Facts:

The petition is based on the case being filed by Trinidad to set aside the granting of
property to Maguesun Management and Development Corporation(“Maguesun”) and
was granted by the sc.

Meycauayan filed a Petition for Intervention alleging it purchased three parcels of land
from Maguesun which form part of the property awarded to the heirs of Trinidad de
Leon Vda. De Roxas (“Roxas heirs”). Meycauayan contended that since it is a
purchaser in goodfaith and for value, the Court should afford it theopportunity to be
heard, but it was denied by the Supreme Court.

Land Registration Authority(“LRA”) submitted a Report to cancel the name of Maguesu and to issue
another in favour to the heirs of Manuel A. Roxas andTrinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas.

ISSUE:
Meycauayan can invoke the right of a purchase in good faith

RULING:

No
The Court ruled in G.R. No. 118436 that Meycauayan’s predecessor-in-interest, Maguesun,
committed actual fraudin obtaining the decree of registration of the subjectproperties. The Decision
in G.R. No. 118436 binds Meycauayan under the principle of “privity of interest”since it was a
successor-in-interest of Maguesun. Meycauayan, however, insists that it was a purchaser ingood faith
because it had no knowledge of any pending caseinvolving the lots. Meycauayan claims that the trial
courthad already canceled the notice of lis pendens on the titleswhen it purchased the lots from

Furthermore, as found by this Court in G.R. No. 118436, the Roxas family has been in
possession of the property uninterruptedly through their caretaker, Jose Ramirez who
resided on the property. Where the land sold is in the possession of a person other than
the vendor, the purchase rmust go beyond the certificates of title and make inquiries
concerning the rights of the actual possessor.19 Meycauayan therefore cannot invoke
the right of a purchaser in good faith and could not have acquired a better right than its
predecessor-in-interest.