ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 135930. February 1, 1999]

GEORGE REYES vs. HEIRS OF EMILIANO ILAS, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 1, 1999.

G.R. No. 135930 (George Reyes vs. Heirs of Emiliano Ilas, et al.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the regional trial court, thus declaring petitioner to be a buyer in bad faith, for which reason, he acquired no better right than what the vendor had who procured his title over the property through a false deed of sale.

The present controversy stemmed form an action for reconveyance of real property filed by the heirs of a certain Epifanio Ilas against private respondents heirs of Emiliano Ilas wherein petitioner was an intervenor, being the buyer of the disputed parcel of land from Emiliano Ilas, father of private respondent.

In said case, the heirs of Epifanio Ilas claimed that their brother Emiliano Ilas, through a fictitious deed of sale, was able to obtain in his name, title to the disputed property without their knowledge and consent.

In his answer in intervention, petitioner alleged that he was a buyer in good faith and for value, claiming that at the time he purchased the subject lot, the title was clean and free from all liens and claims.

The regional trial court held hat the contract to sell between the vendor Emiliano Ilas and petitioner, is null and void, and inexistent from the very beginning and ordered private respondent to pay herein petitioner all the payments representing the purchase price of the subject lot received by their late father Emiliano Ilas, with legal interest.

Displeased, petitioner appealed. But said appeal and the subsequent motion for reconsideration failed.

Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.

Initially the Court notes that the petition was filed late on December 3, 1998, due date being November 3, 1998 in view of the denial of petitioners' motion for extension of time within which to file the petition. Then, there is no service of the copy of the petition on the Court of Appeals. Lastly, the certification on non-forum shopping was executed by counsel and not by the petitioner himself.

Over and above these technical flaws is the fact that this Court finds no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals. It is to be noted that the Court of Appeals made the factual finding that petitioner had prior notice of the third-party claim to the subject lot.

This prior notice should have alerted petitioner to make an investigation into the validity of the title of the subject property. His failure to do so prevents him from claiming the defense of being a purchaser in good faith.

The Court finds no merit in petitioner's assertion of the principle of laches, for as correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the delay in filing the action was on account of the undertaking of Emiliano Ilas to repair the damage caused by is fraudulent act and such undertaking prevented the doctrine of laches from setting in as held by the Court in the case of Cristobal vs. Melchor 78 SCRA 175 [1997].

Lastly, in order for petitioner to invoke the doctrine of estoppel, two essential requisites must concur namely, petitioner must show that he had no knowledge or mans of knowing the true and material facts, and he must show that he relied in good faith upon the conduct and claim of the plaintiffs (Kalalo vs. Luz, 34 SCRA 337 [1970]), which is not so in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed.

The motion of petitioner for reconsideration of the resolution of November 25, 1998 which denied the motion for an extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit."

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE