Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. WILLIAM AND JULIE LIM v. CHUATOCO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 161925 2009-11-25	SPS. EXEQUIEL LOPEZ AND EUSEBIA LOPEZ v. SPS. EDUARDO LOPEZ AND MARCELINA R. LOPEZ NACHURA, J.
As a logical consequence, petitioners did not become the owners of the subject property even after a TCT had been issued in their names. After all, registration does not vest title. Certificates of title 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 as a shield for the commission of fraud, or to permit one to enrich oneself at the expense of others.[14] Hence, reconveyance of the subject property is warranted.
	GR No. 177187 2009-04-07	SPS. JUANITO R. VILLAMIL v. LAZARO CRUZ VILLAROSA TINGA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that every person dealing with a registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. Where there is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defects or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto.[38]
	GR No. 171008 2008-10-24	CARMELITA FUDOT v. CARPIO PER CURIAM
Atty. De La Serna insists that the decision was contrary to the principles enunciated by Justice Tinga in the case of Lim v. Jorge.[13] He states:III. THE DECISION OF JUSTICE TINGA IN THE CASE REEKS OF BRIBERY. HE HAS REPUDIATED ALL THE DOCTRINES HE HAS SUMMARIZED AND ENUNCIATED IN LIM v. JORGE, A DECISION HE PENNED ONLY IN 2005.
	GR No. 171008 2008-10-24	CARMELITA FUDOT v. CARPIO PER CURIAM
We reviewed the records of the case and find that the decision was made in accordance with law and established jurisprudence. The principles enunciated in Lim v. Jorge,[50] now being invoked by Atty. De La Serna, simply do not find application in this case. His insistence that Justice Tinga repudiated and contradicted everything he enunciated in the Lim case "just to accommodate Mr. Chan and all his cohorts and his money"[51] is not only groundless, it is also downright contemptuous.
	GR No. 170528 2008-08-26	HEIRS OF JULIAN TIRO v. PHILIPPINE ESTATES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Insofar as a person who has fraudulently obtained property is concerned, the consequently fraudulent registration of the property in the name of such person would not be sufficient to vest in him or her title to the property. Certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. The indefeasibility of the torrens title should not be used as a means to perpetrate fraud against the rightful owner of real property. Good faith must concur with registration because, otherwise, registration would be an exercise in futility.[33] However, where good faith is established, as in the case of an innocent purchaser for value, a forged document may become the root of a valid title.[34]
	GR NO. 150066 2007-04-13	SPS. EMMANUEL AND EDNA CHUA AND SPS. MANUEL AND MARIA CHUA v. MSGR. VIRGILIO SORIANO. SUBSTITUTED BY SISTER MARY VIRGILIA CELESTINO SORIANO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse claims and interest of another person in the same property. The honesty of intention which constitutes good faith implies a freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry.[30] As the Court enunciated in Lim v. Chuatoco:[31]
	GR NO. 164801 2006-06-30	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Cabuhat was later invoked by Clemente v. Razo[2] and Velasquez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals.[3] Accordingly, in Lim v. Chuatoco we said that "it is a familiar doctrine that a forged or fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title, if the property has already been transferred from the name of the owner to that of the forger. This doctrine serves to emphasize that a person who deals with registered property in good faith will acquire good title from a forger and be absolutely protected by a Torrens title. In the final analysis, the resolution of this case depends on whether the petitioners are purchasers in good faith."[4]
	GR NO. 158227 2005-10-19	KEPPEL BANK PHILIPPINES v. PHILIP ADAO QUISUMBING, J.
It is true that persons dealing with registered property can rely solely on the certificate of title and need not go beyond it.[15] However, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, this rule does not apply to banks. Banks are required to exercise more care and prudence than private individuals in dealing even with registered properties for their business is affected with public interest.[16] As master of its business, petitioner should have sent its representatives to check the assigned properties before signing the compromise agreement and it would have discovered that respondent was already occupying one of the condominium units and that a contract to sell existed between respondent and PMRDC. In our view, petitioner was not a purchaser in good faith and we are constrained to rule that petitioner is bound by the contract to sell.
	GR NO. 143254 2005-08-18	SIGAYA v. DIOMER MAYUGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse claims and interest of another person in the same property. The honesty of intention which constitutes good faith implies a freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry.[31] As enunciated in Lim vs. Chuatoco[32]