ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2002 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 151801 November 11, 2002 - HAWAIIAN PHILIPPINE COMPANY v. HERNANDO BORRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154512 November 12, 2002 - VICTORINO DENNIS M. SOCRATES v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 126462 November 12, 2002 - NATALIA REALTY INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133978 November 12, 2002 - JOSE S. CANCIO, JR. v. EMERENCIANA ISIP

  • G.R. Nos. 139240-43 November 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ASPURIA

  • G.R. Nos. 143689-91 November 12, 2002 - SIXTO M. BAYAS and ERNESTO T. MATUDAY v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146423 November 12, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORO D. DIVINA

  • G.R. No. 147395 November 12, 2002 - ADZHAR I. JAMAANI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 147806 November 12, 2002 - NERISSA BUENVIAJE ET. AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1569 November 13, 2002 - CARMELITA S. DANAO v. JESUS T. FRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 133763 November 13, 2002 - UNITED HARBOR PILOTS’ ASSO. OF THE PHIL. v. ASSO. OF INTL. SHIPPING LINES

  • G.R. No. 140088 November 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PHOEBE ASTUDILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141943-45 November 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO P. RECEPCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146100 November 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LOTERONO

  • G.R. No. 146468 November 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE ABELLANO

  • G.R. Nos. 146521-22 November 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARDITO ALEMANIA

  • G.R. No. 153475 November 13, 2002 - MIGUEL M. LINGATING v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143005 November 14, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. 143868 November 14, 2002 - OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ v. SPS. CARLOS and NARCISA TARUN

  • A.M. No. 2002-15-SC November 15, 2002 - Re: Habitual Tardiness First Semester 2002

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1663 November 15, 2002 - MAIMONA MANONGGIRING v. JUDGE AMER R. IBRAHIM

  • G.R. Nos. 132484-85 November 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JULLIVER DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 141314 November 15, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

  • G.R. Nos. 146464-67 November 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 148699 November 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AM WILSON L. MANIJAS

  • G.R. No. 152332 November 15, 2002 - DR. ROBERTO DE LEON v. EDUARDO CALALO

  • G.R. No. 152886 November 15, 2002 - ROSENDO E. CAPIRAL v. SPS. MAXIMA and DANIEL VALENZUELA

  • A.M. No. P-93-960 November 18, 2002 - TERESITA ROMERO v. ENRIQUETA CASTELLANO

  • G.R. No. 113459 November 18, 2002 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSEFINA LEAL

  • G.R. No. 129235 November 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO MORANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130423 November 18, 2002 - VIRGIE SERONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131421 November 18, 2002 - GERONIMO DADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137191 November 18, 2002 - BEN B. RICO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137454 November 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY D. CANTUBA

  • G.R. Nos. 140004-05 November 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO C. NEBRIA

  • G.R. No. 140216 November 18, 2002 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO C. BACUS

  • G.R. No. 140635 November 18, 2002 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO O. TERRIBLE

  • G.R. No. 142244 November 18, 2002 - ATLAS FARMS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146641-43 November 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICA G. CUYUGAN

  • G.R. Nos. 149414-15 November 18, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL AMANTE

  • G.R. No. 151891 November 18, 2002 - MAUYAG B. PAPANDAYAN, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152163 November 18, 2002 - SABDULLAH T. MACABAGO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127060 November 19, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132389 November 19, 2002 - PEDRO CUPCUPIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 139492 November 19, 2002 - LAGUNA CATV NETWORK v. HON. ALEX E. MARAAN

  • G.R. No. 142133 November 19, 2002 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143844-46 November 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 136762 November 21, 2002 - ASSOCIATED COMMUNICATIONS and WIRELESS SERVICES v. FIDELO Q. DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138494 November 21, 2002 - LEOSANDRO MELAYO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 139368 November 21, 2002 - ROBIN M. CANO v. PNP CHIEF EDGAR C. GALVANTE, ET AL..

