You are on page 1of 11

G.R. No.

204160

September 22, 2014

Spouses Michelle M. Noynay and Noel S. Noynay vs. Citihomes
Builder and Development, Inc.
Civil Law; Sales; Assignment of interests and rights. By virtue of the deed of
assignment, the assignee is deemed subrogated to the rights as well as to
the obligations of the assignor and is bound by exactly the same conditions
as those which bound the assignor. The assignor becomes a complete
stranger to all the matters that have been conferred to the assignee.
FACTS: On December 29, 2004, Citihomes and Spouses Noynoy executed a
contract to sell covering the sale of a house and lot in San Jose, Del Monte,
Bulacan, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-43469.
Under the terms of the contract, the price of the property was fixed at
915,895.00 with a downpayment of 183,179.00, and the remaining balance
to be paid in 120 equal instalments with an interest rate of 21%
commencing on February 8, 2005 and every 8 th day of the month thereafter.
Subsequently, Citihomes executed the Deed of Assignment of Claims and
Accounts (Assignment) in favor of United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB).
Under the said agreement, UCPB purchased from Citihomes various
accounts, including the account of spouses Noynay, for a consideration of
100,000,000.00. In turn, Citihomes assigned its rights, titles, interests, and
participation in various contracts to sell with its buyers to UCPB.
In February of 2007, Spouses Noynay allegedly started to default in their
payments.
Months later, Citihomes decided to declare sps. Noynay
delinquent and to cancel the contract considering that nine months of
agreed amortizations were left unpaid. On December 8, 2007, the notarized
Notice of Delinquency and Cancellation of the Contract to Sell dated
November 21, 2007, was received by Sps. Noynay. They were given 30 days
within which to pay the arrears and failure to do so would authorize
Citihomes to consider the contract as cancelled.
On June 15, 2009, Citihomes sent its final demand letter asking Sps Noynay
to vacate the premises due to their continued failure to pay the arrears.
Sps. Noynay did not heed the demand, forcing Citihomes to file the
complaint for unlawful detainer before the MTCC. The MTCC dismissed the
complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. It considered the
annotation in the certificate of title, which was dated prior to the filing of
the complaint, which showed that Citihomes has executed the Assignment
in favor of UCPB, as having the legal effect of divesting Citihomes of its
interest and right over the subject property. On appeal, the RTC reversed
the decision of the MTCC. The RTC explained that the assignment was

235094 was . the two entered a compromise agreement.000. SPS. Capitol. Holy Spirit. LOCSIN vs. BERNARDO HIZON. Citihomes had no cause of action against Sps. the assignee is deemed subrogated to the rights as well as to the obligations of the assignor and is bound by exactly the same conditions as those which bound the assignor. and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person’s claim. 38-6633 against one Billy Aceron (Aceron) MTC of Quezon City to recover possession over the land in issue. the assignment was more than as assignment of credit. Noynay and did not include the transfer of title or ownership over the property. HELD: NEGATIVE. Under the mirror doctrine which echoes the doctrinal rule that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore is in no way obliged to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another withour notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it. G. Sales. ISSUE: Whether or not Citihomes has a cause of action for ejectment against Spouses Noynay.limited only to the instalment accounts receivables due from Sps. Eventually. FACTS: Enriqueta M.R. Quezon City. Evident from the tenor of the agreement was the intent on the part of Citihomes. Undoubtedly. JOSE MANUEL & LOURDES GUEVARRA Civil law.000. Locsin later went to the United States without knowing whether Aceron has complied with his part of the bargain under the compromise agreement. She filed as ejectment case. lot covered by TCT No. CARLOS HIZON. No. which the MTC approved. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC ruling that Citihomes still has a right and interest over the property in its capacity as the registered owner. 204369 September 17. In 1994. Innocent purchaser for value. Indeed.00. to assign all of its rights and benefits in favor of UCPB for a consideration of 100. The ruling of the MTCC has legal and factual bases. after discovering that her copy of TCT No. 2014 ENRIQUETA M. Civil Case No. The assignor becomes a complete stranger to all the matters that have been conferred to the assignee. By virtue of the deed of assignment. Locsin (Locsin) was the registered owner of a 760sq. located at Brgy. Mirror doctrine. as assignor. 235094. Noynay. In 1992.m.

Locsin filed an action for reconveyance. Locsin.5 million. who. N-200074. 2002. Under the mirror doctrine which echoes the doctrinal rule that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore is in no way obliged to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property.5 million to his sister and her husband. allegedly executed by Locsin with the Registry of Deeds. issued in their names. 38-6633. and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person’s claim. Guevara. an innocent purchaser for value and good faith. requested Carlos for the return of the property since her signature in the purported Deed of Sale in favour of Bolos was a forgery. Bernardo claiming to be the owner of the property filed a motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution for the enforcement of the court-approved compromise agreement in Civil Case No. thus. but it was titled under the name of his son Carlos Hozon (Carlos) on August 12. and damages.missing. Guevara were purchasers in good faith. through counsel. the Sps. herein respondents Lourdes and Jose Manuel Guevarra. C ruled that Locsin can no longer recover the land. the cancellation of the mortgage lien annotated thereon. RT-97467 cancelled in 1999 and then secured a new one. annulment of TCT No. claiming that he was unaware of any defect or flaw in Bolo’s title and he is. RT-97467. Accordingly.5 million loan/credit facility with Damar Credit Corporation (DCC). An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another withour notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it. against Bolos. the presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond the certificate an investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of the said . TCT No. Carlos denied Locsin’s request. The Sps. Bernardo. TCT No. as an exception to the rule. TCT No. N237083. 1979. and the Register of Deeds. in her favour by registering a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 3. Locsin later learned that Carlos had already sold the property for PhP 1. she discovered that one Marylou Bolos (Bolos) had TCT no. 1999. Carlos and the Sps. N-237083. The CA affirmed the RTC’s finding that the respondents are innocent purchasers for value. Sometime in early 2002. ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are innocent purchasers for value. had a new certificate of title. However. Guevara then immediatelt mortgaged the said property to secure a PhP 2. The RTC dismissed the complaint holding that Beranrdo. Locsin filed a petition for administrative reconstruction in order to secure a new one. HELD: NEGATIVE. Bolos later sold the subject lot to Bernardo Hizon (Bernardo) for Php 1. Carlos. DCC. as early as May 24.

Marcelino suffered a heart attack and died without knowing of the birth of his son. the Amparo rule cannot be properly applied. regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual.R. MARIA CHRISTINA YUSAY CARAM vs. they avowed to help her recover and raise the baby. No. ESCUTIN. hence. On November 26.certificate. for all intents and purposes. To avoid placing her family in a potentially embarrassing situation for having a second illegitimate son she intended to have the child adopted through Sun and Moon Home for Children in Paranaque City which shouldered her expenses when she gave birth on July 26. MARIJOY D. SALLY D. . represented by his mother. G. and CELIA C. Bolo’s certificate was concededly free from liens and encumbrances on its face. Christina disclosed to the family of Marcelino the circumstances surrounding baby Julian. has been legally considered as a ward of the State. YANGCO Civil Law. Since it is extant from the pleadings filed that what is involved is the issue of child custody and the exercise of parental rights over a child. Christina mislead Marcelino into believing that she had an abortion when in fact she proceeded to complete her pregnancy. Atty. SEGUI. the failure of Carlos and the Spouses Guevara to exercise the necessary level of caution in light of the factual milieu surrounding the sequence of transfers from Bolos to respondents bars the application of the mirror doctrine and inspires the Court’s concurrence with petitioner’s proposition. The privilege of a writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of extra-judicial killings or enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature. However. Parental Authority. After the emotional revelation. FACTS: Petitioner Ma. VILMA B. 2014 Infant JULIA YUSAY CARAM. Christina voluntarily surrendered baby Julian by way of a Deed of Voluntary Commitment to the DSWD. 193652 August 5. 2009 to baby Julian. who. Writ of Amparo. Atty. Christina Yusay Caram (Christina) had an amorous relationship with Marcelino Gicano Constantino III (Marcelino) and eventually became pregnant with the latter’s child without the benefit of marriage. Family Code. One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith and. 2009. CABRERA. does not merit the protection of the law.

