This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-04-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| 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.[42] 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.[43] | |||||
|
2009-03-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.[59] "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest.[60] The interest of the party must also be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.[61] Real interest, on the other hand, means a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.[62] | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We cannot accept respondent's flimsy reason. It is precisely because Rita Gabatan and her contemporaries (who might have personal knowledge of the matters litigated in this case) were advancing in age and might soon expire that respondent should have exerted every effort to preserve valuable evidence and speedily litigate her claim. As we held in Republic of the Philippines v. Agunoy: "Vigilantibus, sed non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights...[O]ne may not sleep on a right while expecting to preserve it in its pristine purity."[47] | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| We respond in the negative. The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear to be the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.[25] Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest. For it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.[26] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The doctrine that a fraudulent title may be the root of a valid title in the name of an innocent buyer for value and in good faith[24] applies to petitioners. | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. Agunoy, Sr., et al.,[32] We refused to revert the land in question to the public domain despite the fact that the free patent thereto was secured by fraud since the same land already passed on to purchasers in good faith and for value - | |||||
|
2006-03-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| If the evidence show that the Free Patent and the OCT issued to petitioners' predecessors-in-interest is valid and or Lot 89 is not inside TCT No. 257152, then judgment should be rendered in favor of petitioners; and whether the latter acted in good or bad faith will no longer be a decisive issue in this case. On the other hand, if the title of petitioners' predecessors-in-interest is declared void, the defense of good faith may still be available to petitioners who claim to be purchasers in good faith and for value. The rule is that a void title may be the source of a valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.[21] An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.[22] | |||||