one does not have, nemo dat quod non habet. Accordingly, one can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than what the seller can transfer legally.[33] In the case at bar, since Ildefonso no longer owned the subject land at the time of the sale to the petitioner, he had nothing to sell and the latter did not acquire any right to it.

GR NO. 142411

2005-10-14

WINIFREDA URSAL v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

We agree. Banks cannot merely rely on certificates of title in ascertaining the status of mortgaged properties; as their business is impressed with public interest, they are expected to exercise more care and prudence in their dealings than private individuals.[31] Indeed, the rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks.[32]

GR NO. 143027

2005-10-11

ENCARNACION L. CUIZON v. MERCEDES C. REMOTO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As correctly ruled by both the trial court and the CA, the 1968 Deed of Sale executed by Placida in favor of Angel should prevail over the 1983 Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale made by the heirs of Placida in favor of petitioners-spouses Cuizon. Prior tempore, potior jure. It simply means, "He who is first in time is preferred in right." The only essential requisite of this rule is priority in time, and the only one who can invoke this is the first vendee.[14] Records bear the fact that when Placida sold her one-fourth portion of the property covered by TCT No. RT-183 in 1968, the 1983 Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale was still inexistent, and more importantly, said portion was yet to be transferred by succession to Placida's heirs. The records also show that after Placida sold her portion to Angel, the latter immediately took possession of the same. Applying the principle of priority in time, it is clear that Angel, and consequently his heirs, the respondents herein, have a superior right to the property.

GR NO. 143254

2005-08-18

SIGAYA v. DIOMER MAYUGA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Court disagrees. Apart from the fact that Teodulfo is not a purchaser in good faith, the law on double sales as provided in Art. 1544 of the Civil Code[38] contemplates a situation where a single vendor sold one and the same immovable property to two or more buyers. For the rule to apply, it is necessary that the conveyance must have been made by a party who has an existing right in the thing and the power to dispose it. The rule cannot be invoked where the two different contracts of sale are made by two different persons, one of them not being the owner of the property sold.[39] In this case, respondents derive their right over their respective portions either through inheritance or sale from Dionisia while petitioners' invoke their right from the sale of the land from Francisco. Clearly, the law on double sales does not apply here.

GR NO. 164801

2005-08-18

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Finally, while certificates of title are indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world, they merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used for the perpetration of fraud; neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others.[19]

