This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon 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.[33] In sum, the transfer to Spouses Yap was null and void as Spouses Bitte had nothing to sell or transfer to them. | |||||
|
2015-07-22 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to, or an interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of some other person's claim or interest in the property.[55] Corollory thereto, when a piece of land is in the actual possession of persons other than the seller, the buyer must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in possession. Without making such inquiry, one cannot claim that he is a buyer in good faith. When a man proposes to buy or deal with realty, his duty is to read the public manuscript, that is, to look and see who is there upon it and what his rights are. A want of caution and diligence, which an honest man of ordinary prudence is accustomed to exercise in making purchases, is in contemplation of law, a want of good faith. The buyer who has failed to know or discover that the land sold to him is in adverse possession of another is a buyer in bad faith.[56] | |||||
|
2014-01-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This contention is unacceptable. It is a purely self-serving claim unsupported by any iota of evidence. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.[20] Furthermore, the Court notes that this position was adopted by the petitioners only almost eight (8) years after their original answer was filed, in response to the amended complaint of the respondent spouses. In their original answer to the complaint for partition, their claim that there was already a partition into northern-half and southern-half portions, was the very essence of their defense. It was precisely this admission which moved the respondent spouses to amend their complaint. The petitioners cannot now insist that the very foundation of their original defense was a palpable mistake. | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the sale of the subject lots to Spouses Bautista was void. Based on the records, Nasino had no written authority from Spouses Jalandoni to sell the subject lots. The testimony of Eliseo that Nasino was empowered by a special power of attorney to sell the subject lots was bereft of merit as the alleged special power attorney was neither presented in court nor was it referred to in the deeds of absolute sale.[26] Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules of Court.[27] | |||||