This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Besides, the evidence proffered by the petitioners tends to show that the deed of absolute sale was a forgery because the alleged vendor, Porfirio, was already dead at the time of the purported sale on June 10, 2004. In the certificate of death[25] submitted by the petitioners, it appears that Porfirio died on May 31, 1997 in Glendora, Los Angeles, U.S.A. It is a well-entrenched rule that a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title. Moreover, where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but, in fact, has never been paid, the deed of sale is void ab initio for lack of consideration.[26] Consequently, the purported buyer, Florentino, could not have validly mortgaged the subject property. In a real estate mortgage contract, it is essential that the mortgagor be the absolute owner of the property to be mortgaged; otherwise, the mortgage is void.[27] | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder of the decree of registration on the original petition or application; any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void (emphasis supplied). One of the essential requisites of a mortgage contract is that the mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged.[42] A mortgage is, thus, invalid if the mortgagor is not the property owner.[43] In this case, the trial court and the CA are one in finding that based on the evidence on record the owner of the property is respondent who was not the one who mortgaged the same to the petitioner. | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Of no moment in the instant case is the issuance of a Torrens certificate pertaining to the disputed property.[22] It "does not create or vest title,"[23] but is merely an "evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein."[24] Land registration under the Torrens system was never intended to be a means of acquiring ownership.[25] Moreover, the Original Certificate of Title was never formally offered by petitioners. In its Order dated October 1, 1993,[26] the RTC considered their prolonged failure to offer it in evidence[27] as a waiver of their right to offer exhibits.[28] In so ruling, the court a quo followed the rule that evidence not formally offered should not be considered.[29] | |||||
|
2002-03-19 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Banks, indeed, should exercise more care and prudence in dealing even with registered lands, than private individuals, for their business is one affected with public interest, keeping in trust money belonging to their depositors, which they should guard against loss by not committing any act of negligence which amounts to lack of good faith by which they would be denied the protective mantle of the land registration statute, Act [No.] 496, extended only to purchasers for value and in good faith, as well as to mortgagees of the same character and description." (Citations omitted) Recently, in Adriano v. Pangilinan,[39] we said that the due diligence required of banks extended even to persons regularly engaged in the business of lending money secured by real estate mortgages. | |||||