Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 108 views

    Manotok Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Monica B. Asebuque
    The document summarizes a court case between Manotok Realty, Inc. and Felipe Carillo regarding possession of a disputed lot of land. Manotok Realty acquired the land through a probate court auction, but Carillo was occupying part of the land. The trial court ruled in favor of Manotok Realty, but the appellate court declared Carillo a builder in good faith. The Supreme Court then ruled that Carillo could not claim to be a possessor in good faith, as the land was already registered under Manotok Realty's name, serving as constructive notice of their ownership, so the appellate court's decision was set aside and the trial court's ruling was affirmed.

    Copyright:

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

    Manotok Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Monica B. Asebuque
    108 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case between Manotok Realty, Inc. and Felipe Carillo regarding possession of a disputed lot of land. Manotok Realty acquired the land through a probate court auction, but Carillo was occupying part of the land. The trial court ruled in favor of Manotok Realty, but the appellate court declared Carillo a builder in good faith. The Supreme Court then ruled that Carillo could not claim to be a possessor in good faith, as the land was already registered under Manotok Realty's name, serving as constructive notice of their ownership, so the appellate court's decision was set aside and the trial court's ruling was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest 134 SCRA 325

    Original Title

    Manotok vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case between Manotok Realty, Inc. and Felipe Carillo regarding possession of a disputed lot of land. Manotok Realty acquired the land through a probate court auction, but Carillo was occupying part of the land. The trial court ruled in favor of Manotok Realty, but the appellate court declared Carillo a builder in good faith. The Supreme Court then ruled that Carillo could not claim to be a possessor in good faith, as the land was already registered under Manotok Realty's name, serving as constructive notice of their ownership, so the appellate court's decision was set aside and the trial court's ruling was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    108 views2 pages

    Manotok Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Monica B. Asebuque
    The document summarizes a court case between Manotok Realty, Inc. and Felipe Carillo regarding possession of a disputed lot of land. Manotok Realty acquired the land through a probate court auction, but Carillo was occupying part of the land. The trial court ruled in favor of Manotok Realty, but the appellate court declared Carillo a builder in good faith. The Supreme Court then ruled that Carillo could not claim to be a possessor in good faith, as the land was already registered under Manotok Realty's name, serving as constructive notice of their ownership, so the appellate court's decision was set aside and the trial court's ruling was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-39044 January 31, 1985

    MANOTOK REALTY, INC., petitioner


    versus
    THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FELIPE CARILLO, respondents

    Facts:

    Manotok Ralty Inc., is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by Tax
    Declaration Nos. 2455 and 2456 issued by the City Assessor's Officece of Manila and by TCT
    55125 and TCT No. 76130 of the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila. It acquired the
    aforementioned property from the Testate Estate of Clara Tambunting de Legarda, being the
    highest bidder in a sale conducted by the Probate Court.

    After having acquired said property, the petitioner subdivided it, but could not take
    possession thereof because the whole area is occupied by several houses among which is the one
    belonging to the herein respondent Felipe Carillo. In spite of demands to vacate and surrender
    possession of the property, respondent continued to occupy the disputed lot and refused to
    surrender possession.

    Petitioner alleges that he acquired the lot in dispute from a certain Delfin Dayrit on
    September 25, 1962, pursuant to a deed of assignment. Dayrit in turn, had acquired the property
    from the late Carla Tambunting by virtue of a Contract of Sale on Installment Basis for which
    receipts were duly issued. Dayrit could not continue paying the succeeding installments as they
    fell due and that it was only lately, more specifically on September 25, 1962, when Dayrit
    conveyed the lot to appellant Carillo.

    After the petitioner failed in its attempts to take possession of the lot, it led the
    reivindicatory action against the respondent. The trial court decided the case in favor of the
    petitioner. Whereas, the intermediate appellate court declared respondent Felipe Carillo a builder
    in good faith with the right to remain in the questioned premises.Petitoner asks for a petition for
    review to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Felipe Carino is a possessor in good faith.

    Ruling:

    A possessor in good faith is one who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode
    of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. One who acquires real estate with
    knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has
    acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an
    interest therein; and the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of
    facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, and then claims that he
    acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the
    vendor. The records show that when Dayrit executed the deed of assignment in favor
    of the respondent, the disputed lot was already registered and titled in the name of
    the petitioner. Such an act of registration served as a constructive notice to the
    whole world and the title issued in favor of petitioner made his ownership
    conclusive upon and against all persons including Dayrit and herein respondent,
    although no personal notice was served on either of the latter. Therefore, the
    presumption of good faith in favor of the respondent cannot apply because as far as
    the law is concerned, he had notice of the ownership by the petitioner over said lot.

    WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby SET


    ASIDE and another one is entered AFFIRMING in toto the decision of the Court of
    First Instance of Manila

    You might also like