This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-09-29 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Notwithstanding the preceding discussion, the Court finds that Rovira cannot claim a better right to the property because she is not a buyer in good faith. Initially, it must be stated that the determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith is a factual issue, which generally cannot be determined by the Court in a petition for review filed under Rule 45.[17] The rule, nonetheless, admits of exceptions, some of which are when the judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts or when the CA overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[18] A review of this case shows that the CA failed to appreciate the relevance of certain undisputed facts, thus giving rise to its erroneous conclusion that Rovira has a better right to the property in dispute. | |||||