This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-09-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. (Emphasis supplied.) The law is clear that when the thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first records it in the Registry of Property shall be deemed the owner. Primus tempore, potior jure. First in time, stronger in right. However, the act of registration must be coupled with good faith. That is, the registrant must have no knowledge of any defect in the title of the vendor or must not have been aware of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with any such defect.[12] | |||||
|
2006-06-21 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, the Court has held that one dealing with a registered parcel of land need not go beyond the certificate of title as he is charged with notice only of burdens which are noted on the face of the register or on the certificate of title.[19] The Continuing Surety Agreement, it ought to be particularly pointed out, was never recorded nor annotated on the title of spouses Ong. There is no evidence extant in the records to show that Lee had knowledge, prior to the subject sale, of the surety agreement adverted to. In fine, there is nothing to remotely suggest that the purchase of the subject property was characterized by anything other than good faith. | |||||
|
2005-10-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In this case, petitioner instituted an action for "Declaration of Non-Effectivity of Mortgage with Damages" four years from the date of her last installment and only as a reaction to the foreclosure proceedings instituted by respondent Bank. After the Monesets failed to deliver the TCT, petitioner merely stopped paying installments and did not institute an action for specific performance, neither did she consign payment of the remaining balance as proof of her willingness and readiness to comply with her part of the obligation. As we held in San Lorenzo Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals,[50] the perfected contract to sell imposed on the vendee the obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price. There being an obligation to pay the price, the vendee should have made the proper tender of payment and consignation of the price in court as required by law. Consignation of the amounts due in court is essential in order to extinguish the vendee's obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price.[51] Since there is no indication in the records that petitioner even attempted to make the proper consignation of the amounts due, the obligation on the part of the Monesets to transfer ownership never acquired obligatory force. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly noted that petitioners should have consigned the amount due in court instead of merely sending respondents a letter expressing interest to push through with the transaction. Mere sending of a letter by the vendee expressing the intention to pay without the accompanying payment is not considered a valid tender of payment. Consignation of the amount due in court is essential in order to extinguish the obligation to pay and oblige the vendor to convey title.[19] | |||||