This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-01-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| 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 it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person's claim.[15] The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon one who asserts that status. This onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere invocation of the ordinary presumption of good faith.[16] | |||||
|
2008-08-29 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| On June 21, 2001, this Court rendered a Decision[8] in G.R. No. 109197 finding that the UYS were not buyers in good faith of the subject lots; that as equitable mortgagees, the SIOCHIS could not validly appropriate the subject lots since they were not the owners thereof; that the UYS, as mere transferees of the SIOCHIS, acquired no better right to the subject lots than what the latter had. The said decision became final and executory on November 20, 2001. | |||||
|
2008-08-29 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Aggrieved, the UYS appealed to the Court of Appeals,[10] but it was dismissed on August 16, 2004. The dismissal became final and executory, and entry of judgment thereon was made on September 5, 2004. The Court of Appeals[11] declared that the UYS, in accordance with the ruling in G.R. No. 109197, have no right over the subject lots; hence, they may not assail BON-MAR's title over the same. | |||||
|
2008-03-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Allied questions the finding of both the trial and appellate courts that Allied was not authorized to release the proceeds of Lim Sio Wan's money market placement to Santos. Allied clearly raises a question of fact. When the CA affirms the findings of fact of the RTC, the factual findings of both courts are binding on this Court.[39] | |||||
|
2008-02-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In view of our resolution on the validity of the auction of the lot in favor of Metrobank, there is hardly a need to discuss at length whether or not Metrobank was a mortgagee in good faith. Suffice it to state for the nonce that where the mortgagee is a banking institution, the general rule that a purchaser or mortgagee of the land need not look beyond the four corners of the title is inapplicable.[20] Unlike private individuals, it behooves banks to exercise greater care and due diligence before entering into a mortgage contract. The ascertainment of the status or condition of the property offered as security and the validity of the mortgagor's title must be standard and indispensable part of the bank's operation.[21] A bank that failed to observe due diligence cannot be accorded the status of a bona fide mortgagee,[22] as here. | |||||
|
2002-01-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In Uy v. CA,[25] the Court through Mr. Justice Jose A. R. Melo made the following significant observations:"Thus, while it is true, as asserted by petitioners, that a person dealing with registered lands need not go beyond the certificate of title, it is likewise a well-settled rule that a purchaser or mortgagee cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor or mortgagor. His mere refusal to face up to the fact that such defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in the vendor's or mortgagor's title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with the measure of precaution which may be required of a prudent man in a like situation."[26] Indeed, there are circumstances that should put a party on guard and prompt an investigation of the property being mortgaged. Citing Torres v. CA,[27] the Court continued as follows: | |||||