Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF VICTORINO SARILI v. PEDRO F. LAGROSA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192268 2016-01-27	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. DELFINA C. CASIBANG PERALTA, J.
Moreover, the trial court ruled that the DepEd is a builder in good faith. To be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that a person asserts title to the land on which he builds, i.e., that he be a possessor in the concept of owner, and that he be unaware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.[50] However, there are cases where Article 448 of the Civil Code was applied beyond the recognized and limited definition of good faith, e.g., cases wherein the builder has constructed improvements on the land of another with the consent of the owner.[51] The Court ruled therein that the structures were built in good faith in those cases that the owners knew and approved of the construction of improvements on the property.[52]
	GR No. 205590 2015-09-02	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GAYAM. PAS IMIO VELASCO JR., J.
Second, the absence of Pasimio's community tax certificate number in : said loan documents neither vitiates the transaction nor invalidates the document. If at all, such absence renders the notarization of the loan documents defective. Under the notarial rules at that time, i.e., Sec. 163 (a) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, where an individual subject to the community tax acknowledges any document before a notary public, it shall be the duty of the administering officer to require such individual to exhibit the community tax certificate. The defective notarization of the loan documents only means that these documents would not be carrying the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution; that they should be treated as a private document to be examined in appropriate cases under the parameters of Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides that "before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker x x x." Settled is the rule that a defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument, and the evidentiary standard of its validity shall be based on preponderance of evidence.[48]
	GR No. 200969 2015-08-03	CONSOLACION D. ROMERO v. ENGRACIA D. SINGSON DEL CASTILLO, J.
And while it is true that respondent has in her favor a Torrens title over the subject property, she nonetheless acquired no right or title in her favor by virtue of the null and void June 6, 2006 deed. "Verily, when the instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the property."[35]
	GR No. 196118 2014-07-30	LEONARDO C. CASTILLO v. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
And even if the Court were to assume, simply for the sake of argument, that Leonardo indeed secured his CTC only on May 17, 1993, this does not automatically render the SPA invalid. The appellate court aptly held that defective notarization will simply strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument, but nonetheless, binding, provided its validity is established by preponderance of evidence.[15] Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that the form of a contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over immovable property should be in a public document, yet the failure to observe the proper form does not render the transaction invalid.[16] The necessity of a public document for said contracts is only for convenience; it is not essential for validity or enforceability.[17] Even a sale of real property, though not contained in a public instrument or formal writing, is nevertheless valid and binding, for even a verbal contract of sale or real estate produces legal effects between the parties.[18] Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard originally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence.[19]