This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-10-19 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| However, there is an exception to this rule. In the case of Heirs of Pomposa Saludares v. Court of Appeals,[27] the Court reiterating the ruling in Millena v. Court of Appeals,[28] held that there is but one instance when prescription cannot be invoked in an action for reconveyance, that is, when the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be reconveyed. In Heirs of Pomposa Saludares,[29] this Court explained that the Court in a series of cases,[30] has permitted the filing of an action for reconveyance despite the lapse of more than ten (10) years from the issuance of title to the land and declared that said action, when based on fraud, is imprescriptible as long as the land has not passed to an innocent buyer for value. But in all those cases, the common factual backdrop was that the registered owners were never in possession of the disputed property. The exception was based on the theory that registration proceedings could not be used as a shield for fraud or for enriching a person at the expense of another. | |||||
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| x x x A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. Good faith, or the lack of it, is in the final analysis a question of intention; but in ascertaining the intention by which one is actuated on a given occasion, we are necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the conduct and outward acts by which alone the inward motive may, with safety, be determined. Truly, good faith 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 tokens or signs. Otherwise stated, good faith x x x refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. [148] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-03-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, dishonesty, like bad faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence. Dishonesty is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the petitioner, but also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment.[9] | |||||
|
2009-07-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Verily, an action for reconveyance can be barred by prescription. When an action for reconveyance is based on fraud, it must be filed within four (4) years from discovery of the fraud, and such discovery is deemed to have taken place from the issuance of the original certificate of title. On the other hand, an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of the issuance of the original certificate of title or transfer certificate of title. The rule is that the registration of an instrument in the Office of the RD constitutes constructive notice to the whole world and therefore the discovery of the fraud is deemed to have taken place at the time of registration.[47] | |||||
|
2006-11-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| While the decision in Misc. Case No. 4100 does not constitute res judicata to the present case, there being no identity in causes of action, it is settled that "a judgment is conclusive as to the facts admitted by the pleadings or assumed by the decision, where they were essential to the judgment, and were such that the judgment could not legally have been rendered without them."[20] The finding in Misc. Case No. 4100 was essential to the judgment since a petition for reconstitution may be filed only by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person who has an interest in the property.[21] | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is bad faith should be established by clear and convincing evidence since the law always presumes good faith.[38] Thus, the person who seeks damages due to the acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill motive.[39] Bad faith is in essence a question of intention.[40] In ascertaining the intention of the person accused of acting in bad faith, the courts must carefully examine the evidence as to the conduct and outward acts from which the inward motive may be determined.[41] | |||||