Facts:
Petitioner Banaga filed an action for redemption of her property which was earlier foreclosed and later sold in a public auction to the respondent. The trial court declared petitioner to have lost her right for redemption and ordered that certificate of title be issued to the respondent which the petitioner caused an annotation of notice of lis pendens to the title. On 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 the Register of Deeds to cancel the respondent’s 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 of sale that 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 the Register of Deeds to issue a new title in her name. New titles were issued in Tan’s 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 court’s 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 the Register of Deeds to reinstate the title in the name of the respondent. The Register of Deeds refused alleging that Tan’s certificate must be surrendered first. The respondent cited the register of deeds in contempt but the court denied contending that the remedy should be consultation with the Land Registration Commissioner 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 Tan’s 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 the Register of Deeds to reinstate the title in the name of the respondent. Petitioners now argued that Tan is a buyer in good faith and raised the issue on ownership of the lot.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Tan is a buyer in good faith?
Ruling:
The court held that Tan is not a buyer in good faith because when the property was sold to her she was aware of the interest of 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 seller’s 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 the party dealing with a registered land need not go beyond the Certificate of 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 the Certificate of Title. By looking at the title Tan would know that the certificate is 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment