THE
HEIRS OF VICTORINO SARILI, NAMELY: ISABEL A. SARILI, MELENCIA S. MAXIMO,
ALBERTO A. SARILI, IMELDA S. HIDALGO, all herein represented by CELSO A. SARILI,
petitioners, vs. PEDRO F. LAGROSA, represented in this act by his
Attorney-in-Fact, LOURDES LABIOS MOJICA, respondent
G.R.
No. 1933517 | Jan.
15, 2014
FACTS:
Respondent Pedro Lagrosa is the owner of
a parcel of land situated in Caloocan City. He resided in California, USA and
during a vacation in the Philippines found that a new certificate of title was
issued by the RD in the name of Victorino Sarili by virtue of an alleged
falsified document by Sps. Sarili and the RD. Sps. Sarili maintained that they
are innocent buyers for value having purchased the property from Ramon B.
Rodriguez who possessed and presented a Special Power of Attorney to
sell/dispose the property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Sps. Sarili are builders
in good faith
RULING:
The general rule is that every person
dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to
go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. Where
there is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in
the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not
required to explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its face indicates
in quest for any hidden defects or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat
his right thereto.
However, a higher degree of prudence is
required from one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner,
although the land object of the transaction is registered. In such a case, the
buyer is expected to examine not only the certificate of title but all factual
circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the
title of the transferor. The buyer also has the duty to ascertain the identity
of the person with whom he is dealing with and the latter’s legal authority to
convey the property.
To be deemed a builder in good faith, it
is essential that a person asserts title to the land on which he builds, i.e.,
that he be a possessor in concept of owner, and that he be unaware that there
exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. Good
faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or
statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief,
the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an
unconscionable advantage. It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from
knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. As for
Sps. Sarili, they knew — or at the very least, should have known — from the
very beginning that they were dealing with a person who possibly had no
authority to sell the subject property considering the palpable irregularity in
the subject SPA’s acknowledgment. Yet, relying solely on said document and
without any further investigation on Ramos’ capacity to sell, Sps. Sarili still
chose to proceed with its purchase and even built a house thereon. Based on the
foregoing, it cannot be seriously doubted that Sps. Sarili were actually aware
of a flaw or defect in their title or mode of acquisition and have consequently
built the house on the subject property in bad faith under legal contemplation.
Comments
Post a Comment