Most recent post

Mindanao university ordered to close law programs

  The Legal Education Board (LEB) has ordered the Mindanao State University to close its law programs in all its campuses starting academic year 2025-2026 after it approved a resolution canceling MSU’s accreditation. The order stemmed from MSU’s refusal to recognize LEB’s supervisory authority and for asserting that it is not bound by the board’s orders, policies and guidelines on legal education. “The MSU is no longer authorized to offer the basic law program in the country,”  the LEB said. The board made permanent the cease and desist order it issued against MSU’s extension law programs on its campuses in Tawi-Tawi, Sulu and Maguindanao. It expressed concern over what it described as MSU’s “dismal” performance in the Bar examinations, noting the school’s passing rate since 2013 has been below the national passing percentage. Reacting to the LEB’s resolution, the MSU said it would continue to operate in accordance with its chapter passed by Congress in 1955. “The LEB cannot act no

Civil Law II Q. No. 6 Bar 2022

 RE: Every Person Dealing with an Agent is Put Upon Inquiry, and Must Discover Upon His Peril the Authority of the Agent | 

📸: | https://bit.ly/m/AttyEblogger


It has been consistently held that a forged deed can become a source of a valid title when the buyers are in good faith.(1) 


An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person’s claim. The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon one who asserts that status. This onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere invocation of the ordinary presumption of good faith. 


As a [general rule], every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore and the law will no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property.(2) However, this principle admits [exceptions].


NOTE ⚠️

You can help our Pages/Website by clicking the Banner ads. below. Thanks for your continued support. |


x x x A person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further [except] when the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry [or] when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor [or] of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation. (Emphasis supplied). 


The presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look [beyond the certificate] and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of the certificate. (Emphasis supplied). 


One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated as innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith; and hence does not merit the protection of the law. 


While this Court protects the right of the innocent purchaser for value and does not require him to look beyond the certificate of title, this protection is not extended to a purchaser who is [not dealing] with the registered owner of the land. (Emphasis supplied).


In case the buyer does not deal with the registered owner of the real property, the law requires that a higher degree of prudence be exercised by the purchaser. 


As succinctly pointed out in San Pedro v. Ong(3): 


The Court has stressed time and again that every person dealing with an [agent] is put upon inquiry, and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent, and this is especially true where the act of the agent is of unusual nature. If a person makes [no inquiry], he is chargeable with knowledge of the agent’s authority, and his ignorance of that authority will [not] be any excuse. (Emphasis supplied). 


NOTE ⚠️

You can help our Pages/Website by clicking the Banner ads. below. Thanks for your continued support. |


[G.R. No. 188395, November 20, 2013]

HEIRS OF THE LATE FELIX M. BUCTON, et al. vs.

SPOUSES GONZALO and TRINIDAD GO,

👨‍⚖️PEREZ, J. 


Footnotes 


(1) Rufloe v. Burgos, G.R. No. 143573, 30 January 2009, 577 SCRA 264, 273. 


(2) Cayana v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 830, 846 (2004). 


(3) G.R. No. 177598, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 767, 785. 


NOTE ⚠️

You can help our Pages/Website by clicking the Banner ads. below. Thanks for your continued support. |

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

2024 BAR SYLLABUS | Office of Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2023 BAR EXAMS ON CRIMINAL LAW

Q. No. 2 | Political Law | Suggested Answer | Bar 2023