Scribd
Upload
108 views1 page

Tuason Vs Jurilla

This case involves a land dispute between J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., the registered owner of a property, and Vicente and Ester Jurilla, who occupied a portion of the land without consent. While the Jurillas claim to have purchased the land in 1949 from another party, they failed to register the deed or properly inquire into the seller's ownership. The court ruled that the Jurillas were not builders in good faith, as Vicente is a lawyer who should have been aware of flaws in the unregistered title, such as when the alleged seller refused to accept payment. As the Tuason title was registered and indefeasible, the court found in their favor and that the Jurillas must vacate the

Uploaded by

Myra Mae J. Duglas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
108 views1 page

Tuason Vs Jurilla

This case involves a land dispute between J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., the registered owner of a property, and Vicente and Ester Jurilla, who occupied a portion of the land without consent. While the Jurillas claim to have purchased the land in 1949 from another party, they failed to register the deed or properly inquire into the seller's ownership. The court ruled that the Jurillas were not builders in good faith, as Vicente is a lawyer who should have been aware of flaws in the unregistered title, such as when the alleged seller refused to accept payment. As the Tuason title was registered and indefeasible, the court found in their favor and that the Jurillas must vacate the

Uploaded by

Myra Mae J. Duglas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
VICENTE JURILLA and ESTER L. JURILLA defendants-appellants

FACTS:
Plaintiff's ownership of the land object of this litigation is admitted by the defendants and supported by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 37186-Rizal (now No. 1267 Quezon City) It is also a fact that in 1949, defendants
took possession of a portion of said property with an area of 1,500 square meters and constructed therein a house
and other improvements without plaintiff's consent or knowledge (See Exh. B-1). Hence, plaintiff claims rents
for the area occupied by the defendants at the rate of P450.00 per month.

On the other hand, defendants claim that said portion of the property occupied by them was acquired by them
by virtue of an alleged deed of sale executed by Florencio Deudor in their favor in 1949 (See Exh. 1). They also
submitted the "Compromise Agreement" approved by the Hon. Judge Hermogenes Caluag, Civil Case No. Q-
135 etc. (Exh. 5). They also claim that they have improvements introduced in the sum of P60,000.00, but the
Tax Declaration (Exh. 12) of the said property was only assessed at P17,360.00. They further claim that
defendants are builders in good faith.
it is observed that plaintiff's title is indefeasible and against the whole world, while that of the defendants is not
and could not even be considered an imperfect title, as well known in Land Registration (Act No. 496). Evidently,
the clause (sic) of one of the two titles is not hard to determine. The fact that defendants admit not only in their
pleading (See Exh. C-3) but also in open court that plaintiff corporation is the owner of the property in question
and that its title is an incontrovertible one, the right of the plaintiff to recover possession of the lot in question
cannot be seriously questioned by defendant and its right thereto is imprescriptible.

ISSUE:whether defendants are builders in good faith.

RULING:
At the time they bought the property from the Deudor, they did not inquire whether the said Deudor was a
registered owner of the property. Besides, they never registered the deed of sale (Exh. 1) in the Office of the
Registry of Deed of Quezon City, as testified to by Atty. Jurilla while on record. In order that defendants may be
called buyers in good faith, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that upon buying the property,
they were not aware of any flaw in their title or made of acquisition.
Art. 526, N.C.C. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware of any flaw which invalidates it.

He is deemed a possessor in bad faith, who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing.

Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be on the basis of good faith.

The fact that in 1950 defendant Jurilla tendered to the Bulacan Subdivision the balance of the consideration of
P4,500.00 (See Exh. 1) and refused to accept the tender, is a clear indication that notice to Vicente Jurilla, who
is a lawyer, that the party from whom he was supposed to have bought the property was not the owner thereof
and could not, therefore, transmit title to him.

You might also like