This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-02-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners also overlook Article 160 of the New Civil Code. It provides that "all property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal partnership, unless it be prove[n] that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife." This article does not require proof that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership. The presumption applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear.[15] (Emphasis supplied.) Second, Francisco and Jocson do not reinforce Metrobank's theory. Metrobank would thrust on the Court, invoking the two cases, the argument that the registration of the property in the name of "Florencia Nevalga, married to Nelson Pascual" operates to describe only the marital status of the title holder, but not as proof that the property was acquired during the existence of the marriage. | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Absent one or two of the foregoing conditions, then the law itself puts the buyer on notice and obliges the latter to exercise a higher degree of diligence by scrutinizing the certificate of title and examining all factual circumstances in order to determine the seller's title and capacity to transfer any interest in the property.[42] Under such circumstance, it is no longer sufficient for said buyer to merely show that he relied on the face of the title; he must now also show that he exercised reasonable precaution by inquiring beyond the title.[43] Failure to exercise such degree of precaution makes him a buyer in bad faith.[44] | |||||