	GR No. 179874 2015-06-22	ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO v. SPS. MARIA JERERA PERALTA, J.
In Rufloe v. Burgos[66], the Court held that a forged deed of sale is null and void and conveys no title, for it is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have; nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.[67] Due to the forged Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 14, 1970, Servillano acquired no right over the subject property which he could convey to his daughter, Maria. All the transactions subsequent to the falsified sale between the Servillano and his daughter are likewise void, namely, the Deeds of Absolute Sale of the subject property that Servillano executed on May 25, 1971 and November 24, 1977 in favor his daughter, as well as the Self-Adjudication of Real Property.
	GR No. 186622 2014-01-22	PEBLIA ALFARO v. SPS. EDITHO AND HERA DUMALAGAN PEREZ, J.
The aforesaid provision clearly states that the rule on double or multiple sales applies only when all the purchasers are in good faith. In detail, Art. 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, from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration or failing registration, by delivery of possession.[31]
	GR No. 176308 2009-05-08	ANGEL M. PAGADUAN v. SPS. ESTANISLAO AND FE POSADAS OCUMA TINGA, J.
This lack of a trust relationship does not inure to the benefit of the respondents. Despite a host of jurisprudence that states a certificate of title is indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world, it merely confirms or records title already existing and vested, and it cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can it be used for the perpetration of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others.[11]
	GR No. 143573 2009-01-30	ADORACION ROSALES RUFLOE v. LEONARDA BURGOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The issue concerning the validity of the deed of sale between the Rufloes and Delos Reyes had already been resolved with finality in Civil Case No. M-7690 by the RTC of Pasay City which declared that the signatures of the alleged vendors, Angel and Adoracion Rufloe, had been forged.[12] It is undisputed that the forged deed of sale was null and void and conveyed no title. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have, nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.[13] Due to the forged deed of sale, Delos Reyes acquired no right over the subject property which she could convey to the Burgos siblings. All the transactions subsequent to the falsified sale between the spouses Rufloe and Delos Reyes are likewise void, including the sale made by the Burgos siblings to their aunt, Leonarda.
	GR NO. 169447 2007-02-26	D'ORO LAND REALTY v. MAGHANO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
For the same reason, the lower courts erred in applying the principle of caveat emptor in the instant case. The rule simply requires the purchaser of real property to be aware of the alleged title of the vendor such that one who buys without checking the vendor's title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure.[28] While a buyer of registered land need not go beyond its certificate of title, the buyer is obliged to investigate or inspect the property sold to him when there are circumstances that would put him on guard, such as the presence of occupants other than the registered owner. The buyer cannot claim ignorance of any defect in the vendor's title if, in neglecting to verify the nature of the occupant's possession, the latter should turn out to have a better right to the property than the registered owner.
	GR NO. 164801 2006-06-30	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Thus, as a general rule, where the land sold is in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the purchaser must go beyond the certificate of title and make inquiries concerning the actual possessor. A buyer of real property which is in possession of another must be wary and investigate the rights of the latter. Otherwise, without such inquiry, the buyer cannot be said to be in good faith and cannot have any right over the property.[6] We explained this principle in Consolidated Rural Bank (Cagayan Valley), Inc. v. Court of Appeals and also held therein that this rule likewise applies to mortgagees of real property[7] As this Court explained in the case of Spouses Mathay v. Court of Appeals: 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 of course, expected from the purchaser of a valued piece of land to inquire first into the status or nature of possession of the occupants, i.e., whether or not the occupants possess the land en concepto de dueño, in the concept of the owner. As is the common practice in the real estate industry, an ocular inspection of the premises involved is a safeguard 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 thereby preclude him from claiming or invoking the rights of a "purchaser in good faith."
	GR NO. 167412 2006-02-22	JUANITA NAVAL v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is an established principle that no one can give what one does not have, nemo dat quod non habet. Accordingly, one can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than what the seller can transfer legally.[33] In the case at bar, since Ildefonso no longer owned the subject land at the time of the sale to the petitioner, he had nothing to sell and the latter did not acquire any right to it.
	GR NO. 142411 2005-10-14	WINIFREDA URSAL v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We agree. Banks cannot merely rely on certificates of title in ascertaining the status of mortgaged properties; as their business is impressed with public interest, they are expected to exercise more care and prudence in their dealings than private individuals.[31] Indeed, the rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks.[32]
	GR NO. 143027 2005-10-11	ENCARNACION L. CUIZON v. MERCEDES C. REMOTO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As correctly ruled by both the trial court and the CA, the 1968 Deed of Sale executed by Placida in favor of Angel should prevail over the 1983 Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale made by the heirs of Placida in favor of petitioners-spouses Cuizon. Prior tempore, potior jure. It simply means, "He who is first in time is preferred in right." The only essential requisite of this rule is priority in time, and the only one who can invoke this is the first vendee.[14] Records bear the fact that when Placida sold her one-fourth portion of the property covered by TCT No. RT-183 in 1968, the 1983 Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale was still inexistent, and more importantly, said portion was yet to be transferred by succession to Placida's heirs. The records also show that after Placida sold her portion to Angel, the latter immediately took possession of the same. Applying the principle of priority in time, it is clear that Angel, and consequently his heirs, the respondents herein, have a superior right to the property.
	GR NO. 143254 2005-08-18	SIGAYA v. DIOMER MAYUGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court disagrees. Apart from the fact that Teodulfo is not a purchaser in good faith, the law on double sales as provided in Art. 1544 of the Civil Code[38] contemplates a situation where a single vendor sold one and the same immovable property to two or more buyers. For the rule to apply, it is necessary that the conveyance must have been made by a party who has an existing right in the thing and the power to dispose it. The rule cannot be invoked where the two different contracts of sale are made by two different persons, one of them not being the owner of the property sold.[39] In this case, respondents derive their right over their respective portions either through inheritance or sale from Dionisia while petitioners' invoke their right from the sale of the land from Francisco. Clearly, the law on double sales does not apply here.
	GR NO. 164801 2005-08-18	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Finally, while certificates of title are indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world, they merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used for the perpetration of fraud; neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others.[19]

CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK v. CA