This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-08-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious advantage of another.[21] Spouses Saraza could not be deemed to have acted in good faith because they knew that they were not dealing with the registered owner of the property when it was mortgaged and that the subject land had yet to be titled in the name of mortgagor Florentino. To repeat, the protection accorded to a mortgagee in good faith cannot be extended to a mortgagee who knowingly entered into a mortgage agreement wherein the title to the mortgaged property presented was still in the name of the rightful owner and the mortgagor has no legal authority yet to mortgage the same. | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| "A buyer in good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property. He is a buyer for value if he pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property."[29] "Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious advantage of another."[30] To prove good faith, the following conditions must be present: (a) the seller is the registered owner of the land; (b) the owner is in possession thereof; and (3) at the time of the sale, the buyer was not aware of any claim or interest of some other person in the property, or of any defect or restriction in the title of the seller or in his capacity to convey title to the property. All these conditions must be present, otherwise, the buyer is under obligation to exercise extra ordinary diligence by scrutinizing the certificates of title and examining all factual circumstances to enable him to ascertain the seller's title and capacity to transfer any interest in the property.[31] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Upon the other hand, a right of first refusal is a contractual grant, not of the sale of a property, but of the first priority to buy the property in the event the owner sells the same. [28] As distinguished from an option contract, in a right of first refusal, while the object might be made determinate, the exercise of the right of first refusal would be dependent not only on the owner's eventual intention to enter into a binding juridical relation with another but also on terms, including the price, that are yet to be firmed up. [29] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| This Court has held that a right of first refusal is different and distinct from a contract of sale of real property. [15] As such, it is not among those listed as unenforceable under the statute of frauds.[16] Thus, the CA's ruling that the alleged promise was covered by the statute of frauds was erroneous. Nonetheless, in view of its finding one with which we are in complete accord that petitioners failed to present preponderant evidence that such a promise or right had in fact been given, it was a harmless error that would not warrant a reversal of the judgment appealed from. | |||||
|
2006-03-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Since good faith is always presumed,[23] it was premature for the trial court to conclude that petitioners are not purchasers in good faith. Note that the complaint did not state that the notice of the pendency of this action was inscribed in the title of the Corporation from whom petitioners purchased the property. Petitioners even denied the presence of said inscription in their own title and in the title of the Corporation.[24] Neither the presence of the notation "This survey is covered by F.P.A. No. (III-1) 4496; and This survey is entirely inside No. 89, II-4755," in the title of the Corporation automatically make petitioners purchasers in bad faith. In the absence of other evidence to explain said notation, bad faith, which is never presumed, cannot be charged against petitioners. The notation that the disputed lot is covered by Free Patent Application No. (III-1) 4496, will not place the title in dubious light because the same is the number of the application for Free Patent of Macario Mencias,[25] petitioners' predecessor-in-interest. The same is true with respect to the notation in the title that the questioned lot is inside Lot 89. Considering that the title presented is a mere photocopy and that the notes appearing thereon do not indicate that the subject property is covered by any title, the trial court should have directed the parties to substantiate their respective allegations instead of rendering judgment. Indeed, in determining the propriety of rendering a motion for summary judgment, the lower court should take that view of the evidence most favorable to the party against whom it is directed, giving such party the benefit of all favorable inferences.[26] | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The term "Statute of Frauds" is descriptive of statutes which require certain classes of contracts, such as agreements for the sale of real property, to be in writing. It does not deprive the parties the right to contract with respect to the matters therein involved, but merely regulates the formalities of the contract necessary to render it enforceable. The purpose of the statute is to prevent fraud and perjury in the enforcement of obligations depending for their evidence on the unassisted memory of witnesses by requiring certain enumerated contracts and transactions to be evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged.[22] The written note or memorandum, as contemplated by Article 1403 of the Civil Code, should embody the essentials of the contract.[23] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| show that there was no perfected contract of sale. There is therefore no basis for the application of the Statute of Frauds. The application of the Statute of Frauds presupposes the existence of a perfected contract.[58] Article 1403 of the Civil Code provides:Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified: | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| and fair price at the time of the purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property.[10] The determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue which generally is outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review. An exception is when the Court of Appeals failed to take into account certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[11] The instant case is covered by this exception to the general rule. As found by the Court of Appeals and not refuted by private respondent, petitioners purchased the subject land in 1964 from Mariano Lising.[12] Civil Case No. Q-12918 was commenced sometime in 1969. The Court of Appeals overlooked the fact that the purchase of the land took place prior to the institution of Civil Case No. Q-12918. In other words, the sale to petitioners was made before Pura Kalaw Ledesma claimed the lot. Petitioners could reasonably rely on Mariano Lising's Certificate of Title which at the time of purchase was still free from any third party claim. Hence, considering the circumstances of this case, we conclude that petitioners acquired the land subject of this dispute in good faith and for value. The final question now is: could we consider petitioners builders in good faith? We note that this is the first time that petitioners have raised this issue. As a general rule, this could not be done. Fair play, justice, and due process dictate that parties should not raise | |||||
|
2001-10-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Is petitioner Conculada entitled to the restitution of the P455,000 purchase price? Recall that the contract of sale of Lot 4 to petitioners was declared null and void when the trial and appellate courts found that petitioners did not let private respondent spouses exercise their right to purchase Lot 4.[18] Although the sale to Conculada must be set aside, that sale was, properly speaking, a rescissible contract. The prevailing doctrine is that a contract of sale entered into in violation of a right of first refusal of another person is rescissible.[19] | |||||