Lawyerly

GR No. 212256

2015-12-09

MENDOZA, J.

Considering that the deed of absolute sale was executed at a time when Spouses Bitte were deemed notified of the termination of the agency, the sale must be treated as having been entered into by Andrea in her personal capacity. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.[28] Accordingly, Spouses Bitte acquired no better title than what Andrea had over the property, which was nil.

GR No. 179874

2015-06-22

ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO v. SPS. MARIA JERERA

PERALTA, J.

In Rufloe v. Burgos[66], the Court held that a forged deed of sale is null and void and conveys no title, for it is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have; nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.[67] Due to the forged Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 14, 1970, Servillano acquired no right over the subject property which he could convey to his daughter, Maria. All the transactions subsequent to the falsified sale between the Servillano and his daughter are likewise void, namely, the Deeds of Absolute Sale of the subject property that Servillano executed on May 25, 1971 and November 24, 1977 in favor his daughter, as well as the Self-Adjudication of Real Property.

GR No. 204369

2014-09-17

ENRIQUETA M. LOCSIN v. BERNARDO HIZON

VELASCO JR., J.

An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person's claim.[16] As such, a defective title or one the procurement of which is tainted with fraud and misrepresentation may be the source of a completely legal and valid title, provided that the buyer is an innocent third person who, in good faith, relied on the correctness of the certificate of title, or an innocent purchaser for value.[17]

GR No. 189061

2014-08-06

MIDWAY MARITIME v. MARISSA E. CASTRO

REYES, J.

"Nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally."[18] It must be pointed out that what Tomas bought from Union Bank in the auction sale were the two parcels of land originally owned and mortgaged by CCC to Bancom, and which mortgage was later assigned by Bancom to Union Bank. Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, the property subject of the mortgage and consequently the auction sale pertains only to these two parcels of land and did not include the residential house. This was precisely the tenor of Castro, Jr. v. CA[19] where the Court nullified the writ of possession issued by the trial court insofar as it affected the residential house constructed by the respondents on the mortgaged property as it was not owned by CCC, which was the mortgagor. The Court ruled: [Article 2127 of the Civil Code] extends the effects of the real estate mortgage to accessions and accessories found on the hypothecated property when the secured obligation becomes due. The law is predicated on an assumption that the ownership of such accessions and accessories also belongs to the mortgagor as the owner of the principal. The provision has thus been seen by the Court, x x x, to mean that all improvements subsequently introduced or owned by the mortgagor on the encumbered property are deemed to form part of the mortgage. That the improvements are to be considered so incorporated only if so owned by the mortgagor is a rule that can hardly be debated since a contract of security, whether real or personal, needs as an indispensable element thereof the ownership by the pledgor or mortgagor of the property pledged or mortgaged. The rationale should be clear enough in the event of default on the secured obligation, the foreclosure sale of the property would naturally be the next step that can expectedly follow. A sale would result in the transmission of title to the buyer which is feasible only if the seller can be in a position to convey ownership of the thing sold (Article 1458, Civil Code). It is to say, in the instant case, that a foreclosure would be ineffective unless the mortgagor has title to the property to be foreclosed.[20] (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

GR No. 205879

2014-04-23

SKUNAC CORPORATION v. ROBERTO S. SYLIANTENG

PERALTA, J.

Indeed, not being an heir of Luis, Romeo never acquired any right whatsoever over the subject lots, even if he was able to subsequently obtain a title in his name. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have, nemo dat quod non habet.[34] One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.[35] Since Romeo has no right to the subject lots, petitioners, who simply stepped into the shoes of Romeo, in turn, acquired no rights to the same.

GR No. 188395

2013-11-20

HEIRS OF LATE FELIX M. BUCTON v. SPS. GONZALO AND TRINIDAD GO

PEREZ, J.

We now proceed to determine whether the Spouses Go are innocent purchasers for value. It has been consistently held that a forged deed can become a source of a valid title when the buyers are in good faith.[34]

GR No. 200173

2013-04-15

SPS. ESMERALDO D. VALLIDO AND ARSENIA M. VALLIDO v. SPS. ELMER PONO AND JULIET PONO

MENDOZA, J.

As the petitioners cannot be considered buyers in good faith, they cannot lean on the indefeasibility of their TCT in view of the doctrine that the defense of indefeasibility of a torrens title does not extend to transferees who take the certificate of title in bad faith.[13] The Court cannot ascribe good faith to those who have not shown any diligence in protecting their rights.[14]

GR No. 171101

2011-07-05

HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL

VELASCO JR., J.

An innocent purchaser for value and in good faith is one who "buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in the property and who pays the full and fair price for it at the time of the purchase, or before they get notice of some other persons' claim of interest in the property." [296] A person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need for inquiring further, except when the party has actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title of the vender or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation. [297]

GR No. 179543

2010-10-06

CAMPER REALTY CORP. v. MARIA NENA PAJO-REYES

CARPIO MORALES, J.

A forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title when an innocent purchaser for value intervenes.[12] For a prospective buyer of a property registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond the title, especially when he has no notice of any badge of fraud or defect that would place him on guard.[13] His rights are thus entitled to full protection, for the law considers him an innocent purchaser.

GR No. 179549

2010-06-29

LIRIO A. DEANON v. MARFELINA C. MAG-ABO

PERALTA, J.

Consequently, petitioner cannot be considered a buyer in good faith, because respondent was already in possession of the subject property at the time Ma. Imelda Eloisa Galvan conveyed her rights over the property to petitioner. It is settled rule that a buyer of real property that is in the possession of a person other than the seller must be wary and should investigate the rights of the person in possession.[35] Otherwise, without such inquiry, the buyer can hardly be regarded as a buyer in good faith.[36]

	GR No. 212256 2015-12-09	FARIDA YAP BITTE v. SPS. FRED MENDOZA, J.
Considering that the deed of absolute sale was executed at a time when Spouses Bitte were deemed notified of the termination of the agency, the sale must be treated as having been entered into by Andrea in her personal capacity. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.[28] Accordingly, Spouses Bitte acquired no better title than what Andrea had over the property, which was nil.
	GR No. 179874 2015-06-22	ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO v. SPS. MARIA JERERA PERALTA, J.
In Rufloe v. Burgos[66], the Court held that a forged deed of sale is null and void and conveys no title, for it is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have; nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.[67] Due to the forged Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 14, 1970, Servillano acquired no right over the subject property which he could convey to his daughter, Maria. All the transactions subsequent to the falsified sale between the Servillano and his daughter are likewise void, namely, the Deeds of Absolute Sale of the subject property that Servillano executed on May 25, 1971 and November 24, 1977 in favor his daughter, as well as the Self-Adjudication of Real Property.
	GR No. 204369 2014-09-17	ENRIQUETA M. LOCSIN v. BERNARDO HIZON VELASCO JR., J.
An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person's claim.[16] As such, a defective title or one the procurement of which is tainted with fraud and misrepresentation may be the source of a completely legal and valid title, provided that the buyer is an innocent third person who, in good faith, relied on the correctness of the certificate of title, or an innocent purchaser for value.[17]
	GR No. 189061 2014-08-06	MIDWAY MARITIME v. MARISSA E. CASTRO REYES, J.
"Nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally."[18] It must be pointed out that what Tomas bought from Union Bank in the auction sale were the two parcels of land originally owned and mortgaged by CCC to Bancom, and which mortgage was later assigned by Bancom to Union Bank. Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, the property subject of the mortgage and consequently the auction sale pertains only to these two parcels of land and did not include the residential house. This was precisely the tenor of Castro, Jr. v. CA[19] where the Court nullified the writ of possession issued by the trial court insofar as it affected the residential house constructed by the respondents on the mortgaged property as it was not owned by CCC, which was the mortgagor. The Court ruled: [Article 2127 of the Civil Code] extends the effects of the real estate mortgage to accessions and accessories found on the hypothecated property when the secured obligation becomes due. The law is predicated on an assumption that the ownership of such accessions and accessories also belongs to the mortgagor as the owner of the principal. The provision has thus been seen by the Court, x x x, to mean that all improvements subsequently introduced or owned by the mortgagor on the encumbered property are deemed to form part of the mortgage. That the improvements are to be considered so incorporated only if so owned by the mortgagor is a rule that can hardly be debated since a contract of security, whether real or personal, needs as an indispensable element thereof the ownership by the pledgor or mortgagor of the property pledged or mortgaged. The rationale should be clear enough in the event of default on the secured obligation, the foreclosure sale of the property would naturally be the next step that can expectedly follow. A sale would result in the transmission of title to the buyer which is feasible only if the seller can be in a position to convey ownership of the thing sold (Article 1458, Civil Code). It is to say, in the instant case, that a foreclosure would be ineffective unless the mortgagor has title to the property to be foreclosed.[20] (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
	GR No. 205879 2014-04-23	SKUNAC CORPORATION v. ROBERTO S. SYLIANTENG PERALTA, J.
Indeed, not being an heir of Luis, Romeo never acquired any right whatsoever over the subject lots, even if he was able to subsequently obtain a title in his name. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have, nemo dat quod non habet.[34] One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally.[35] Since Romeo has no right to the subject lots, petitioners, who simply stepped into the shoes of Romeo, in turn, acquired no rights to the same.
	GR No. 188395 2013-11-20	HEIRS OF LATE FELIX M. BUCTON v. SPS. GONZALO AND TRINIDAD GO PEREZ, J.
We now proceed to determine whether the Spouses Go are innocent purchasers for value. It has been consistently held that a forged deed can become a source of a valid title when the buyers are in good faith.[34]
	GR No. 200173 2013-04-15	SPS. ESMERALDO D. VALLIDO AND ARSENIA M. VALLIDO v. SPS. ELMER PONO AND JULIET PONO MENDOZA, J.
As the petitioners cannot be considered buyers in good faith, they cannot lean on the indefeasibility of their TCT in view of the doctrine that the defense of indefeasibility of a torrens title does not extend to transferees who take the certificate of title in bad faith.[13] The Court cannot ascribe good faith to those who have not shown any diligence in protecting their rights.[14]
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
An innocent purchaser for value and in good faith is one who "buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in the property and who pays the full and fair price for it at the time of the purchase, or before they get notice of some other persons' claim of interest in the property." [296] A person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need for inquiring further, except when the party has actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title of the vender or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation. [297]
	GR No. 179543 2010-10-06	CAMPER REALTY CORP. v. MARIA NENA PAJO-REYES CARPIO MORALES, J.
A forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title when an innocent purchaser for value intervenes.[12] For a prospective buyer of a property registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond the title, especially when he has no notice of any badge of fraud or defect that would place him on guard.[13] His rights are thus entitled to full protection, for the law considers him an innocent purchaser.
	GR No. 179549 2010-06-29	LIRIO A. DEANON v. MARFELINA C. MAG-ABO PERALTA, J.
Consequently, petitioner cannot be considered a buyer in good faith, because respondent was already in possession of the subject property at the time Ma. Imelda Eloisa Galvan conveyed her rights over the property to petitioner. It is settled rule that a buyer of real property that is in the possession of a person other than the seller must be wary and should investigate the rights of the person in possession.[35] Otherwise, without such inquiry, the buyer can hardly be regarded as a buyer in good faith.[36]

ADORACION ROSALES RUFLOE v. LEONARDA BURGOS