Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kcompacion
    This summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases on issues of double sale of property: 1. In De Leon vs. Ong, the court ruled that a double sale occurred but the first purchaser was the lawful owner as she took actual possession after the notarized deed of sale was signed and she received the property keys. 2. In Martinez vs. CA, the court found that second purchasers were not buyers in good faith because they were aware of existing occupants on the property but did not properly inquire about their rights. 3. In Payongayong vs. CA, the court determined that second purchasers were buyers in good faith as only encumbrances annotated on the title were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kcompacion
    111 views5 pages
    This summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases on issues of double sale of property: 1. In De Leon vs. Ong, the court ruled that a double sale occurred but the first purchaser was the lawful owner as she took actual possession after the notarized deed of sale was signed and she received the property keys. 2. In Martinez vs. CA, the court found that second purchasers were not buyers in good faith because they were aware of existing occupants on the property but did not properly inquire about their rights. 3. In Payongayong vs. CA, the court determined that second purchasers were buyers in good faith as only encumbrances annotated on the title were

    Original Description:

    cases

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases on issues of double sale of property: 1. In De Leon vs. Ong, the court ruled that a double sale occurred but the first purchaser was the lawful owner as she took actual possession after the notarized deed of sale was signed and she received the property keys. 2. In Martinez vs. CA, the court found that second purchasers were not buyers in good faith because they were aware of existing occupants on the property but did not properly inquire about their rights. 3. In Payongayong vs. CA, the court determined that second purchasers were buyers in good faith as only encumbrances annotated on the title were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    111 views5 pages

    Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kcompacion
    This summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases on issues of double sale of property: 1. In De Leon vs. Ong, the court ruled that a double sale occurred but the first purchaser was the lawful owner as she took actual possession after the notarized deed of sale was signed and she received the property keys. 2. In Martinez vs. CA, the court found that second purchasers were not buyers in good faith because they were aware of existing occupants on the property but did not properly inquire about their rights. 3. In Payongayong vs. CA, the court determined that second purchasers were buyers in good faith as only encumbrances annotated on the title were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    DE LEON vs. ONG (G.R. No.

    170405

    February 2, 2010)

    Facts:
    Petitioner Raymundo S. de Leon and respondent Benita Ong executed a deed
    of absolute sale with assumption of mortgage over three parcels of land.
    Respondent made partial payment, informed RSLAI to assume the loan,
    underwent credit investigation, and undertook repairs and made
    improvements on the properties. Subsequently, respondent learned that
    petitioner again sold the same properties to one Leona Viloria, so she filed a
    complaint for specific performance, declaration of nullity of the second sale
    and damages claiming that since petitioner had previously sold the
    properties to her on March 10, 1993, he no longer had the right to sell the
    same to Viloria. Thus, petitioner fraudulently deprived her of the properties.
    Petitioner claimed that since the transaction was subject to a condition (i.e.,
    that RSLAI approve the assumption of mortgage), they only entered into a
    contract to sell. Inasmuch as respondent did apply for a loan from RSLAI, the
    condition did not arise. Consequently, the sale was not perfected and he
    could freely dispose of the properties.
    Issue: Whether or not there was double sale.
    Ruling:
    This case involves a double sale as the disputed properties were sold
    validly on two separate occasions by the same seller to the two different
    buyers in good faith.
    Respondent was not aware of any interest in or a claim on the properties
    other than the mortgage to RSLAI which she undertook to assume. Moreover,
    Viloria bought the properties from petitioner after the latter sold them to
    respondent. Respondent was therefore a purchaser in good faith.
    The rules on double sale provide that when neither buyer registered the sale
    of the properties, the one who took prior possession of the properties shall
    be the lawful owner thereof. In this instance, petitioner delivered the
    properties to respondent when he executed the notarized deed and handed
    over to respondent the keys to the properties. For this reason, respondent
    took actual possession and exercised control thereof by making repairs and
    improvements thereon. Clearly, the sale was perfected and consummated on

    March 10, 1993. Thus, respondent became the lawful owner of the
    properties.

    MARTINEZ vs CA (G.R. No. 123547. May 21, 2001)

    Facts:

    Private respondents Godofredo De la Paz and his sister Manuela entered


    into an oral contract with petitioner Rev. Fr. Dante Martinez for the sale of a
    parcel of lot. After full payment, private respondents executed two
    documents, however, private respondents never delivered the Deed of Sale.
    Private respondents sold two lots to Spouses Veneracion including the lot
    previously sold to petitioner. Veneracion never took actual possession of the
    lots, but all titles were given to him and registered the same in his name.
    Petitioner discovered that the lot had been sold to the spouses Veneracion,
    so he demanded the execution of the deed of sale from De la Paz and
    informed Veneracion that he was the owner of the property as he had
    previously purchased the same.
    Veneracion brought an action for ejectment, while petitioner caused a notice
    of lis pendens to be recorded on the title. While the ejectment case was
    pending, petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of sale with damages
    against the Veneracions and De la Pazes.

    Issue: Whether or not private respondents Veneracion are buyers in good


    faith.

    Ruling:
    NO. The requirement of the law, where title to the property is recorded is
    two-fold: acquisition in good faith and recording in good faith. To be entitled
    to priority, the second purchaser must not only prove prior recording of his
    title but that he acted in good faith, i.e., without knowledge or notice of a

    prior sale to another. The presence of good faith should be ascertained from
    the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the land.
    This Court in several cases has ruled that a purchaser who is aware of
    facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard cannot turn a blind
    eye and later claim that he acted in good faith.
    Private respondent Veneracion knew that there were already occupants on
    the property as early as 1981. The fact that there are persons, other than the
    vendors, in actual possession of the disputed lot should have put private
    respondents on inquiry as to the nature of petitioners right over the
    property. But he never talked to petitioner to verify the nature of his right. He
    merely relied on the assurance of private respondent Godofredo De la Paz,
    who was not even the owner of the lot in question, that he would take care of
    the matter. This does not meet the standard of good faith.
    The deed of sale executed by private respondents Godofredo and Manuela
    De la Paz in favor of private respondents spouses Reynaldo and Susan
    Veneracion is null and void.

    PAYONGAYONG vs CA [G.R. No. 144576. May 28, 2004]

    Facts:
    Eduardo Mendoza (Mendoza) was the registered owner of a parcel of land
    which he mortgaged to the Meralco Employees Savings and Loan Association
    (MESALA) which was duly annotated on the title. On July 11, 1987, Mendoza
    executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage in favor of petitioners.
    Without petitioners knowledge, he mortgaged the same property to MESALA
    to secure another loan and later on sold the same property in favor of
    respondents. Respondents caused the cancellation of Mendozas title and the
    issuance of a title in their name.
    Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of deed of absolute sale and
    transfer certificate of title with recovery of possession and damages against
    spouses Mendoza, alleging that the spouses maliciously sold to respondents
    the property which was priorly sold to them and that respondents acted in
    bad faith in acquiring it, the latter having had knowledge of the existence of
    the Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.

    Issue: WON the respondents are purchasers in good faith/ innocent


    purchasers for value.
    Ruling:
    Yes. It is a well-established principle that a person dealing with registered
    land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title and is
    charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the
    title
    Petitioners did not cause the cancellation of Mendozas title and procure one
    in their names, nor that they had their claims annotated on the same title.
    Thus, at the time of the sale of the property to respondents, only the
    mortgages in favor of MESALA appeared on the annotations of
    encumbrances on Mendozas title. That petitioners failure to register the sale
    in their favor made it possible for the Mendozas to sell the same property to
    respondents.
    Meanwhile, the respondents did not only rely upon Mendozas title, but
    personally inspected the property and verified with the Registry of Deeds if
    Mendoza was indeed the registered owner. Given this factual backdrop,
    respondents did indeed purchase the property in good faith and accordingly
    acquired valid and indefeasible title thereto.
    There being double sale of an immovable property, the trial and appellate
    courts thus correctly accorded preferential rights to respondents who had the
    sale registered in their favor.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy