This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-12-09 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 1354 of the Civil Code, it is presumed that consideration[28] exists and is lawful unless the debtor proves the contrary.[29] Moreover, under Section 3(r) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is presumed that there is a sufficient consideration for a contract. The presumption that a contract has sufficient consideration cannot be overthrown by a mere assertion that it has no consideration.[30] To overcome the presumption of consideration, the alleged lack of consideration must be shown by preponderance of evidence.[31] | |||||
|
2005-01-21 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right) gains greater significance in case of double sale of immovable property. When the thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first records it in the Registry of Property, both made in good faith, shall be deemed the owner.[38] Verily, the act of registration must be coupled with good faith that is, the registrant must have no knowledge of the defect or lack of title of his vendor or must not have been aware of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor.[39] | |||||