Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Week 6
Week 6
Vs CA
FACTS:
-Baricuarto bought two lots on an installment basis from private respondent Galeos.
The two lots are part of victoria village. Baricuarto was unable to pay the full
amount.
- At the time the original action for quieting of title was filed in the trial court,
petitioner had an unpaid balance of P1,000.00 as to Lot No. 9 and P3,020.00 as to
Lot No. 10. The titles to the said lots remained in the name of respondent Galeos.
-After the sale, petitioner introduced certain improvements on the said lots
and started to reside therein in 1970.1[9] Since then petitioner has been in
actual and physical possession of the two (2) lots
- However, on December 7, 1968, about two (2) months from the date of the
previous sale to petitioner, respondent Galeos sold the entire subdivision,
including the two (2) lots, to his co-respondent Eugenio Amores.2[11]
Subsequently, petitioner was informed by respondent Galeos about the sale
to respondent Amores and was advised to pay the balance of the purchase
price of the two (2) lots directly to respondent Amores.
- On December 27, 1974, respondent Amores sold the two (2) lots to the
spouses Mariano and Felisa Nemenio, two of the respondents herein.3[17] Prior
to the sale, however, petitioner was informed through a letter by respondent
Amores about the impending sale of the two (2) lots but the former failed to
respond.4[18] The respondent spouses Nemenio caused the transfer of the
titles5[19] to the said lots and the issuance of tax declarations in their names.
Thereafter, the respondent spouses Nemenio demanded from petitioner to
vacate the said lots but the latter refused to do so.
- TC rendered judgment in favor of respondent spouses
ISSUE:
W/N Spouses Nemenio are purchasers in good faith
HELD:
respondent Amores did not act in good faith when he registered his title to the disputed lots on February
13, 1969. Assuming that respondent Amores was in good faith when he bought the disputed lots on
1
2
3
4
5
December 7, 1968, however, when he registered his title on February 13, 1969, the preponderance of
evidence supports the finding that he already had knowledge of the previous sale of the disputed lots to
petitioner. Such knowledge tainted his registration with bad faith. To merit protection under article 1544,
the second buyer must act in good faith from the time of the sale until the registration of the same.
they filed their complaint against petitioner on October 24, 2001, the prescriptive
period for the reinvindicatory action had not even commenced to run, even if
petitioner was able to secure TCT No. 321744 over the property in 1984
the trial court (and likewise the respondent Court) cannot, in an action for quieting of title, order
the determination of the boundaries of the claimed property, as that would be tantamount to
awarding to one or some of the parties the disputed property in an action where the sole issue is
limited to whether the instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding involved constitutes
a cloud upon the petitioners interest or title in and to said property. Such determination of
boundaries is appropriate in adversarial proceedings where possession or ownership may
properly be considered and where evidence aliunde, other than the instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding itself, may be introduced. An action for forcible entry, whenever
warranted by the period prescribed in Rule 70, or for recovery of possession de facto, also within
the prescribed period, may be availed of by the petitioners, in which proceeding the boundary
dispute may be fully threshed out.