However. or three months after Christina signed the Deed of Voluntary Commitment which terminated her parental authority and effectively made Baby Julian a ward of the State.On November 27.R. ISSUE: Whether a petition for a Writ of Amparo is the proper recourse for obtaining parental authority and custody of a minor child. for all intents and purposes. In this case. 2009. LEONARDO V. Since it is extant from the pleadings filed that what is involved is the issue of child custody and the exercise of parental rights over a child. Respondents complied with the writ and filed their Return praying that the petition be denied for being the improper remedy to avail of in a case relating to a biological parent’s custodial rights over her child. This prompted Christina to file a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo before the RTC of Quezon City seeking to obtain custody of Baby Julian from the officials of the DSWD. the certificate declaring Baby Julian legally available for adoption had attained finality on November 13. NONATO Civil Law . 2010. BARRIDO vs. 176492 October 20. has been legally considered as a ward of the State. On May 5. 2014 MARIETTA N. The DSWD Assistant Secretary said that the Department was no longer in the position to stop the adoption process. The privilege of a writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of extrajudicial killings or enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature. No. regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual. free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life. the Amparo rule cannot be properly applied. After the hearing. Christina is not searching for a lost child but asserting her parental authority over the child and contesting custody over him. Baby Julian was certified as “Legally Available for Adoption” by the DSWD and was matched with the spouses Vergel and Filomina Medina. Christina had a change of mind and asked the DSWD for the suspension of baby Julian’s adoption proceedings. liberty and security of persons. It is envisioned basically to protect and guaranty the right to life. the RTC dismissed the petition for issuance of writ of amparo without prejudice to the filing of a separate action in court holding that Christina availed of the wrong remedy to regain custody of her child. 2009. G. who. HELD: NEGATIVE. The RTC issued a Writ of Amparo commanding the respondentsofficials of DSWD to produce the body of Baby Julian.

Under this property regime. Thus on January 29. adjudicated to the defendant Marietta Nonato. 2003. their marriage was found to be void under Article 36 of the Family Code. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts.FACTS: In the course of the marriage of respondent Leonardo V. Nonato and petitioner Marietta N. exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage. it correctly ordered the equitable partition of the property. consisting of a house and lot covered by TCT No. The former spouses both agreed that they acquired the subject property during the subsistence of their marriage. Barrido claimed. Nonato asked Barrido for partition. HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. it shall be presumed to have been obtained by their join efforts. They lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife. During the marriage of Leonardo and Marietta their property relations was governed by conjugal partnership regime. but the latter refused. suffering no legal impediment to marry each other. Bacolod City. Article 147 specifically covers the effects of void marriages on the spouses’ property relations. The Bacolod MTCC rendered a decision applying Article 129 of the Family Code. by way of affirmative defense. a house and lot covered by TCT No. that the subject property has already been sold to their children Joseph Raymond and Joseph Leo. their marriage was declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose to remain. Any impediment to marry has not been shown to have existed on the part of either Nonato or Barrido. Thus. T-140361. On March 15. Although Article 129 of the Family Code provides for the procedure in case of dissolution of conjugal property regime. ISSUE: Whether or not the property shall be partitioned equitably between the former spouses. they were able to acquire a property situated in Eroreco. However. The RTC reversed the order of the MTCC and ruled to equitably partition the subject house and lot. nonato filed a complaint for partition before the MTCC of Bacolod City. T-140361 which was their conjugal dwelling. The trial court ordered the conjugal property of the former spouses Leonardo and Marietta Nonato. On appeal to the CA. the appellate court held that although the RTC erred in relying on Article 129 of the Family Code. and shall be jointly owned by . Since there was no more reason to maintain their co-ownership over the property. The particular kind of co-ownership provide under Article 147 applies when a man and a woman. 1996. instead of Article 147. Nonato appealed. work or industry. property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal coownership. Barrido.

ANTONIA R. The claim of Barrido that the subject property has been sold to their children was not given merit for aside from the fact that the property is still registered under the spouses’ name.them in equal shares. It further claimed that she had been notified of the suspension and cautioned to refrain from using the credit card to avoid inconvenience or embarrassment. Armovit sued BPI Express Credit for damages in the RTC. 1992 requesting her to pay her arrears for three consecutive months. The relationship between the credit card issuer and the credit card holder is a contractual one that is governed by the terms and conditions found in the card membership agreement. she treated her British friends from Hong Kong to lunch at Mario’s Restaurant at the Ortigas Center in Pasig. BPI Espress Credit claimed that it had sent Armovit a telegraphic message on March 19. and that she did . 163654 October 8. MA. and that she did not comply with the request. Damages. she handed to the waiter her credit card to settle the bill.R. 1992. moral damages may be recovered where the defendant is shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Upon verification with the BPI Express Credit. Therefore the subject property is still owned in common by Nonato and Barrido. G. which should be divided in accordance with the rules on co-ownership. and that while the obligation was settled by April 1992 she failed to sublit the required application form in order to reactivate her credit card privileges. Contract.000.00 that was to expire at the end of March 1993. Such terms and conditions constitute the law between the parties. the purported deed of sale was not notarized therefore not in a public instrument and thus is inadmissible in evidence. On November 21. In case of breach. her guests were made to share the bill to her extreme embarrassment. causing it to temporaaily suspend her credit card effective March 31. insisting that she had been a credit card holder in good standing. Inasmuch as she was relying on her credit card because she did not carry enough cash that day. 2014 BPI EXPRESS CARD CORPORATION vs. ARMOVIT Civil Law. but the waiter soon returned to inform her that her credit card had been cancelled upon verification with BPI Express Credit and would not be honored. As the host. Armovit learned that her credit card had been summarily cancelled for failure to pay her outstanding obligations. 1992. then a depositor of the Bank of the Philippine Islands ws issued by BPI Express Credit a pre-approved BPI Express Credit Card in 1989 with a credit limit of P20. FACTS: Armovit.

MUNOZ.000. The RTC found BPI Express Credit guilty of negligence and bad faith and ordered it ot pay Armovit moral damages of P100. HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. Finally. Such terms and conditions determined the rights and obligations between the parties. conscious and intentional design need not always be present because negligence may occasionally be so gross as to amount to malice or bad faith. The terms and conditions governing the issuance and use of the BPI credit card printed on the credit card application form spelled out the terms and conditions of the contract between and BPI Express Credit and its card holders. the amount was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. LUDOLFO P. 187240 October 15. LORIA vs.not have any unpaid bills at the time of the incident.000. Thus. bad faith in the context of Article 2220 of the Civil Code includes gross negligence. 2014 CARLOS A. BPI Express Credit acted in wanton disregard of its contractual obligations with her. with Armovit having been forced to litigate in order to protect her rights and interests. Hence. No. moral damages may be recovered where the defendant is shown to have acted fraudulently or in bad faith. The relationship between the credit card issuer and the credit card holder is a contractual one that is governed by the terms and conditions found in the card membership agreement. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees each in the amount of P10. To the Court. and the costs of suit. However. the CA rightly sustained the award of P100. Bereft of the clear basis to continue with the suspension of the credit card privileges of Armovit. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.00.R. Similarly the award of exemplary damages was warranted under Article 2232 of the New Civil Code because BPI Express Credit acted in a reckless and oppressive manner.00 as moral damages. . JR.00. Yet. G.000. including Armovit. In case of breach. she was entitled to recover attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. a review of such terms and conditions did not reveal that Armovit needed to submit her new application as the antecedent condition for her credit card to be taken out of the list of suspended cards. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the award of moral and exemplary damages in favor of Armovit. Such terms and conditions constitute the law between the parties.

“Ludolfo P. First.Civil Law.000. did not return the money.” There is unjust enrichment “when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another. No person should unjustly enrich himself or herself at the expense of another. On appeal. a person must have been benefited without a real or valid basis or justification. the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. shall return the same to him. In his complaint. Jr. filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against Carlos A. HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. Second. . Loria with the RtC of Legaspi City.000. acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of teh latter without just or legal ground.” In August 2000 Loria invited Munoz to advance P2. or any other means.00.000. Sunwest Construction and Development Corporation. ISSUE: Whether Loria is liable for 2.000. Elizalde Co would pay P8. Munoz. would turn out to be the lowest bidder for the project.00 to Munoz. The project was awarded to the lowest bidder.00. Since Munoz had known Loria for five years.000. Loria. Munoz demanded Loria to return his P2.00 to Munoz since no part of the project was subcontracted to Munoz.” He principle of unjust enrichment has two conditions. “every person who through an act of performance by another.000. the benefit was derived at another’s expense or damage. however. FACTS: Ludolfo P.000.000. it would subcontract 20% or P10. The trial court ordered Loria to return the P2. Loria represented that he would make arrangements such that Elizaldy Co. Munoz alleged that he has been engaged in construction under the name.000. Unjust enrichment.000. equity and good conscience.00 river-dredging project in Guinobatan. Sunwest allegedly finished dredging the Masarawag and San Francisco rivers without subcontracting Munoz. With the project allegedly finished.000. The project to dredge the Masarawag and San Francisco rivers in Guinobatan was subjected to public bidding. or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice. After the award to Sunwest.000. the appellate court ruled that Loria must return the money to Munoz under the principle of unjust enrichment. Construction. Munoz accepted Loria’s proposal.000.000. Munoz.00 worth of the project to Munoz. Under Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.000. owner of Sunwest Construction and Development Corporation. Considering that Munoz did not benefit fro paying Loria 2.000.00 to ensure the project’s award to Sunwest. Jr.00 for a subcontract of a P50.

and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim. petitioners Anita Julao Vda. and RODEERICK JULAO vs. representing themselves to be the heirs of Telesforo filed before the RTC of Baguio City a Complaint for Recovery of Possession of Real Property against respondent spouses. the property must be identified.000. Loria received 2. However. To refute the evidence presented by petitioners. Loria must return the 2. and that respondent spouses have no valid claim over the subject property because it is covered by a separate application. DE ENRIQUEZ. G. covered by OCT No. V6667.00 to Munoz. that respondent spouses’ house encroached on 70 square meters of the subject property. that the subject property originated from TSA No. V-6667 was rejected by the DENR. P-2446.00 from Munoz for a subcontract of a government project. In an action to recover. V-6667. thus. Solito. TSA No. was dropped from the records.000. 176020 September 29. TOLENTINO.000. Petitioners disputed the validity of the Deed of Transfer of Rights executed by Solito. by virtue of a Deed of Transfer of Rights wherein Solito expressly transferred in favour of respondent spouses his hereditary share in the parcel of land covered by TSA No. respondent spouses presented two letters from the DENR: (1) a letter dated April 27. V-2132. V-6667 referred to one and the same application covering one and the same lot.000. SPOUSES ALEJANDRO and MORENITA DE JESUS Civil Law. TSA No. petitioners sent a demand letter to respondent spouses asking them to return the subject property. The first one TSA N. Loria was unjustly enriched. SONIA J. V-2132 and TSA No. FACTS: On March 2. Under Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.000. V-2132 and TSA No.In this case. Petitoners alleged that thye are the true and lawful owners of a 641-square meter of a parcel of land located at Naguilian Road. Sonia J. that TSA No.R. Loria retained the 2. Property. 1999. Munoz was not subcontracted for the project.” . V-2132. Baguio City. V-2132 resulted in the issuance of OCT No. No. They presented evidence to show that Telesforo submitted two applications. Nevertheless. 2014 HEIRS OF TELESFORO JULAO. that on August 4. namely. TSA No. contrary to the parties’ agreement. ANITA VDA. 1998.000.00. insisting that they acquired the subject property from petitioners’ brother. while the second one. V-6667. Action to recover property. that respondent spuses refused to accede to the demand. Tolentino and Roderick Julao. He retained Munoz’ money without valid basis or justification. De Enriquez. P-2446 in favour of heirs of Telesforo. 1999 stating that “it can be concluded that TSA Np.

V-2132 was renumbered as TSA No. they did not submit any survey plan to show that respondent spouses actually encroached on petitioners’ property. the area. therefore. The CA noted that petitioners failed to pinpoint the property sought to be recovered. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. 1998 stating that “the land applied for with assigned number TSA No. petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for in their Complaint. In this case. Respondent spouses filed their Answer contending that they are the true and lawful owners of the subject property . No survey plan was presented by petitioners to prove that respondent spouses actually encroached upon the 70-sqaure meter portion of the petitioners’ property. and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners’ failed to prove the property in question.” The plaintiff. The CA reversed the decision of the trial court and found the complaint dismissible on two grounds: (1) failure on the part of the petitioners to identify the property sought to be recovered. and (2) lack of jurisdiction. the property must be properly identified. the property must be identified. HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. is duty bound to clearly identify the land sought to be recovered. In fact. the petitioners failed to identify the property they seek to recover as they failed to describe the location. It bears stressing that the failure of the plaintiff to establish the identity of the property claimed is fatal to his case. In an action to recover. V-6667. Article 434 of teh Civil Code states that “[i]n an action to recover.and (2) a letter dated September 30. Failing to prove their allegation. in accordance with the title on which he anchors his right of ownership. as well as the boundaries thereof.