Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TIBURCIO SAMONTE v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 170375 2010-07-07	REPUBLIC v. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
LANDTRADE came to possession of the two parcels of land after purchasing the same from Teofilo. The Court stresses, however, that Teofilo is not the registered owner of the subject properties. The said properties are still registered in Doña Demetria's name under OCT Nos. 0-1200 (a.f.) and 0-1201 (a.f.). The Affidavit of Adjudication, by which Teofilo declared himself to be the sole heir of Doña Demetria's estate, is not even annotated on the OCTs. Worse, LANDTRADE is not dealing directly with Teofilo, but only with the latter's attorney-in-fact, Atty. Cabildo. It is axiomatic that one who buys from a person who is not a registered owner is not a purchaser in good faith.[120]
	GR No. 182673 2009-10-05	AQUALAB PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF MARCELINO PAGOBO VELASCO JR., J.
Having hypothetically admitted respondents' possession of subject lots, Aqualab cannot be considered, in the context of its motion to dismiss, to be an innocent purchaser for value or a purchaser in good faith. Moreover, the defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not extend to a transferee who takes it with notice of a flaw in the title of his transferor.[38]
	GR No. 143573 2009-01-30	ADORACION ROSALES RUFLOE v. LEONARDA BURGOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, the defense of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not extend to a transferee who takes it with notice of a flaw in the title of his transferor. To be effective, the inscription in the registry must have been made in good faith. A holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled to the protection of the law, for the law cannot be used as a shield for fraud.[22]
	GR No. 128967 2004-05-20	PAULINO SACDALAN v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners also claim that their titles are unassailable having acquired the same pursuant to law.[43] Again the Court does not agree. The principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title does not apply where fraud attended the issuance of the title,[44] as is conclusively established in this case. The Torrens Title does not furnish a shield for fraud.[45]
	GR No. 115925 2003-08-15	SPS. RICARDO PASCUAL AND CONSOLACION SIOSON v. CA CARPIO, J.
Plainly, the increase in the area sold from 1,335 square meters to 2,670 square meters is a glaring mistake. There is, however, no proof whatsoever that this increase in area was the result of fraud. Allegations of fraud in actions to enforce implied trusts must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.[23] Adille, which is anchored on fraud,[24] cannot apply to the present case.
	GR No. 145982 2003-07-03	LIU v. ALFREDO LOY CARPIO, J.
The registration by the Loys of their contracts of sale did not defeat the right of prior buyers because the person who signed the Loys' contracts was not the registered owner. The registered owner of Lot Nos. 5 and 6 was the "Estate of Jose Vaño." Teodoro Vaño was the seller in the contract of sale with Alfredo Loy, Jr. The Estate of Jose Vaño was the seller in the contract of sale with Teresita Loy. Teodoro Vaño signed both contracts of sale. The rule is well-settled that "one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner is not a purchaser in good faith."[39] As held in Toledo-Banaga v. Court of Appeals:[40]