This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-08-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Undoubtedly, our land registration statute extends its protection to an innocent purchaser for value, defined as "one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in such property and pays the full 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."[25] An "innocent purchaser for value" includes an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value .[26] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| More importantly, petitioner introduced in evidence TCT Nos. T-369406 and T-369407 in the name of respondent Tanjuatco. These titles bear a certification that Tanjuatco's titles were derived from OCT No. 245 in the name of no less than the Republic of the Philippines. Hence, we cannot validly and fairly rule that in relying upon said title, Tanjuatco acted in bad faith. A person dealing with registered land may safely rely upon the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property.[39] This applies even more particularly when the seller happens to be the Republic, against which, no improper motive can be ascribed. The law, no doubt, considers Tanjuatco an innocent purchaser for value. An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in such property and pays the full 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.[40] | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is basic in the interpretation and construction of contracts that the literal meaning of the stipulations shall control if the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt on the intention of the contracting parties.[18] It is only when the words appear to contravene the evident intention of the parties that the latter shall prevail over the former. The real nature of a contract may be determined from the express terms of the agreement and from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties thereto.[19] | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The validity of the deed of sale should, therefore, be recognized, the only opposition thereto being the alleged forgery of Ilao's signature which, as discussed above, was not satisfactorily demonstrated. There is no doubt that the deed of sale was duly acknowledged before a notary public. As a notarized document, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.[11] | |||||