Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MILITAR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 214057 2015-10-19	FLORENTINA BAUTISTA-SPILLE v. NICORP MANAGEMENT MENDOZA, J.
In the same vein, NICORP cannot be considered a purchaser in good faith. The well-settled rule is that a person dealing with an assumed agent is bound to ascertain not only the fact of agency but also the nature and extent of the agent's authority.[28] The law requires a higher degree of prudence from one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner. He is expected to examine all factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the land.[29] In ascertaining good faith, or the lack of it, which is a question of intention, courts are necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the conduct and outward acts by which alone the inward motive may, with safety, be determined. Good faith, or want of it, is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be judged by actual or fancied token or signs.[30]
	GR No. 213233 2015-08-05	BLISS DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. MONTANO DIAZ VELASCO JR., J.
We,however, fail to find sufficient basis for the CA’s ruling that Diaz is a purchaser for value and in good faith. In a long line of cases, this Court had ruled that a purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys property of another without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase or before he or she has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property.[17]For one to be considered a purchaser in good faith, the following requisites must concur: (1) that the purchaser buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property; and (2) that the purchaser pays a full and fair price for the property at the time of such purchase or before he or she has notice of the claim of another.[18] We find that in the case at bar, the first element is lacking.
	GR No. 209287 2015-02-03	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
It is equally important to stress that the ascertainment of good faith, or the lack of it, and the determination of whether or not due diligence and prudence were exercised, are questions of fact.[49] The want of good faith is thus better determined by tribunals other than this Court, which is not a trier of facts.[50]
	GR No. 160898 2008-06-27	DAVID SIA TIO v. LORENZO ABAYATA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The rule has always been that every person dealing with 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.[26] However, where the land sold is in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the purchaser must go beyond the certificate of title and make inquiries concerning the actual possessor. A buyer of real property which is in possession of another must be wary and investigate the rights of the latter. Otherwise, without such inquiry, the buyer cannot be said to be in good faith and cannot have any right over the property.[27]
	GR NO. 130348 2007-09-03	MIGUEL SORIANO v. ANTERO SORIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Of course, this Court may be minded to review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, but only in the presence of any of the following circumstances: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures;[46] (2) the interference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[47] (3) there is grave abuse of discretion;[48] (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[49] (5) the findings of fact are conflicting;[50] (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;[51] (7) the findings of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record;[52] (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;[53] (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;[54] (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case;[55] and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[56]