This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-29 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Further, more than the charge of constructive knowledge, the surrounding circumstances of this case show Rovira's actual knowledge of the disposition of the subject property and Rotairo's possession thereof. It is undisputed that after the contract to sell was executed in April 1970, Rotairo immediately secured a mayor's permit in September 28, 1970 for the construction of his residential house on the property.[30] Rotairo, and subsequently, his heirs, has been residing on the property since then. Rovira, who lives only fifty (50) meters away from the subject property, in fact, knew that there were "structures built on the property."[31] Rovira, however, claims that "she did not bother to inquire as to the legitimacy of the rights of the occupants, because she was assured by the bank of its title to the property."[32] But Rovira cannot rely solely on the title and assurances of Pilipinas Bank; it was incumbent upon her to look beyond the title and make necessary inquiries because the bank was not in possession of the property. "Where the vendor is not in possession of the property, the prospective vendees are obligated to investigate the rights of one in possession."[33] A purchaser cannot simply close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on guard,[34] and thereafter claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor.[35] Hence, Rovira cannot claim a right better than that of Rotairo's as she is not a buyer in good faith. | |||||
|
2013-08-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We dispose of this argument forthwith. While it is true that the Petition was belatedly filed, it may still be admitted and allowed by this Court in the exercise of its discretion,[55] as in fact it effectively did when it required respondent to file her Comment. | |||||
|
2006-11-24 |
SPS. ADIEL DE LA CENA AND CARIDAD AREVALO DE LA CENA v. SPS. JOSE BRIONES AND HERMINIA LLEDO BRIONES
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Patently, petitioners made no efforts to clarify the true nature of respondents' possession, despite knowing of the latter's claim of ownership and actual, visible and public possession of the contested portion. One who buys real property in actual possession of another should at least inquire as to the right of the ones in possession. Absent such inquiry, petitioners cannot be regarded as bona fide buyers as against respondents, the ones in possession of the contested portion.[27] The rule is that if a buyer in a double sale registers the sale after he has acquired knowledge that there was a previous sale of the same property to a third party or that another person claims said property in a previous sale, the registration will constitute a registration in bad faith and will not confer on him any right.[28] | |||||
|
2004-06-04 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The evidence of the private respondents show that when Tomas Occeña conducted an ocular inspection of the land prior to the second sale, Abas, the caretaker of the house which Alberta Morales built on the land, personally informed Tomas that the lot had been previously sold by the same vendor Arnold to Alberta Morales. With this information, the Occeñas were obliged to look beyond the title of their vendor and make further inquiries from the occupants of the land as to their authority and right to possess it. However, despite this information about a prior sale, the Occeñas proceeded with the purchase in haste. They did not inquire from Abas how they could get in touch with the heirs or representatives of Alberta to verify the ownership of the land. Neither do the records reveal that they exerted effort to examine the documents pertaining to the first sale. Having discovered that the land they intended to buy was occupied by a person other than the vendor not in actual possession thereof, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to verify the extent of the occupant's possessory rights.[16] The Occeñas did nothing and chose to ignore and disbelieve Abas' statement. | |||||