This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-12-07 |
TOSINO v. SPS. ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE-ROSARIO AND BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 2085 of the Civil Code, one of the essential requisites of the contract of mortgage is that the mortgagor should be the absolute owner of the property to be mortgaged; otherwise, the mortgage is considered null and void. However, an exception to this rule is the doctrine of "mortgagee in good faith." Under this doctrine, even if the mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale arising therefrom are given effect by reason of public policy. This principle is based on the rule that all persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens Certificate of Title, as buyers or mortgagees, are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. This is the same rule that underlies the principle of "innocent purchasers for value." The prevailing jurisprudence is that a mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor to the property given as security and in the absence of any sign that might arouse suspicion, has no obligation to undertake further investigation. Hence, even if the mortgagor is not the rightful owner of, or does not have a valid title to, the mortgaged property, the mortgagee in good faith is, nonetheless, entitled to protection. [76] | |||||
|
2011-03-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Besides, the issue posed is one of credibility of witnesses, a matter that is peculiarly within the province of the trial court. [43] Absent a clear showing that the findings of the trial court are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error, We generally defer to its assessment.[44] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In this regard, it should be noted that questions concerning the credibility of a witness are best addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, since it is the latter which is in the best position to observe the demeanor and bodily movements of a witness.[24] This becomes all the more compelling when the appellate court affirms the findings of the trial court. Thus, we generally defer to the trial court's assessment, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[25] Unfortunately, however, accused-appellant Orias failed to show any of these as to warrant a review of the findings of fact of the lower court. | |||||
|
2008-06-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Essentially, accused-appellants' claim, that the testimony of Jonathan ought not to be believed simply because Jonathan could not have witnessed the mauling of Edison since he himself was under attack, has no basis. Both the trial and appellate courts found Jonathan's testimony credible and their findings should be given full faith and credit. Time and again, we said that the findings by the RTC should be respected as the trial court judge was in the best position to determine the witness' credibility. It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that the determination of credibility of witnesses is properly within the domain of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe their demeanor.[4] This conclusion becomes all the more pressing when the appellate court affirms the findings of the trial court. | |||||
|
2008-02-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As to the credibility of Angluben, it is a familiar and fundamental doctrine that the determination of the credibility of witnesses is the domain of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe the witnesses' demeanor.[23] Angluben's oral testimony is supported by documentary evidence. Under the circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to depart from this principle. | |||||