This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-29 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Generally, the court should only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its jurisdiction.[20] There may be instances, however, when a rigid application of this rule may result in defeating substantial justice or in prejudice to a party's substantial right.[21] In Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia, [22] we allowed the RTC to consider, in addition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties in deciding whether or not the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action. In Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Heirs of Valdez, et al., [23] we held that the factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with the statements and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts. | |||||
|
2009-08-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the Belarminos were fully aware that the property was registered not in the name of the immediate transferor, Virgilio, but remained in the name of Pedro San Agustin and Agatona Genil.[42] This fact alone is sufficient impetus to make further inquiry and, thus, negate their claim that they are purchasers for value in good faith.[43] They knew that the property was still subject of partition proceedings before the trial court, and that the compromise agreement signed by the heirs was not approved by the RTC following the opposition of the counsel for Eufemia and her six other co-heirs.[44] The Belarminos, being transferees pendente lite, are deemed buyers in mala fide, and they stand exactly in the shoes of the transferor and are bound by any judgment or decree which may be rendered for or against the transferor.[45] Furthermore, had they verified the status of the property by asking the neighboring residents, they would have been able to talk to the Pahuds who occupy an adjoining business establishment[46] and would have known that a portion of the property had already been sold. All these existing and readily verifiable facts are sufficient to suggest that the Belarminos knew that they were buying the property at their own risk. | |||||