Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF IGNACIA AGUILAR-REYES v. SPS. CIPRIANO MIJARES AND FLORENTINA MIJARES

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 171497 2011-04-04	MARIA LOURDES TAMANI v. ROMAN SALVADOR PERALTA, J.
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property, and pays the full and fair price for it at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. He buys the property with the belief that the person from whom he receives the thing was the owner and could convey title to the property. He cannot close his eyes to facts that should put a reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith.[43] It is undisputed that respondents were neighbors of petitioners and even co-owners of land under TCT No. 8582. Respondents have also dealt with the Tamanis in the past, having mortgaged their property together when respondents availed of a loan from the Government Service Insurance System. Thus, it is inconceivable for respondents not to know that petitioners had been exercising open, continuous and notorious possession over the property. Like Cruz, respondents should have ascertained the land's identity and character given that houses were standing on the land in dispute and petitioners had been leasing the same to tenants.
	GR No. 165803 2010-09-01	SPS. REX v. DIONISIO Z. PARULAN BERSAMIN, J.
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property, and pays the full and fair price for it at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. He buys the property with the belief that the person from whom he receives the thing was the owner and could convey title to the property. He cannot close his eyes to facts that should put a reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith.[33] The status of a buyer in good faith is never presumed but must be proven by the person invoking it.[34]
	GR No. 150887 2009-08-14	FRANCISCO MADRID· v. SPS. BONIFACIO MAPOY AND FELICIDAD MARTINEZ BRION, J.
As a general rule, the appellate court may only pass upon errors assigned by the parties. By way of exception, even unassigned errors may be taken up by the court on appeal if they involve (1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not specified, and (3) clerical errors.[29] In the present case, we note that the award of attorney's fees appears only in the dispositive portion of the RTC decision without any elaboration, explanation, and justification. The award stood there all by itself. We view this as a plain legal error by the RTC that must be rectified.
	GR No. 159889 2008-06-05	WALTER VILLANUEVA v. FLORENTINO CHIONG QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners finally contend that, assuming arguendo the property is still conjugal, the transaction should not be entirely voided as Florentino had one-half share over the lot. Petitioners' stance lacks merit. In Heirs of Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes v. Mijares [24] citing Bucoy v. Paulino, et al.,[25] a case involving the annulment of sale executed by the husband without the consent of the wife, it was held that the alienation must be annulled in its entirety and not only insofar as the share of the wife in the conjugal property is concerned. Although the transaction in the said case was declared void and not merely voidable, the rationale for the annulment of the whole transaction is the same. Thus: The plain meaning attached to the plain language of the law is that the contract, in its entirety, executed by the husband without the wife's consent, may be annulled by the wife. Had Congress intended to limit such annulment in so far as the contract shall "prejudice" the wife, such limitation should have been spelled out in the statute. It is not the legitimate concern of this Court to recast the law. As Mr. Justice Jose B. L. Reyes of this Court and Judge Ricardo C. Puno of the Court of First Instance correctly stated, "[t]he rule (in the first sentence of Article 173) revokes Baello vs. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 213 and Coque vs. Navas Sioca, 45 Phil. 430," in which cases annulment was held to refer only to the extent of the one-half interest of the wife... .[26] Now, if a voidable contract is annulled, the restoration of what has been given is proper. [27] Article 1398 of the Civil Code provides:An obligation having been annulled, the contracting parties shall restore to each other the things which have been the subject matter of the contract, with their fruits, and the price with its interest, except in cases provided by law.
	GR NO. 133110 2007-03-28	BARSTOWE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Anyway, the Republic is not without recourse. It can claim damages from BPC, found herein not to be a buyer of the subject lots in good faith. For its loss of portions of the subdivision lots to innocent purchasers from BPC, the Republic may recover from BPC the purchase price it paid to FPHC corresponding to such subdivision lots, with interest at 6% per annum from 26 March 1992 (the date when the Republic instituted its petition for the cancellation of the TCTs of Servando, Antonio, and BPC) until finality of this Decision, and 12% per annum thereafter until fully paid.[68]
	GR NO. 157434 2006-09-19	SPS. CLARO AND NIDA BAUTISTA v. BERLINDA F. SILVA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The SPA being a forgery, it did not vest in Pedro any authority to alienate the subject property without the consent of respondent. Absent such marital consent, the deed of sale was a nullity.[27]
	GR NO. 157434 2006-09-19	SPS. CLARO AND NIDA BAUTISTA v. BERLINDA F. SILVA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
That said, we come to the third issue on whether petitioners may retain the portion of Pedro Silva in the subject property. Certainly not. It is well-settled that the nullity of the sale of conjugal property contracted by the husband without the marital consent of the wife affects the entire property, not just the share of the wife.[60] We see no reason to deviate from this rule.
	GR No. 160748 2004-07-14	SPS. ANTONIO AND LUCY VERA CRUZ v. LUCY CALDERON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Art. 173. The wife may, during the marriage, and within ten years from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent, when such consent is required, or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs, after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband. In the recent case of Heirs of Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes v. Spouses Mijares,[19] we reiterated the rule that the husband cannot alienate or encumber any conjugal real property without the consent, express or implied, of the wife, otherwise, the contract is voidable. To wit: Indeed, in several cases the Court has ruled that such alienation or encumbrance by the husband is void. The better view, however, is to consider the transaction as merely voidable and not void. This is consistent with Article 173 of the Civil Code pursuant to which the wife could, during the marriage and within 10 years from the questioned transaction, seek its annulment. Likewise, in the case of heirs of Christina Ayuste v. Court of Appeals,[20] we declared that: There is no ambiguity in the wording of the law. A sale of real property of the conjugal partnership made by the husband without the consent of his wife is voidable. The action for annulment must be brought during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction by the wife. Where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation there is room only for application.