Pacleb vs.

Yu
Baltazar Pacleb and his late first wife Angelita Chan are registered owners of a parcel of
land. Spouses Baltazar Pacleb and Angelita Chan sold the property to Rebecca del
Rosario. The lot was thereafter sold to Ruperto Javier. A Contract to Sell was entered
into between Javier and Spouses Yu. All the aforementioned sales were not registered.
They discovered that it was tenanted by Ramon Pacleb, son of Baltazar Pacleb. Spouses
Yu filed an action for forcible entry against respondent with the MTC alleging that they
had prior physical possession of the Langcaan Property through their trustee Ramon
until the latter was ousted by respondent in Sept. 1995. MTC ruled in favor of spouses
Yu, affirmed by the RTC, but set aside by CA.
Petitioner spouses are not innocent purchasers for value, and they are not in good faith.
Several facts should have put petitioner spouses on inquiry as to the alleged rights of
their vendor, Javier, over the Langcaan property.
Third, the fact that the Langcaan Property is in the possession of Ramon, son of the
registered owners, this should have made petitioner spouses suspicious as to the
veracity of the alleged title of their vendor, Javier. Petitioner spouses could have easily
verified the true status of the subject property from Ramons wife, since the latter is
their relative.
The law protects to a greater degree a purchaser who buys from the registered owner
himself. Corollarily, it requires a higher degree of prudence from one who buys from a
person who is not the registered owner, although the land object of the transaction is
registered. While one who buys from the registered owner does not need to look
behind the certificate of title, one who buys from one who is not the registered owner is
expected to examine not only the certificate of title but all factual circumstances
necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of the transferor, or in
his capacity to transfer the land.
Therefore, petitioner spouses cannot be considered as innocent purchasers in good
faith, and respondent has a better right over the Langcaan Property as the true owner
thereof.
Republic vs. Jacob
Essence of the word occupation in “possession and occupation”
Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession.
Unless, therefore, the law adds the word “occupation,” it seeks to delimit all-
encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken together with the with the
words continuous, exclusive and notorious, the word occupation seems to highlight the
facts for an applicant to qualify, her possession of the property must not be a mere
fiction.
Casual cultivation constitute basis for claim of ownership
No. Such possession is not exclusive and notorious as it gives rise to a presumptive
grant from the State. Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation of the
acts of dominion of such a nature as a party would exercise over her own property.
Good faith with regards to registration
There is reasonable belief that the person from whom she received the property was
the owner thereof and could transfer ownership.
Republic vs. Gielczyk
An applicant for a grant or title over a lot must be able to show that he has exercised
acts of dominion over the property in question. A simple claim of "open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation" does not suffice. The applicant’s
possession must not be simply a nominal claim where he only plants a sign or symbol of
possession.
In other words, his possession of the property must be patent, visible, apparent,
notorious and not clandestine; it should be uninterrupted, unbroken and not
intermittent or occasional; it should demonstrate exclusive dominion over the land and
an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit; and it should be conspicuous, which
means generally known and talked of by the public or the people in the neighborhood.
Magsano vs. Pangasinan Savings and Loan Bank
It is a firmly settled rule that it is expected from the purchaser of a valued piece
of land to inquire first into the status or nature of possession of the
occupants, i.e., whether or not the occupants possess the land in concept of owner.
An ocular inspection of the premises involved is a safeguard a cautious and prudent
purchaser usually takes. Should he find out that the land he intends to buy is occupied
by anybody else other than the seller who, as in this case, is not in actual possession, it
would then be incumbent upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the occupant's
possessory rights. The failure of a prospective buyer to take such precautionary
steps would mean negligence on his part and would thereby preclude him
from claiming or invoking the rights of a "purchaser in good faith."
Plaintiff must carry the burden to prove his case but good faith is always
presumed

Sajonas vs. CA
A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys 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. Good faith consists in an honest
intention to abstain from taking an unconscientious advantage of another. While it may
be stated that good faith is presumed, conversely, bad faith must be established by
competent proof by the party alleging the same. Sans such proof, the petitioners are
deemed to be purchasers in good faith, and their interest in the subject property must
not be disturbed.