  • G.R. No. 139830 November 21, 2002 - ROLLY ADAME v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139982 November 21, 2002 - JULIAN FRANCISCO ET. AL.. v. PASTOR HERRERA

  • G.R. No. 140731 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO A. ILO

  • G.R. No. 141344 November 21, 2002 - TEMISTOCLES TAPDASAN, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141592 November 21, 2002 - MARCELO CENTENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141914 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO G. MONDIJAR

  • G.R. No. 144314 November 21, 2002 - SKIPPERS PACIFIC, INC., ET AL. v. MANUEL V. MIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146103 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GEORGE WAD-AS

  • G.R. No. 146276 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO C. DUROHOM

  • G.R. No. 146425 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD NARCISO

  • G.R. No. 147182 November 21, 2002 - EVELYN M. RELUCIO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 147671 November 21, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE MENDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 148917-18 November 21, 2002 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABSOLON YONTO y UTOM

  • G.R. No. 149800 November 21, 2002 - RICARDO V. QUINTOS v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137533 November 22, 2002 - TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • G.R. No. 144116 November 22, 2002 - CESAR MONTANEZ v. NESTOR MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 146470 November 22, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MILA RAZUL y BASHIED

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1223 November 26, 2002 - SPS. TEOFILA and GREGORIO MAGALLON v. JUDGE ANTONIO F. PARAGUYA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1711 November 26, 2002 - Atty. BENJAMIN RELOVA v. Judge ANTONIO M. ROSALES

  • G.R. No. 120014 November 26, 2002 - FRANCISCO Q. AURILLO v. NOEL RABI

  • G.R. No. 132081 November 26, 2002 - JOEL M. SANVICENTE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 138478 November 26, 2002 - PACIFIC AIRWAYS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. JOAQUIN TONDA

  • G.R. No. 143196 November 26, 2002 - STI DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143376 November 26, 2002 - LENI O. CHOA v. ALFONSO C. CHOA

  • G.R. Nos. 145339-42 November 26, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARTHUR MENDOZA and DAVE MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 148514 November 26, 2002 - LUCRATIVE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RICARDO C. BERNABE JR.

  • G.R. No. 149375 November 26, 2002 - MARVIN MERCADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 150164 November 26, 2002 - GLORIOSA V. VALARAO v. CONRADO C. PASCUAL and MANUEL C. DIAZ

  • A.M. No. 02-2-12-SC November 27, 2002 - DR. CORA J. VIRATA v. JUDGE FRANCISCO G. SUPNET

  • A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC November 27, 2002 - RE: IMPOSITION OF CORRESPONDING PENALTIES

  • A.M. No. 02-9-24-0 November 27, 2002 - RE: LOSS OF EXTRAORDINARY ALLOWANCE CHECK NO. 1106739 OF JUDGE EDUARDO U. JOVELLANOS

  • G.R. No. 133386 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO LLANDA

  • G.R. No. 133827 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COSME L. PASTORETE

  • G.R. Nos. 137766-67 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ILADIO CARALIPIO

  • G.R. No. 138197 November 27, 2002 - MA. ELIZA C. GARCIA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139130 November 27, 2002 - RAMON K. ILUSORIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 139187-94 (140427-34) November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO SOLMORO

  • G.R. No. 139472 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL R. GUIMBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139946 November 27, 2002 - RAMON J. FAROLAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140374 November 27, 2002 - JANE C. ABALOS, ET AL. v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 141365 November 27, 2002 - SPS. FELIPE and FLORA YULIENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143369 November 27, 2002 - LEOPOLDO C. LEONARDO v. VIRGINIA TORRES MARAVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144266 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILSON ANTONIO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 145727 November 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONILO FERRERA

  • G.R. No. 146553 November 27, 2002 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. Sps. WILLIE AND JULIE L. EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153700 November 27, 2002 - ESTRELLA C. PABALAN v. ANASTACIA B. SANTARIN

  • A.M. No. P-02-1649 November 29, 2002 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ELIZABETH T. IBAY

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-01-1639 & 00-9-427-RTC November 29, 2002 - JUDITH B. ERMITANIO v. MA. THERESA DELA TORRE-YADAO

  • G.R. Nos. 141489–90 November 29, 2002 - SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, ET AL. v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 141592   November 21, 2002 - MARCELO CENTENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 141592. November 21, 2002.]

    MARCELO CENTENO, (Substituted as Plaintiff by his Heir Corazon Centeno Reyes), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES REYNALDO and ELIZABETH VIRAY, SPS. MANUEL and ERLINDA D. TANG and REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MALOLOS, BULACAN, Defendants, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ARTURO TANTOCO (INTERVENOR), Respondents.

