Search Upload EN

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Home

0 0 RELATED TITLES
513 views
Saved

Cruz vs Bancom
Bestsellers Uploaded by Andrea Tan on Apr 25,
2011

Books Full description

DBP vs Court of Real Estate Sales Ca

Audiobooks Appeals (284… Mortgage Samp… lease Ca
Save Embed Share Print SCRA 14) Format

Magazines
Download Search document

Documents

Sheet Music

EDILBERTO CRUZ, ET AL. vs. BANCOM FINANCE CORPORATION (NOW UNION

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES), G.R. No. 147788, 19 March 2002

Facts:

In 1978, Norma Sulit offered to purchase an agricultural land owned by brothers Rev. Fr.
Edilberto Cruz and Simplicio Cruz. The asking price was P700,000, but Sulit only had P25,000,
which Fr. Cruz accepted as earnest money. Sulit failed to pay the balance.

Capitalizing on the close relationship of a Candelaria Sanchez with the brothers, Sulit succeeded
in having Cruz execute a document of sale of the land in favor of Sanchez for P150,000.
Pursuant to the sale, Sulit was able to transfer the title of the land in her name.

Evidence show that aside from the P150,000, Sanchez undertook to pay the brothers the amount
of P655,000, representing the balance of the actual price of the land. Later, in a Special
Agreement, Sulit assumed Sanchez’s obligation to pay said amount. Unbeknownst to the Cruz
brothers, Sulit managed to obtain a loan from Bancom secured by a mortgage over the land.

Upon failure on the part of Sulit to pay the balance, the Cruz brothers filed this complaint for
reconveyance of the land.

Meanwhile, Sulit defaulted in her payment to the bank so her mortgage was foreclosed. Bancom
was declared the highest bidder and was issued a certificate of title over the land.

Issue: whether or not Bancom was a mortgagee in good faith. This document is...
ReadNO.
books, audiobooks, and more
Ruling:
Related Scribd
titles Useful Not useful
View
½ rule, every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of
As a general
theGET — On of
certificate thetitle
App Store
and is no longer required to look behind the certificate in order to
determine the actual owner.

This rule is, however, subject to the right of a person deprived of land through fraud to bring an
action for reconveyance, provided the rights of innocent purchasers for value and in good faith
are not prejudiced. An innocent purchaser for value or any equivalent phrase shall be deemed,
under Section 38 of the Act 496, to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee or any other
encumbrancer for value.

Bancom claims that, being an innocent mortgagee, it should not be required to conduct an
exhaustive investigation on the history of the mortgagor’s title before it could extend a loan.

DBP vs Court of however,

Bancom, Real Estate
is not SalesitCase
an ordinary mortgagee; Digest- Cabuhat
is a mortgagee-bank. As such,v.unlike
CA private24.03_Manga
Appeals individuals,
(284… it is Mortgage Samp…greaterlease
expected to exercise Cases
care and prudence in its dealings, including those Brobio
involving registered lands. A banking institution is expected to exercise due diligence before
SCRA 14) Format
entering into a mortgage contract. The ascertainment of the status or condition of a property
offered to it as security for a loan must be a standard and indispensable part of its operations.

You're reading a preview. Unlock full access with a free trial. Download
Page 2 is not shown in this preview. With Free
Trial

Jurisprudence provides that:

“The rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does
not apply to banks.

“Banks, indeed, should exercise more care and prudence in dealing even with registered lands,
than private individuals, for their business is one affected with public interest, keeping in trust
money belonging to their depositors, which they should guard against loss by not committing
any act of negligence which amounts to lack of good faith by which they would be denied the
protective mantle of the land registration statute, Act [No.] 496, extended only to purchasers for
value and in good faith, as well as to mortgagees of the same character and description.”

Jurisprudence provides that:

“The rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does
not apply to banks.
You're Reading a Preview
“Banks, indeed, should exercise more care and prudence in dealing even with registered lands,
than private individuals, forUnlock full access
their business with awith
is one affected freepublic
trial.interest, keeping in trust
money belonging to their depositors, which they should guard against loss by not committing
any act of negligence which amounts to lack of good faith by which they would be denied the
protective mantle of the land registration statute, Act [No.] 496, extended only to purchasers for
Download With Free Trial
value and in good faith, as well as to mortgagees of the same character and description.”

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.

Read Free For 30 Days

No Commitment. Cancel anytime.

Share this document

Related Interests

Mortgage Law Government Information Common Law

Private Law Business Law

Documents Similar To Cruz vs Bancom

DBP vs Court of Real Estate Mortgage Sales Case Digest- Cabuhat

Appeals (284 SCRA… Sample Format lease Cases UPLOADED
14)
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY Liana A
Judy Miraflores Du… Marc Alquiza Chrys Barcena

ABOUT SUPPORT LEGAL

About Scribd Help / FAQ Terms

Press Accessibility Privacy

Our blog Purchase help Copyright

Join our team! AdChoices

Contact Us Publishers

Invite Friends

Gifts

Copyright © 2019 Scribd Inc. . Browse Books . Site Directory . Site Language: English