This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On the first issue, we agree with petitioner's contention that the general rule is that an order denying a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is interlocutory and is not appealable. Consequently, defendant must go to trial and adduce its evidence, and appeal, in due course, from an adverse decision of the trial court. However, the rule admits of exceptions. Where the denial by the trial court of a motion to dismiss or demurrer to evidence is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may assail the order of dismissal on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. A wide breadth of discretion is granted in certiorari proceedings in the interest of substantial justice and to prevent a substantial wrong.[33] As the Court held in Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[34] It bears stressing that a writ of certiorari is of the highest utility and importance for curbing excessive jurisdiction and correcting errors and most essential to the safety of the people and the public welfare. Its scope has been broadened and extended, and is now one of the recognized modes for the correction of errors by this Court. The cases in which it will lie cannot be defined. To do so would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and limit its usefulness. | |||||
|
2004-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We have long settled the rule that an innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in such property and pays the full price for the same, at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.[17] A person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property.[18] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The rule is that it is the act of registration that operates to convey registered land or affect title thereto registration in a public registry creates constructive notice to the whole world.[16] In the absence of registration, third persons cannot be charged with constructive notice of dealings involving registered land. Thus, a person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property.[17] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Coming now to whether the Gutierrezes were buyers in good faith, we note that both the trial and appellate courts found that when Fortunato executed the "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan" on January 11, 1989 in favor of respondents Clark and Divina Gutierrez, the name of the registered owner appearing in the certificate of title was that of Fortunato dela Cruz. This Kasulatan was duly executed and acknowledged before a notary public. At the time of its execution, there was no annotation on Fortunato's certificate of title to indicate any adverse claim of any third person. Only two cautionary entries regarding Section 4,[23] Rule 74 of the Rules of Court appear thereon. Nothing more substantial appears in the certificate of title to indicate a scintilla of flaw or defect in Fortunato's title. Hence, we cannot fairly rule that in relying upon said title, the respondent Gutierrezes were in bad faith. A person dealing with registered land may safely rely upon the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. The law considers said person as an innocent purchaser for value. An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in such property and pays the full price for the same, at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.[24] | |||||