This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-07-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We disagree. On the contrary, jurisprudence is replete with rulings that apply the double sales rule to cases where one of the two sales was conducted in a public auction.[35] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Necessarily, the absence of a contract of agency renders the contract of sale unenforceable;[46] Joy Training effectively did not enter into a valid contract of sale with the spouses Yoshizaki. Sally cannot also claim that she was a buyer in good faith. She misapprehended the rule that persons dealing with a registered land have the legal right to rely on the face of the title and to dispense with the need to inquire further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry.[47] This rule applies when the ownership of a parcel of land is disputed and not when the fact of agency is contested. | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Furthermore, under the established principles of land registration, a person dealing with registered land may generally rely on the correctness of a certificate of title and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond it to determine the legal status of the property,[27] except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry.[28] Applying this standard to the facts of this case, we rule that respondents exercised the required diligence in ascertaining the legal condition of the title to the subject property as to be considered innocent purchasers for value and in good faith. We quote with favor the factual findings of the Court of Appeals in this respect:Defendant-appellant MCIAA also asseverates that the close proximity of the property to the runway of the airport (320 meters from the center line of the runway) and the fact that it has been vacant for a considerable period should have caused [plaintiffs-appellees] to be dubious of the title of the previous owners thereof. This was, in Our opinion, satisfactorily explained by plaintiffs-appellees when witness Mr. Edito Tirol testified in open court that he never thought it strange that the land had always been vacant, and that besides, there were private houses beside the vacant lot, suggesting that the property must be of private ownership and not that of the airport. Furthermore, he testified that he undertook great care in verifying the clean title of the said land, [e.g.,] deputizing an employee to do the necessary research, personally copying pertinent documents registered in the Registry of Property and even consulting legal advice on the matter. These, for Us, are badges of good faith. Besides, being allegedly part of the Clear Zone, ATO aviation rules proscribe merely the installation of buildings and other physical structures, except landing facilities. Aviation rules (which, although repeatedly invoked, interestingly were not presented before the court by defendant-appellant MCIAA) do not prohibit realty ownership.[29] | |||||
|
2007-09-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have already ruled that the registration contemplated in this provision refers to registration under the Torrens System, which considers the act of registration as the operative act[41] that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.[42] This rule precisely applies to cases involving conflicting rights over registered property and those of innocent transferees who relied on the clean title of the properties.[43] Thus, we held that registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the same.[44] | |||||
|
2006-04-25 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| But the law is clear - mere registration of title is not enough. Good faith must concur with registration.[19] To be in a priority status, the second purchaser must be in good faith, that is, without knowledge of the previous alienation by the vendor to another.[20] What holds relevance and materiality is not whether the second buyer is a buyer in good faith but whether he registers such second sale in good faith, meaning, without knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold.[21] | |||||