LEUNG YEE v. STRONG MACHINERY INC.

G.R. No. L-11658

Own Statement:

Here good faith is such an important element. I find it very crucial to recognize what is
yours. Also, an adequate knowledge of the law is equally important so that nothing of your
resources would be put to waste. Your hard-earned money once put it into something that is very
dubious is very risky. Moreover, I have found out now that no parties can just create or fabricate
within themselves what to call a property as oppose to its true nature. By doing so, you will be
able to identify which part of the agency of the government to register your property to.

Salient Ruling:

In the proper application of Art. 453, the Supreme Court held that:

One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot
claim that he has acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an
interest therein; and the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge 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. 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.

VILLASI v. GARCIA, G.R. No. 190106

Own Statement:

Instances such as I have found in this case bring a lot of things to ponder. The arguments
of the two parties are really good and convincing that if you are not founded in the law, you will
find it hard to come up with a conclusion. Especially when one says that accessory follows the
principal, it is interesting that such as in this case, the building is somehow in some way an
accessory of the land where it is adhered. However, jurisprudence has guided the Ponente of the
case at bar that the principle of the accessory follows the principal is found to be wanting. The
two properties are real properties thus involves two separate and distinct owners.

Salient Ruling:

It is also worth noting that in view of Art. 427, the highest Court of the land aptly put:
The rule on accession is not an iron-clad dictum. On instances where this Court was confronted
with cases requiring judicial determination of the ownership of the building separate from the lot,
it never hesitated to disregard such rule. The case at bar is of similar import. When there are
factual and evidentiary evidence to prove that the building and the lot on which it stands are
owned by different persons, they shall be treated separately. As such, the building or the lot, as
the case may be, can be made liable to answer for the obligation of its respective owner.

CATAPUSAN v. CA, G.R. No. 109262

Own Statement:

My take on this case is that ownership passed on to successors-in-interest are most of the
time, if not all the time, troublesome. The only remedy to such in the future is to settle within the
family today the issues of ownership and how and to whom it should be disposed. Also, it is
equally important to always, as in always, to keep your documents and papers pertaining to the
description, ownership, etc. of your precious land or other property. As this would make it
somehow easier for you to prove that you own your own lot if some dispute will arise in the
future.

Salient Ruling:

It is worth noting that in ownership as stated in Art. 427, preponderance of evidence is

the key factor in a favorable decision. Thus, the Supreme Court held that:

Although tax declarations and receipts are not direct proofs of ownership, yet when
accompanied by proof of actual possession for the required period, they become strong evidence
to support the claim of ownership thru acquisitive prescription. The possession contemplated as
foundation for prescriptive right must be one under claim of title or adverse to or in concept of
owner.

ROBLES v. CA, G.R. No. 109262

Own Statement:

All I can hope to understand in this case is that the matter is within blood relatives where
along the course of due time has eroded for reasons no one can explain except themselves. It is
just sad however that all of that trouble came from a mortgage that the bank thought as the
person who has full ownership of the land being mortgaged. The Court has intelligently penned
that pertaining to the ownership of his half-brother, he retains it. The one who mortgaged his
own part of the land - he has already lost it. For me, between the lines of family and extended
families, one has to really strongly administer their belongings properly as to not fall into traps of
which in the end all will regret.

Salient Ruling:

In an extensive deliberation of who rightfully owns a parcel of land manifested through

Art. 427, the Supreme Court position as stated:

We have, therefore, to arrive at the unavoidable conclusion that the title of herein petitioners
over the land in dispute is superior to the title of the registered owner which is a total nullity. The
long and continued possession of petitioners under a valid claim of title cannot be defeated by
the claim of a registered owner whose title is defective from the beginning.