Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CAVITE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. SPS. CYRUS LIM AND LOLITA CHAN LIM AND CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 196577 2013-02-25	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BARBARA SAMPAGA POBLETE CARPIO, J.
There is indeed a situation where, despite the fact that the mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property, his title being fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale arising therefrom are given effect by reason of public policy.[26] This is the doctrine of "the mortgagee in good faith" based on the rule that buyers or mortgagees dealing with property covered by a Torrens Certificate of Title are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title.[27] However, it has been consistently held that this rule does not apply to banks, which are required to observe a higher standard of diligence.[28] A bank whose business is impressed with public interest is expected to exercise more care and prudence in its dealings than a private individual, even in cases involving registered lands.[29] A bank cannot assume that, simply because the title offered as security is on its face free of any encumbrances or lien, it is relieved of the responsibility of taking further steps to verify the title and inspect the properties to be mortgaged.[30]
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
It is settled doctrine that one who deals with property registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond the four corners of, but can rely on what appears on, the title. He is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title. This principle admits of certain exceptions, such as when the party has actual knowledge of 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 in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation. [146] A higher level of care and diligence is of course expected from banks, their business being impressed with public interest. [147]
	GR NOS. 175181-82 2007-09-14	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SLGT HOLDINGS GARCIA, J.
The unyielding rule is that persons dealing with property brought under the Torrens system of land registration have the right to rely on what appears on the certificate of title without inquiring further;[19] that in the absence of anything to excite or arouse suspicion that should impel a reasonably cautious person to make such further inquiry, a would-be mortgagee is without obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor. Such rule, however, does not apply to mortgagee-banks,[20] their business being one affected with public interest, holding as they do and keeping, in trust, money pertaining to the depositing public which they should guard with earnest. Unlike private individuals, it behooves banks to exercise greater care and prudence in their dealings, including those involving registered lands.[21] As we wrote in Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation,[22] "a banking institution is expected to exercise due diligence before entering into a mortgage contract. The ascertainment of the status or condition of a property offered to it as a security must be standard and indispensable part of its operations." A bank that failed to observe due diligence cannot be accorded the status of a bona fide mortgagee.[23]
	GR NO. 160843 2006-07-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. MARIA G. LAGON QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, petitioner could not be considered a mortgagee in good faith. It had knowledge that respondent was in the United States at the time the SPAs were allegedly executed, yet, it did not question their due execution. Though petitioner is not expected to conduct an exhaustive investigation on the history of the mortgagor's title, it cannot be excused from the duty of exercising the due diligence required of a banking institution.[14] Banks are expected to exercise more care and prudence than private individuals in their dealings, even those that involve registered lands, for their business is affected with public interest.[15]
	GR No. 159212 2005-09-12	NAVOTAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is only when the option is exercised may a sale be perfected.[58] An option contract needs to be supported by a separate consideration. The Court defined consideration for an option in Bible Baptist Church v. Court of Appeals,[59] as follows:... The consideration need not be monetary but could consist of other things or undertakings. However, if the consideration is not monetary, these must be things or undertakings of value, in view of the onerous nature of the contract of option. Furthermore, when a consideration for an option contract is not monetary, said consideration must be clearly specified as such in the option contract or clause.
	GR No. 155043 2004-09-30	ARTURO R. ABALOS v. DR. GALICANO S. MACATANGAY TINGA, J.
On the other hand, an accepted unilateral promise which specifies the thing to be sold and the price to be paid, when coupled with a valuable consideration distinct and separate from the price, is what may properly be termed a perfected contract of option.[8] An option merely grants a privilege to buy or sell within an agreed time and at a determined price. It is separate and distinct from that which the parties may enter into upon the consummation of the option.[9] A perfected contract of option does not result in the perfection or consummation of the sale; only when the option is exercised may a sale be perfected.[10] The option must, however, be supported by a consideration distinct from the price.[11]