Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Bliss Development Corp - Home Guaranty Corporation v. Montano Diaz Et Al., G.R. No213233, August 5, 2015

    Transféré par

    Jonil Canino
    56 vues1 page
    The respondent bought the right to purchase property from a third party, who had acquired that right from others. However, the petitioner was already aware that another person named Arreza also had a legitimate claim over the property. The issue is whether the respondent can be considered a purchaser in good faith. The court held that to be in good faith, a purchaser must buy the property without notice of other claims and pay a fair price, which the respondent failed to do by not properly investigating the source of the right to purchase. Therefore, the mirror doctrine does not apply in this case since what changed hands was the right to purchase the property, not the property itself.

    Description originale:

    BLISS DEVELOPMENT CORP./HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. MONTANO DIAZ et al., G.R. No213233, August 5, 2015; Purchaser in Good Faith; Mirror Doctrine and Doctrine of Indefeasibility of Title

    Titre original

    Bliss Development Corp.home Guaranty Corporation v. Montano Diaz Et Al., g.r. No213233, August 5, 2015

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The respondent bought the right to purchase property from a third party, who had acquired that right from others. However, the petitioner was already aware that another person named Arreza also had a legitimate claim over the property. The issue is whether the respondent can be considered a purchaser in good faith. The court held that to be in good faith, a purchaser must buy the property without notice of other claims and pay a fair price, which the respondent failed to do by not properly investigating the source of the right to purchase. Therefore, the mirror doctrine does not apply in this case since what changed hands was the right to purchase the property, not the property itself.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    56 vues1 page

    Bliss Development Corp - Home Guaranty Corporation v. Montano Diaz Et Al., G.R. No213233, August 5, 2015

    Transféré par

    Jonil Canino
    The respondent bought the right to purchase property from a third party, who had acquired that right from others. However, the petitioner was already aware that another person named Arreza also had a legitimate claim over the property. The issue is whether the respondent can be considered a purchaser in good faith. The court held that to be in good faith, a purchaser must buy the property without notice of other claims and pay a fair price, which the respondent failed to do by not properly investigating the source of the right to purchase. Therefore, the mirror doctrine does not apply in this case since what changed hands was the right to purchase the property, not the property itself.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 1

    BLISS DEVELOPMENT CORP./HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v.

    MONTANO DIAZ et al., G.R. No213233, August 5, 2015


    FACTS: The respondent in the herein case, was offered and consequently
    bought the right to buy the property of the petitioner from certain Tapay, who
    allegedly bought the same right from other persons who, purportedly, also
    rightfully acquired such right. The petitioner, before the respondent stepped
    up as the buyer of the right, has already the knowledge that certain Arreza
    has also claims over the subject property arising from legitimate source.

    ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Diaz is in good faith, hence, the mirror
    doctrine applies in this instant case.

    HELD: For one to be considered a purchaser in good faith, the following


    requisites must concur: (1) that the purchaser buys the property of another
    without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such
    property; and (2) that the purchaser pays a full and fair price for the property
    at the time of such purchase or before he or she has notice of the claim of
    another. For his failure to inquire diligently and trace the source of the right
    to purchase the property, Diaz cannot claim to be a purchaser in good faith
    and for value.

    The doctrine of not going beyond the face of the title does not apply in the
    case here, because what was subjected to a series of sales was not the lot
    itself but the right to purchase the lot from BDC. Therefore, the mirror
    doctrine finds no application in the case at bar.

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi