Lawyerly

GR No. 195825

2013-02-27

BERSAMIN, J.

To obtain a grasp of whether a person has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry, an internal matter, necessitates an analysis of evidence of a person's conduct.[29] That renders the determination of intent as a factual issue,[30] something that the Court does not normally involve itself in because of its not being a trier of facts. Indeed, as a rule, the review function of the Court is limited to a review of the law involved.

GR No. 164804

2009-01-30

VIRGINIA A. SUGUE v. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

At the outset, it should be stated that the main issue in this case involves a question of fact. It is an established rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law.[23] This Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[24]

GR No. 135900

2007-08-17

SPS. AVELINO AND EXALTACION SALERA v. SPS. CELEDONIO AND POLICRONIA RODAJE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Settled is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts. In Gabriel v. Mabanta[4] we said that "(t)his rule, however, is not an iron-clad rule." One of the recognized exceptions is when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, as in this case.

GR NO. 160805

2006-11-24

SPS. ADIEL DE LA CENA AND CARIDAD AREVALO DE LA CENA v. SPS. JOSE BRIONES AND HERMINIA LLEDO BRIONES

QUISUMBING, J.

In a double sale of immovable property, as in this case, ownership belongs to the person who in good faith first recorded it in the registry of property.[20] The requirement is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith. But here, petitioners failed to show that they were in good faith because as second buyers they were not ignorant of the first sale to respondents from the time petitioners acquired the whole lot until the title was transferred to them.[21]

GR NO. 121165

2006-09-26

DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

ART. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and in the absence thereof; to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. Otherwise stated, where it is immovable property that is the subject of a double sale, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. The requirement of the law is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith.[24]

GR NO. 121165

2006-09-26

DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Otherwise stated, where it is immovable property that is the subject of a double sale, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. The requirement of the law is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith.[24]

GR NO. 133429

2006-08-10

SPS. VIRGILIO G. TAMAYO v. HEIRS OF GAVINO DOMINGUEZ

Settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[16]

GR NO. 164801

2006-06-30

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

All told, the ascertainment of good faith, or lack of it, and the determination of whether due diligence and prudence were exercised or not, are questions of fact. And while settled is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts[24] and the general rule is that the determination of whether or not a buyer or mortgagee is in good faith is generally outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review,[25] in Gabriel v. Spouses Mabanta we said that "[t]his rule, however, is not an iron-clad rule. In Floro v. Llenado we enumerated the various exceptions and one which finds application to the present case is when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court."[26] Thus, in Clemente v. Razo we held that "the issue of whether or not one is an innocent purchaser for value is a question of fact which, as a rule, is not for this Court to determine. In the same breath, however, there are recognized exceptions to such rule, not the least of which is when, as in this case, the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to that of the trial court."[27]

GR NO. 145878

2006-04-25

MARCIANO BLANCO v. FELIMON RIVERA

CORONA, J.

The requirement of the law is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith.[16] The rationale behind this was laid out in Uraca v. Court of Appeals:[17]

GR NO. 165644

2006-02-28

MANUEL B. ALORIA v. ESTRELLITA B. CLEMENTE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As for respondent's invocation of the doctrine that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to review of pure errors of law,[43] the case at bar falls under one of the exceptions thereto when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court.[44]

GR NO. 165253

2005-08-18

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. BERNABET A. MAALA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, we can ascertain a person's intention by relying not on his own protestations of good faith, which is self-serving, but on evidence of his conduct and outward acts.[22]

GR No. 154409

2004-06-21

SPS. NOEL v. ROMANA DE VERA

PANGANIBAN, J.

"Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith." Otherwise stated, the law provides that a double sale of immovables transfers ownership to (1) the first registrant in good faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good faith; and (3) finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title.[13] There is no ambiguity in the application of this law with respect to lands registered under the Torrens system.

	GR No. 195825 2013-02-27	SPS. ALFONSO v. LILIA V. DOMINGO BERSAMIN, J.
To obtain a grasp of whether a person has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry, an internal matter, necessitates an analysis of evidence of a person's conduct.[29] That renders the determination of intent as a factual issue,[30] something that the Court does not normally involve itself in because of its not being a trier of facts. Indeed, as a rule, the review function of the Court is limited to a review of the law involved.
	GR No. 164804 2009-01-30	VIRGINIA A. SUGUE v. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
At the outset, it should be stated that the main issue in this case involves a question of fact. It is an established rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law.[23] This Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[24]
	GR No. 135900 2007-08-17	SPS. AVELINO AND EXALTACION SALERA v. SPS. CELEDONIO AND POLICRONIA RODAJE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Settled is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts. In Gabriel v. Mabanta[4] we said that "(t)his rule, however, is not an iron-clad rule." One of the recognized exceptions is when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, as in this case.
	GR NO. 160805 2006-11-24	SPS. ADIEL DE LA CENA AND CARIDAD AREVALO DE LA CENA v. SPS. JOSE BRIONES AND HERMINIA LLEDO BRIONES QUISUMBING, J.
In a double sale of immovable property, as in this case, ownership belongs to the person who in good faith first recorded it in the registry of property.[20] The requirement is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith. But here, petitioners failed to show that they were in good faith because as second buyers they were not ignorant of the first sale to respondents from the time petitioners acquired the whole lot until the title was transferred to them.[21]
	GR NO. 121165 2006-09-26	DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
ART. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and in the absence thereof; to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. Otherwise stated, where it is immovable property that is the subject of a double sale, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. The requirement of the law is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith.[24]
	GR NO. 121165 2006-09-26	DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Otherwise stated, where it is immovable property that is the subject of a double sale, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. The requirement of the law is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith.[24]
	GR NO. 133429 2006-08-10	SPS. VIRGILIO G. TAMAYO v. HEIRS OF GAVINO DOMINGUEZ
Settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[16]
	GR NO. 164801 2006-06-30	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
All told, the ascertainment of good faith, or lack of it, and the determination of whether due diligence and prudence were exercised or not, are questions of fact. And while settled is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts[24] and the general rule is that the determination of whether or not a buyer or mortgagee is in good faith is generally outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review,[25] in Gabriel v. Spouses Mabanta we said that "[t]his rule, however, is not an iron-clad rule. In Floro v. Llenado we enumerated the various exceptions and one which finds application to the present case is when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court."[26] Thus, in Clemente v. Razo we held that "the issue of whether or not one is an innocent purchaser for value is a question of fact which, as a rule, is not for this Court to determine. In the same breath, however, there are recognized exceptions to such rule, not the least of which is when, as in this case, the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to that of the trial court."[27]
	GR NO. 145878 2006-04-25	MARCIANO BLANCO v. FELIMON RIVERA CORONA, J.
The requirement of the law is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith.[16] The rationale behind this was laid out in Uraca v. Court of Appeals:[17]
	GR NO. 165644 2006-02-28	MANUEL B. ALORIA v. ESTRELLITA B. CLEMENTE CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for respondent's invocation of the doctrine that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to review of pure errors of law,[43] the case at bar falls under one of the exceptions thereto when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court.[44]
	GR NO. 165253 2005-08-18	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. BERNABET A. MAALA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, we can ascertain a person's intention by relying not on his own protestations of good faith, which is self-serving, but on evidence of his conduct and outward acts.[22]
	GR No. 154409 2004-06-21	SPS. NOEL v. ROMANA DE VERA PANGANIBAN, J.
"Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith." Otherwise stated, the law provides that a double sale of immovables transfers ownership to (1) the first registrant in good faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good faith; and (3) finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title.[13] There is no ambiguity in the application of this law with respect to lands registered under the Torrens system.

ALEJANDRO GABRIEL v. SPS. PABLO MABANTA AND ESCOLASTICA COLOBONG