Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 533 views

    Biblia Toledo-Banaga and Jovita Tan V CA

    Uploaded by

    Joan Pablo
    1) Petitioner Banaga originally owned a property but it was foreclosed and sold to respondent at a public auction. Banaga later tried to redeem the property but the court ruled she missed the redemption period. 2) Despite two notices of lis pendens on the title, petitioner Tan then bought the property from Banaga. Tan later subdivided the property and obtained new titles in her name that also carried the lis pendens notices. 3) The court ultimately ruled respondent was the absolute owner. It found Tan was not a buyer in good faith because she was aware of respondent's claim to the property and the ongoing litigation when she bought it.

    Copyright:

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

    Biblia Toledo-Banaga and Jovita Tan V CA

    Uploaded by

    Joan Pablo
    533 views9 pages
    1) Petitioner Banaga originally owned a property but it was foreclosed and sold to respondent at a public auction. Banaga later tried to redeem the property but the court ruled she missed the redemption period. 2) Despite two notices of lis pendens on the title, petitioner Tan then bought the property from Banaga. Tan later subdivided the property and obtained new titles in her name that also carried the lis pendens notices. 3) The court ultimately ruled respondent was the absolute owner. It found Tan was not a buyer in good faith because she was aware of respondent's claim to the property and the ongoing litigation when she bought it.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest in Property Law

    Original Title

    Biblia Toledo-Banaga and Jovita Tan v CA,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Banaga originally owned a property but it was foreclosed and sold to respondent at a public auction. Banaga later tried to redeem the property but the court ruled she missed the redemption period. 2) Despite two notices of lis pendens on the title, petitioner Tan then bought the property from Banaga. Tan later subdivided the property and obtained new titles in her name that also carried the lis pendens notices. 3) The court ultimately ruled respondent was the absolute owner. It found Tan was not a buyer in good faith because she was aware of respondent's claim to the property and the ongoing litigation when she bought it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    533 views9 pages

    Biblia Toledo-Banaga and Jovita Tan V CA

    Uploaded by

    Joan Pablo
    1) Petitioner Banaga originally owned a property but it was foreclosed and sold to respondent at a public auction. Banaga later tried to redeem the property but the court ruled she missed the redemption period. 2) Despite two notices of lis pendens on the title, petitioner Tan then bought the property from Banaga. Tan later subdivided the property and obtained new titles in her name that also carried the lis pendens notices. 3) The court ultimately ruled respondent was the absolute owner. It found Tan was not a buyer in good faith because she was aware of respondent's claim to the property and the ongoing litigation when she bought it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 9

    BIBLIA TOLEDO-BANAGA AND JOVITA TAN V CA, GR

    NO, 127941, JANUARY 28, 1989 (302 SCRA 331)


    BUYER INGOOD FAITH

    Doctrine
    Party dealing with a registered land need not
    to go beyond the certificate of title to
    determine the true owner thereof so as to
    guard or protect her interest.

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Banaga filed an action for


    redemption of her property which was
    earlierforeclosedand later sold in a
    publicauctionto the respondent. The trial
    court declared petitioner to have lost her
    right for redemption and ordered
    thatcertificateof title be issued to the
    respondent which the petitioner caused an
    annotation of notice of lis pendens to the
    title.

    .An appeal, the CA reversed the decision and


    allowed the petitioner to redeem her
    property within a certain period. Banaga
    tried to redeem the property by depositing
    to the trial court the amount of redemption
    that was financed by her co-petitioner Tan.
    Respondent opposed in that she made the
    redemption beyond the period ordered by
    the court. The lower court however upheld
    the redemption and ordered theRegisterof
    Deeds tocancelthe respondents title and
    issue a new title in favor of the petitioner.

    In a petition for certiorari before the CA by the


    respondent, another notice of lis pendens was
    annotated to the title. CA issued a temporary
    restraining order to enjoin the execution of
    the court order. Meanwhile, Banaga sold the
    property to Tan in the absolute deed
    ofsalethat mentions the title of the property
    still in the name of the respondent which was
    not yet cancelled. Despite the lis pendens on
    the title, Tan subdivided the lot into a
    subdivision plan which she made not in her
    own name but that of the respondent

    Tan then asked theRegisterof Deeds to issue a


    new title in her name. New titles were issued in
    Tans name but carried the annotation of the two
    notices of lis pendens. Upon learning the new
    title of Tan the respondent impleaded her in his
    petition. The CA later sets aside the trial courts
    decision and declared the respondent as the
    absolute owner of the property for failure of the
    petitioner to redeem the property within the
    period ordered by the court. The decision was
    final and executory and ordered theRegisterof
    Deeds to reinstate the title in the name of the
    respondent.

    TheRegisterof Deeds refused alleging that


    Tanscertificatemust be surrendered first. The
    respondent cited theregisterof deeds in contempt but
    the court denied contending that the remedy should be
    consultation with the Land RegistrationCommissioner and
    in its other order denied the motion of respondent for
    writ of possession holding that the remedy would be to a
    separate action to declare Tans title as void. In its
    motion for certiorari and mandamus to the CA, the court
    set aside the two assailed orders of the trial court and
    declared the title of Tan as null and void and ordered
    theRegisterof Deeds to reinstate the title in the name of
    the respondent. Petitioners now argued that Tan is a
    buyer ingood faithand raised the issue on ownership of
    the lot.

    Issue:

    Whether or not petitioner Tan is a buyer ingood faith?

    Ruling:

    The court held that Tan is not a buyer ingood faithbecause when
    the property was sold to her she was aware of theinterestof the
    respondent over the property. She even furnished the amount
    used by Banaga to redeem the property. When she bought the
    property from Banaga she knows that at that time the property
    was not registered to the sellers name. The deed of sale
    mentioned the title which was named to the respondent.
    Moreover the title still carries 2 notices of lis pendens. Tan
    therefore cannot feign ignorance on the status of the property
    when she bought it.

    Because Tan was also impleaded as a party to the


    litigation, she is bound by the decision promulgated
    to the subject of such litigation. It is a settled rule
    that theparty dealing with a registered land need not
    go beyond theCertificateof Title to determine the
    true owner thereof so as to guard or protect her
    interest.She has only to look and rely on the entries
    in theCertificateof Title.By looking at the title Tan
    would know that thecertificateis in the name of
    respondent. Being a buyer in bad faith, Tan does not
    acquire any better right over the property. The
    adjudication of the ownership in favor to the
    respondent includes the delivery of the possession by
    the defeated party to the respondent.

    You might also like