Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO BAYOCA v. GAUDIOSO NOGALES

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR NO. 145878 2006-04-25	MARCIANO BLANCO v. FELIMON RIVERA CORONA, J.
But the law is clear - mere registration of title is not enough. Good faith must concur with registration.[19] To be in a priority status, the second purchaser must be in good faith, that is, without knowledge of the previous alienation by the vendor to another.[20] What holds relevance and materiality is not whether the second buyer is a buyer in good faith but whether he registers such second sale in good faith, meaning, without knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold.[21]
	GR NO. 145849 2005-08-22	SPS. JOSE BEJOC AND JOVITA CAPUTOL BEJOC v. PRIMA CALDERON CABREROS CORONA, J.
We have already held that simple possession of a certificate of title is not necessarily conclusive of a holder's true ownership of property. If a person obtains title that includes land to which he has no legal right, that person does not, by virtue of said certificate alone, become the owner of the land illegally or erroneously included.[19] It has been held time and again that the rule on indefeasibility of title cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud against the real owner.[20]
	GR No. 145849 2005-07-22	SPS. JOSE BEJOC AND JOVITA CAPUTOL BEJOC v. PRIMA CALDERON CABREROS CORONA, J.
We have already held that simple possession of a certificate of title is not necessarily conclusive of a holder's true ownership of property. If a person obtains title that includes land to which he has no legal right, that person does not, by virtue of said certificate alone, become the owner of the land illegally or erroneously included.[19] It has been held time and again that the rule on indefeasibility of title cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud against the real owner.[20]
	GR NO. 132161 2005-01-17	CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK v. CA TINGA, J.
While certificates of title are indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world, they merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used for the perpetration of fraud; neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others.[66]
	GR No. 144225 2003-06-17	SPS. GODOFREDO ALFREDO AND CARMEN LIMON ALFREDO v. SPS. ARMANDO BORRAS AND ADELIA LOBATON BORRAS CARPIO, J.
Thus, to merit protection under the second paragraph of Article 1544[58] of the Civil Code, the second buyer must act in good faith in registering the deed.[59] In this case, the Subsequent Buyers' good faith hinges on whether they had knowledge of the previous sale. Petitioners do not dispute that Armando and Adelia registered their adverse claim with the Registry of Deeds of Bataan on 8 February 1994. The Subsequent Buyers purchased their respective lots only on 22 February 1994 as shown by the date of their deeds of sale. Consequently, the adverse claim registered prior to the second sale charged the Subsequent Buyers with constructive notice of the defect in the title of the sellers,[60] Godofredo and Carmen.
	GR No. 149679 2003-05-30	HEIRS OF CLEMENTE ERMAC v. ERMAC PANGANIBAN, J.
We clarify. While it is true that Section 32[12] of PD 1529 provides that the decree of registration becomes incontrovertible after a year, it does not altogether deprive an aggrieved party of a remedy[13] in law.[14] The acceptability of the Torrens System would be impaired, if it is utilized to perpetuate fraud against the real owners.[15]
	GR No. 142403 2003-03-26	ALEJANDRO GABRIEL v. SPS. PABLO MABANTA AND ESCOLASTICA COLOBONG SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We have consistently held that "in cases of double sale of immovables, what finds relevance and materiality is not whether or not the second buyer was a buyer in good faith but whether or not said second buyer registers such second sale in good faith, that is, without knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold."[20] In Salvoro vs. Tanega,[21] we had the occasion to rule that:"If a vendee in a double sale registers the sale after he has acquired knowledge that there was a previous sale of the same property to a third party or that another person claims said property in a previous sale, the registration will constitute a registration in bad faith and will not confer upon him any right."
	GR No. 120004 2002-12-27	ILUMINADA DE GUZMAN v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
domain. Consequently, it is rendered beyond the jurisdiction or authority of the Director of Lands. The principle in respect to compliance with the conditions for the judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles under Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as further amended by Republic Act No. 1942, applies by analogy.[40] The rule under the later law is that when the conditions specified therein are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued, and the land ceases to be part of the public domain and beyond the authority of the Director of Lands.[41] It follows then that after April 27, 1966, Lot No. 3308, Cad. 350 was brought beyond the jurisdiction and authority of Jose J. Leido, Jr., then Secretary of Natural Resources. The latter was devoid of authority to issue another patent covering the lot or any portion thereof.