Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
title was issued nine years after he died, then such vendees are not
purchasers in good faith entitled to the protection of the Torrens
system of registration, even if they had secured in their names a
certificate of title.
Navarro & Fortea (P) v. 2nd Laguna Devt Bank & Sps Guzman &
Esporlas (R) | GR No. 129428 | 2.27.03 | Double Sales | SandovalGuttierrez, J p:
Sps P et al, were co-owners of a parcel of land (TCT No. 244200). In
1978, Sps Velasco and Navarro, conspiring with the latter's sister
Luciana Navarro (P), executed a falsified DOAS wherein they made it
appear that the entire lot was sold to said spouses Velasco.
TCT No. 114526 in the names of Sps Velasco was accordingly issued.
Subsequently, they mortgaged the property to R Bank to secure
payment of a loan. In 1987, the respondent Bank, foreclosed the
mortgage; In 1988 and 1990, Sps P, introducing themselves as
attorneys-in-fact of Esther Navarro-Velasco, wrote the R Bank,
offering to redeem the property. However, they failed to do so.
Hence, ownership thereof was consolidated in the name of
respondent Bank and a new TCT was thereafter issued in its favour;
In 1990, sued for annulment of the mortgage and the consolidation
of ownership with damages. They alleged that the sale of the lot
with respect to their 1/6 share was void ab initio considering that
their signatures appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale were
falsified. Pendente Lite, it was sold to PR Sps, impleaded by Sps P,
alleging purchasers in bad faith.
CFI against Sps P, CA Affirmed. Hence this.
In dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court held that the
petitioners were estopped from assailing the validity of the sale of
the property to respondent spouses Guzman. "A person, who by his
deed or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner,
is barred from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course
of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another."
Petitioners, in their two letters to respondent Bank, did not state that
spouses Velasco falsified their signatures appearing in the Deed of
Absolute Sale. Nor did they question the validity of the mortgage
and its foreclosure.
In Rural Bank of Compostela vs. Court of Appeals, this Court held
that the rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely
solely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks because
their business is one affected with public interest, keeping in trust
money belonging to their depositors, which they should guard
against loss by not committing any act of negligence which amounts
to lack of good faith.
In entering into the mortgage contract with spouses Velasco, there
was no indication that respondent bank acted in bad faith. Spouses
Velasco presented to the bank their TCT No. 114256 showing they
were then the absolute owners thereof. Indeed, there were no
circumstances or indications that aroused respondent bank's
suspicion that the title was defective.
Remalante (P) v. Tibe & CA (R) | GR No. 59514 | 2.25.88 | Double
Sales | Cortes, J p:
Private respondent's evidence shows that on December 15, 1965,
petitioner came to the house of private respondent and requested
her to sign papers purported to be bail bonds for his provisional
liberty in connection with a concubinage case filed against him by
his wife.
However, private respondent discovered later that the papers she
was made to sign were actually: (1) affidavits of transfer (Exhibits I3, K and M) of her three parcels of land under Tax Declaration Nos.
20280, 20273 and 20274 which she purportedly donated to
petitioner; and (2) a deed of absolute sale (Exhibit 22) in favor of
petitioner of her other three parcels of land under Tax Declaration
Nos. 13959, 17388 and 16999.
On the other hand, petitioner presented evidence to show that he is
the owner of the six (6) parcels of land subject of this case. He
claimed that he bought the first three (3) parcels (those covered by
Tax Declaration Nos. 20280, 20273 and 20274) from Silvino
Alminario before they were bought by private respondent. He agreed
to have the properties transferred to the name of private respondent
to accommodate her request to use the properties as collateral in
securing a loan from a bank.
However, he found out later that private respondent did not apply
for any loan. Petitioner reported the case to the Municipal Mayor of
Dagami, Leyte and private respondent was summoned before the
mayor and was made to sign affidavits of transfer (Exhibits I-3, K and
M) in favor of petitioner.
binding against the whole world, they merely confirm or record title
already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a
usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used for the
perpetration of fraud; neither do they permit one to enrich himself at
the expense of others.
Following Article 1544, in the double sale of an immovable, the rules
of preference are: (a) the first registrant in good faith; (b) should
there be no entry, the first in possession in good faith; and c) in the
absence thereof, the buyer who presents the oldest title in good
faith. Prior registration of the subject property does not by itself
confer ownership or a better right over the property. Article 1544
requires that before the second buyer can obtain priority over the
first, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e., in
ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer's rights) from the
time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration
or failing registration, by delivery of possession.
One who purchases real property which is in actual possession of
others should, at least, make some inquiry concerning the rights of
those in possession. The actual possession by people other than the
vendor should, at least, put the purchaser upon inquiry. He can
scarcely, in the absence of such inquiry, be regarded as a bona fide
purchaser as against such possessions. The rule of caveat emptor
requires the purchaser to be aware of the supposed title of the
vendor and one who buys without checking the vendor's title takes
all the risks and losses consequent to such failure.
the balance of the purchase price. The choice of who to sell the
property to, however, had already been made by the sellers and is
thus no longer subject to any condition nor open to any change. In
that sense, therefore, the sale made by Palanca to private
respondents was definitive and absolute.
The subsequent sale of the subject property by Palanca to the said
tenants smacks of gross bad faith, considering that Palanca and the
said tenants were in full awareness of the August and September
negotiations between Bautista and Palanca, on the one hand, and
Loreto Adalin Faustino Yu and Antonio Lim, on the other, for the sale
of the one-storey building. Notwithstanding their full knowledge of
the subsistence of the earlier sale over the same property to private
respondents Yu and Lim. It goes without saying, thus, that though
the second sale to the said tenants was registered, such prior
registration cannot erase the gross bad faith that characterized such
second sale, and consequently, there is no legal basis to rule that
such second sale prevails over the first sale of the said property to
private respondents Yu and Lim.