Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AGUIRRE v. BALITAAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 182839 2014-06-02	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JOSE GARCIA BRION, J.
Under this provision, each co-owner has the full ownership of his part or share in the co-ownership and may, therefore, alienate, assign or mortgage it except when personal rights are involved. Should a co-owner alienate or mortgage the co-owned property itself, the alienation or mortgage shall remain valid but only to the extent of the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.[15] In Carvajal v. Court of Appeals,[16] the Court said: While under Article 493 of the New Civil Code, each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto and he may alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, the effect of the alienation or the mortgage with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited, by mandate of the same article, to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. He has no right to sell or alienate a concrete, specific, or determinate part of the thing in common to the exclusion of the other co-owners because his right over the thing is represented by an abstract or Ideal portion without any physical adjudication.3 An individual co- owner cannot adjudicate to himself or claim title to any definite portion of the land or thing owned in common until its actual partition by agreement or judicial decree. Prior to that time all that the co-owner has is an Ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire thing owned in common by all the co-owners.4 What a co owner may dispose of is only his undivided aliquot share, which shall be limited to the portion that may be allotted to him upon partition. [emphasis supplied].
	GR No. 157537 2011-09-07	GO v. ESTER L. SERVACIO BERSAMIN, J.
Protacio, Sr., although becoming a co-owner with his children in respect of Marta's share in the conjugal partnership, could not yet assert or claim title to any specific portion of Marta's share without an actual partition of the property being first done either by agreement or by judicial decree. Until then, all that he had was an ideal or abstract quota in Marta's share.[18] Nonetheless, a co-owner could sell his undivided share; hence, Protacio, Sr. had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest, but not the interest of his co-owners.[19] Consequently, the sale by Protacio, Sr. and Rito as co-owners without the consent of the other co-owners was not necessarily void, for the rights of the selling co-owners were thereby effectively transferred, making the buyer (Servacio) a co-owner of Marta's share.[20] This result conforms to the well-established principle that the binding force of a contract must be recognized as far as it is legally possible to do so (quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest).[21]
	GR NO. 166913 2007-10-05	SPS. MARIANO S. TANGLAO AND CORAZON M. TANGLAO v. SPS. CORAZON S. PARUNGAO AND LORENZO G. PARUNGAO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
A purchaser in good faith or innocent purchaser for value is one who buys property and pays a full and fair price for it at the time of the purchase or before any notice of some other person's claim on or interest in it.[7] The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith lies upon him who asserts that status and it is not sufficient to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith, that is, that everyone is presumed to have acted in good faith.[8]
	GR NO. 157434 2006-09-19	SPS. CLARO AND NIDA BAUTISTA v. BERLINDA F. SILVA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A holder of registered title may invoke the status of a buyer for value in good faith as a defense against any action questioning his title.[34] Such status, however, is never presumed but must be proven by the person invoking it.[35]
	GR NO. 140422 2006-08-07	MERCEDES CRISTOBAL CRUZ v. EUFROSINA CRISTOBAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondents' defense of laches is less than convincing. Laches is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it. It does not involve mere lapse or passage of time, but is principally an impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right, which has become under the circumstances inequitable or unfair to permit.[28]
	GR NO. 143027 2005-10-11	ENCARNACION L. CUIZON v. MERCEDES C. REMOTO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[25] Aguirre vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122249, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 310, 324.
	GR No. 141031 2004-08-31	TRINIDAD DIAZ-ENRIQUEZ v. REPUBLIC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Engr. Salvacion's admission that he was employed by the PALI only in 1993 and that it was only then that he saw the property for the first time is fatal to the petitioner's cause. Engr. Salvacion had no personal knowledge that the predecessors of the petitioner had been in continuous, open and uninterrupted possession of the property since 1945. In fact, he claimed that the earliest period that taxes were paid thereon was in 1961. Yet, the records are bereft of such tax declarations, except the one for 1985. Besides, case law has it that tax receipts and tax payment receipts themselves do not convincingly prove title to the land.[33]