    R E S O L U T I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    This petition for review assails the decision 1 dated February 12, 1999 and the resolution 2 dated December 29, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47799. They affirmed the judgment dated September 22, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21 of Malolos, Bulacan, in Civil Case No. 8250-M, which (a) dismissed the complaint against spouses Manuel and Erlinda Dy Tang, (b) declared the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale to them, as well as the Deed of Sale and Transfer by them in favor of intervenor-respondent Arturo Tantoco, valid and effective, and (c) ordered the Viray spouses to pay petitioner Marcelo 3 Centeno, substituted by his heir Corazon Centeno Reyes, P66,000 as the value of the land subject of this case.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The facts, as found by both the trial and the appellate courts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Spouses Marcelo and Pacita Centeno were the registered owners of a parcel of agricultural land consisting of 31,697 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 57474, in Barrio Kinamatayang Kabayo, San Miguel, Bulacan. Their niece, Elizabeth Centeno Viray, somehow stole said TCT and forged the Centenos’ signature in a Special Power of Attorney, enabling Elizabeth to mortgage the property to Manuel Dy Tang as security for her loan of P55,000 from him. In support of the mortgage, Elizabeth executed a Real Estate Mortgage, a promissory note, as well as an affidavit of non-tenancy over the subject property.

    As Elizabeth failed to redeem the property, Dy Tang in a written request, asked the concerned Sheriff to extrajudicially foreclose the mortgage. Marcelo Centeno was furnished a copy of the request. Hearing no opposition from Marcelo, the Sheriff proceeded with the public auction where Dy Tang was the highest bidder. Consequently, a Certificate of Sale was executed in Dy Tang’s favor. Dy Tang in turn executed a Deed of Assignment and Transfer in favor of intervenor-respondent Tantoco.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    During the pendency of the one year redemption period, Marcelo Centeno filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of documents and for recovery of ownership of the subject land with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. It was docketed as Civil Case No. 8250-M. Meantime, neither Marcelo nor Elizabeth timely redeemed the property from Tantoco. Hence, Tantoco consolidated the title over the property in his name.

    On September 22, 1993, the RTC of Malolos issued its decision, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the Intervenor Arturo Tantoco and the defendant spouses Manuel and Erlinda Dy Tang and against the plaintiff (substituted by the heirs) as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) Dismissing the complaint insofar as the defendants spouses Manuel and Erlinda Dy Tang are concerned;

    (b) Declaring the Certificate of Sale dated November 20, 1985 as valid and effective;

    (c) Declaring the Deed of Sale and Transfer dated February 5, 1985 as valid and effective;

    (d) Ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-57474 issued by the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Bulacan and the issuance in its stead of another Transfer Certificate of Title (over the same parcel of land) in the name of Arturo Tantoco;

    (e) Ordering the plaintiff (substituted by his heir Corazon Centeno) and/or those acting in his behalf or stead, particularly Urbano Reyes and Edgardo "Totoy" Azonsa who are tilling and/or supervising its tilling to surrender the harvest or to pay jointly and severally to Intervenor Arturo Tantoco, the money value thereof,

    (f) Ordering the plaintiff (substituted by his heir Corazon Centeno) to pay P5,000.00 attorney’s fee to the Intervenor Arturo Tantoco;

    (g) Dismissing the counterclaim and crossclaim of the defendants Manuel and Erlinda Dy Tang for insufficiency of evidence;

    (h) Ordering the defendants spouses Reynaldo and Elizabeth Viray to pay the plaintiff the money value of the land in the amount of P66,000.00 which is the consideration stated in the Deed of Assignment and Transfer (Exhibit "L").

    With costs against the defendants spouses Reynaldo and Elizabeth C. Viray.

    SO ORDERED. 4

    Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which, on February 12, 1999, affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision, dated September 22, 1993, of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 21) in Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 8250-m is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED. 5

    According to the Court of Appeals, a purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. Using this definition, the Court of Appeals declared that Dy Tang and Tantoco became the owner of the property in good faith, since they bought the subject property free from any lien or encumbrance or any notice of adverse claim. When Dy Tang agreed to the mortgage by Elizabeth, the former did not know of the defect in the Special Power of Attorney which the latter presented. Also, during the foreclosure of the mortgage, no opposition was heard from the registered owner of the land, despite prior notice. Thus, when Dy Tang purchased the property as the highest bidder in the public auction, he obtained title over it in good faith. Dy Tang, in turn, transferred said title to Tantoco who purchased the property and who, upon the lapse of one year period without the concerned persons redeeming it, consolidated the title in his name.

    The Court of Appeals further said that it was Marcelo Centeno’s negligence which caused the transfer to Tantoco, hence Marcelo should bear the consequences, and not Tantoco. Finally, the appellate court held that Tantoco was not divested of his right over the property when he assigned his right over the same to Jose Baltazar. This was so because the assignment was a mere equitable mortgage in which Tantoco reserved a right to repurchase the property.

    Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition averring that the Court of Appeals erred in:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I. . . . NOT DECLARING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR ARTURO TANTOCO CANNOT SEEK PROTECTION AS A "BUYER IN GOOD FAITH" WHEN HE PURCHASED THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY NOT FROM THE REGISTERED OWNER (PLAINTIFF MARCELO CENTENO) WHO, TO DATE, HAS REMAINED THE REGISTERED OWNER THEREOF.

    II. . . . NOT DECLARING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR ARTURO TANTOCO CANNOT INVOKE BEING A "BUYER IN GOOD FAITH" WHEN HE PURCHASED THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 5, 1985 OR EVEN PRIOR TO THE START OF THE 1-YEAR REDEMPTION PERIOD FROM THE REGISTRATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE ON FEBRUARY 13, 1985.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    III. . . . NOT FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR ARTURO TANTOCO IS DIVESTED OF HIS RIGHT, IF ANY, OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEN HE AGAIN ASSIGNED IN HASTE THE SAME TO JOSE BALTAZAR WHILE THE TITLE THEREOF WAS UNDER PLAINTIFF MARCELO CENTENO AND REMAINS SO UP TO THE PRESENT.

    IV. . . . NOT RESOLVING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR ARTURO TANTOCO COULD NOT HAVE A BETTER RIGHT THAN HIS PREDECESSOR, DEFENDANT MANUEL DY TANG, WHO ALSO FALSELY CLAIMS TO BE A "BUYER IN GOOD FAITH" BUT, LIKE DEFENDANT ELIZABETH VIRAY, DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN COURT AGAINST THE ASSERTION AND DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF MARCELO CENTENO THAT THEY, DEFENDANTS ELIZABETH VIRAY AND MANUEL DY TANG, CONNIVED WITH ONE ANOTHER IN THE FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    V. . . . NOT DECLARING THE NULLITY OF THE QUESTIONED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, DEED OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE, PROMISSORY NOTE ALL DATED JANUARY 24, 1984, THE ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER BY DEFENDANT MANUEL DY TANG IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR ARTURO TANTOCO AND THE LATTER’S ASSIGNMENT IN FAVOR OF JOSE BALTAZAR. 6

    In sum the issues for our consideration are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1) Is intervenor-respondent Tantoco a buyer in good faith and for value?

    2) Has Tantoco divested his rights over the subject property?

    3) Did the Court of Appeals err in not declaring the nullity of the documents which ultimately transferred the subject land to Jose Baltazar?

    At the outset, we note that the first two issues are factual. It is a basic rule that factual issues are beyond the province of this Court in a petition for review, for it is not the Court’s function to weigh the evidence all over again. 7 There are exceptions to this general rule, but petitioner did not show that this case is one of them. 8 Factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon us and, generally, will not be reviewed on appeal. 9

    As to the third issue, Tantoco’s status as purchaser in good faith is settled. It is immaterial to determine whether the Special Power of Attorney, as well as the other documents instrumental to the transfer of the property from petitioner to Dy Tang and Tantoco, was invalid, because it will not cause the reversion of the property to petitioner. Nor can we disregard Tantoco’s right over the property as its purchaser in good faith and for value. 10 Thus, we are constrained to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals which, as earlier stated, had sustained the judgment of the trial court.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 12, 1999 in CA-G.R. CV No. 47799, and its resolution dated December 29, 1999, are AFFIRMED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Mendoza and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

    Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 32–51.

    2. Id. at 53.

    3. Also spelled as "Mercelo" elsewhere in the records.

    4. Rollo, pp. 121–122.

    5. Id. at 51.

    6. Id. at 23–24.

    7. Ma. Consolacion Lazaro v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Teresita and Josefino Borja, G.R. No. 122275, December 14, 2001, p. 3.

    8. Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., G.R. No. 105902, 325 SCRA 137, 145 (2000).

    9. W-Red Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 338 SCRA 341, 345 (2000).

    10. Republic, etc. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., G.R. No. 116111, 301 SCRA 366, 379 (1999).

    G.R. No. 141592   November 21, 2002 - MARCELO CENTENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED