21. LOCSIN vs HIZON, G.R. No.

204369, September 17, 2014

FACTS: Petitioner as the registered owner of the lot, filed an ejectment case against
one Aceron before the MTC to recover possession over the land in issue. Eventually,
the two entered into a compromise agreement, which the MTC approved. Locsin later
went to the United States without knowing whether Aceron has complied with his part of
the bargain under the compromise agreement. In spite of her absence, however, she
continued to pay the real property taxes on the subject lot. When Locsin discovered that
her copy of the TCT was missing, Locsin filed a petition for administrative reconstruction
to secure a new one. Sometime in early 2002, she discovered through her counsel that
Bolos was able to secure a new TCT by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by
her and later titled to Carlos. She then sent Carlos a letter requesting the return of the
property since her signature in the purported deed of sale in favor of Bolos was a
forgery.
Carlos claimed that he was unaware of any defect or flaw in Bolos’ title and he is,
thus, an innocent purchaser for value and good faith. Bernardo, father of Carlos’ and
who bought the property, met with Locsin’s counsel and discussed a compromise,
which turned out to be deceitful, for Locsin learned that Carlos had already sold the
property for to his sister and her husband, herein respondents Sps Guevara, who had a
new certificate of title issued in their names. The sps Guevara then immediately
mortgaged the said property. It was against the foregoing backdrop of events that
Locsin filed an action for reconveyance, annulment of the TCT, cancellation of the
mortgage lien annotated thereon, and damages. RTC dismissed the complaint which
was affirmed by CA wherein
it was ruled that respondents are innocent purchasers for value and Locsin can no
longer recover the subject lot.

Issue:Whether or not respondents are innocent purchasers for value.

Held: No. 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. Complementing this is 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 therefor and is in no way obliged to go beyond the
certificate to determine the condition of the property. The recognized exception to this
rule is that 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.
One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser
for value nor a purchaser in good faith and, hence, does not merit the protection of the
law.
In the case at bar, Bolos’ certificate of title was concededly free from liens and
encumbrances on its face. However, 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. Bernardo
knew that Bolos, from whom he purchased the subject property, never acquired
possession over the lot. Bolos’ purported Deed of Sale was executed in 1979 but the
ejectment case commenced by Locsin against Aceron was in 1992, or thirteen
(13)years after the property was supposedly transferred to Bolos. Having knowledge of
the foregoing facts, Bernardo and Carlos, to our mind, should have been impelled to
investigate the reason behind the arrangement. They should have been pressed to
inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation in order to protect Carlos’
interest. Entering into a compromise agreement is an act of strict dominion. If Bolos
already acquired ownership of the property as early as 1979, it should have been her
who entered into a compromise agreement with Aceron in 1993, not her predecessor-in-
interest, Locsin, who, theoretically, had already divested herself of ownership thereof.
The spouses Guevara are not innocent purchasers for value, the transfer from
Carlos to the spouses Guevara was effected only 15 days after Locsin demanded the
surrender of the property from Carlos. The fact that Lourdes Guevara and Carlos are
siblings, and that Carlos’ agent in his dealings concerning the property is his own father,
renders incredible the argument that Lourdes had no knowledge whatsoever of Locsin’s
claim of ownership at the time of the purported sale. There is also strong reason to
believe that even the mortgage in favor of DCC was a mere ploy to make it appear that
the Sps. Guevara exercised acts of dominion over the subject property. This is so
considering the proximity between the property’s registration in their names and its
being subjected to the mortgage. These circumstances, taken altogether, strongly
indicate that Carlos and the spouses Guevara failed to exercise the necessary level of
caution expected of a bona fide buyer and even performed acts that are highly suspect.
Consequently, this Court could not give respondents the protection accorded to
innocent purchasers in good faith and for value.

22. LIMSON vs Wack Wack Condominium Corp., G.R. No. 188802, February 14,
2011

FACTS: Petitioner purchased from Benitez an apartment unit at Wack Wack

Apartments. Upon moving in, she noticed defects in the electrical main panel hence,
reported by writing to respondent.  Gonzalez, a Member of respondents Board of
Directors, replied by letter that, it is the duty of the unit owner to maintain the electrical
and plumbing systems at her expense under House Rules and Regulations. Thereafter,
Petitioner informed respondent that the switch board is such that No. 12 wire is
protected by 30 ampere fuse and that five appliances are connected to only one fuse
and later sought professional assistance from a private electrical consultant, who
concluded that the wirings are unsafe, hazardous and did not comply with the Philippine
Electrical Code. City Building Office conducted an inspection and recommended
replacement of fusible load center with panel board and circuit breaker components and
to submit a built electrical plan signed by a Professional Electrical Engineer.
Respondent wrote Revelina to demand that repairs be undertaken within 10 days and
imposed a daily fine. Petitioner refused to undertake the repairs and to pay the fine and
claimed that the electrical main panel forms part of the common areas, citing RA
4726, An Act to Define Condominium, Establish Requirements for Its Creation and
Government of Its Incidents, arguing that an electrical main panel is in the nature of a
utility installation. Respondent filed a complaint for specific performance and damages
against the petitioner to compel Sps Limson to undertake the necessary repairs of the
defective and hazardous condition of the electrical wiring of their Unit and seek payment
of liquidated damages. Assessments and penalties were charged against the spouses
and respondent filed a Notice of Assessment with the Register of Deeds with application
for foreclosure and public auction of the Unit, which was then purchased by the
respondent. RTC dismissed respondent’s complaint for and ruled that the
questioned electrical installations are to be considered as part of the common area and
not of Unit 703, though the same are necessarily found inside the said unit. CA
reversed the decision of the trial court, holding in the main that for the electrical main
panel to be considered as part of the common areas, it should have been intended for
communal use and benefit. The subject electrical main panel being located inside the
unit and its principal function being to control the flow of electricity into the unit, the
appellate court concluded that charges for its repair cannot be for respondents account.
 
ISSUE:  W/N unit owner has the duty to maintain electrical and plumbing system.

Held: No. In a multi-occupancy dwelling such as Apartments, limitations are imposed

under R.A. 4726 in accordance with the common interest and safety of the occupants
therein which at times may curtail the exercise of ownership. Upon acquisition of a unit,
the owner not only affixes his conformity to the sale; he also binds himself to a contract
with other unit owners. Unquestionably, the fuse box controls the supply of electricity
into the unit. Power is sourced through jumper cables attached to the main switch which
connects the units electrical line to the Apartments common electrical line. It is an
integral component of a power utility installation. Respondent cannot disclaim
responsibility for the maintenance of the Apartments electrical supply system solely
because a component thereof is placed inside a unit. Utility installations forms part of
the common areas, which reference is justified by practical considerations. Repairs to
correct any defects in the electrical wiring should be under the control and supervision
of respondent to ensure safety and compliance with the Philippine Electrical Code, not
to mention security and peace of mind of the unit owners.