This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| For consideration is the amended petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the February 21, 2013 Decision[1] and September 17, 2013 Amended Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 122425,[3] which declared petitioner W.M. Manufacturing, Inc. (WM MFG) and respondent Golden Rock Manpower Services (Golden Rock) solidarily liable to respondent Richard R. Dalag (Dalag) for the latter's alleged illegal dismissal from employment. | |||||
|
2015-08-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Verily, a mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor and, in the absence of any sign that might arouse suspicion, has no obligation to undertake further investigation. Accordingly, even if the mortgagor is not the rightful owner of, or does not have a valid title to, the mortgaged property, the mortgagee in good faith is entitled to protection.[13] This doctrine presupposes, however, that the mortgagor, who is not the rightful owner of the property, has already succeeded in obtaining a Torrens title over the property in his name and that, after obtaining the said title, he succeeds in mortgaging the property to another who relies on what appears on the said title.[14] | |||||
|
2014-10-15 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals quoted Cabuhat v. Court of Appeals in holding that "when a mortgagee relies upon what appears on the face of a Torrens title and loans money in all good faith on the basis of the title in the name of the mortgagor, only thereafter to learn that the latter's title was defective, being thus an innocent mortgagee for value, his or her right or lien upon the land mortgaged must be respected and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained her title thereto through fraud."[77] | |||||
|
2014-10-15 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The general rule allows every person dealing with registered land to rely on the face of the title when determining its absolute owner.[85] Thus, cases like Cabuhat have held that "a mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor of the property given as security and in the absence of any sign that might arouse suspicion, has no obligation to undertake further investigation."[86] The protection of innocent mortgagees for value finds support in the Land Registration Act: Then in Penullar v. PNB, this Court resolved a similar issue ruling that Section 38 of the Land Registration Act places an innocent mortgagee for value under the mantle of protection accorded to innocent purchasers for value. | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that even if the procurement of a certificate of title was tainted with fraud and misrepresentation, such defective title may be the source of a completely legal and valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such an outright cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in every instance whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued. This is contrary to the evident purpose of the law.[33] | |||||
|
2011-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| After investigation and evaluation, the Special Task Force submitted its "Terminal Report: Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated (HLI) Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) Conflict" [64] dated September 22, 2005 (Terminal Report), finding that HLI has not complied with its obligations under RA 6657 despite the implementation of the SDP. [65] The Terminal Report and the Special Task Force's recommendations were adopted by then DAR Sec. Nasser Pangandaman (Sec. Pangandaman). [66] | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In Cavite Development Bank v. Lim,[54] the Court explained the doctrine of mortgagee in good faith, thus: There is, however, a situation where, despite the fact that the mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property, his title being fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale arising therefrom are given effect by reason of public policy. This is the doctrine of "mortgagee in good faith" based on the rule that all persons dealing with the property covered by a Torrens Certificate of Title, as buyers or mortgagees, are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. The public interest in upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as evidence of lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance thereon, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon what appears on the face of the certificate of title.[55] Indeed, a mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor of the property given as security and in the absence of any sign that might arouse suspicion, has no obligation to undertake further investigation. Hence, even if the mortgagor is not the rightful owner of, or does not have a valid title to, the mortgaged property, the mortgagee in good faith is nonetheless entitled to protection.[56] This doctrine presupposes, however, that the mortgagor, who is not the rightful owner of the property, has already succeeded in obtaining a Torrens title over the property in his name and that, after obtaining the said title, he succeeds in mortgaging the property to another who relies on what appears on the said title. The innocent purchaser (mortgagee in this case) for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner himself, not by a forged deed, as the law expressly states. Such is not the situation of petitioner, who has been the victim of impostors pretending to be the registered owners but who are not said owners.[57] The doctrine of mortgagee in good faith does not apply to a situation where the title is still in the name of the rightful owner and the mortgagor is a different person pretending to be the owner. In such a case, the mortgagee is not an innocent mortgagee for value and the registered owner will generally not lose his title. We thus agree with the following discussion of the CA: The trial court wrongly applied in this case the doctrine of "mortgagee in good faith" which has been allowed in many instances but in a milieu dissimilar from this case. This doctrine is based on the rule that persons dealing with properties covered by a Torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. But this is only in a situation where the mortgagor has a fraudulent or otherwise defective title, but not when the mortgagor is an impostor and a forger. | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Just as an innocent purchaser for value may rightfully rely on what appears in the certificate of title, a mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears in the title presented to him. In the absence of anything to arouse suspicion, he is under no obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor appearing on the face of the said certificate. [14] | |||||