Associate Justice Delilah Magtolis vs. Cielito Salud A.M. No.

CA-05-20-P, September 9, 2005 Facts: Respondent was charged administratively for having financial interests in a criminal case concerning a certain Melchor Lagua. Lagua, having been detained, was ordered to be released following an appeal which required him to post a bond worth P200,000.00. Atty. Madarang facilitated the papers for Laguas release which required personal service. Respondent served the release himself. However, Atty. Madarang received a phone call from one of Laguas relatives asking how much they still had to pay since they were informed by a certain Rhodora Valldez that they still had a balance to be paid to Justice Magtolis and Atty. Madarang through respondent. Atty. Madarang secured the cellphone number of respondent and pretended to be a relative of Lagua. She exchanged several text messages with respondent regarding the alleged balance that they still had to pay for the release of Lagua. From the findings of the investigating officer, it was recommended that respondent be suspended on account of the text messages as evidence, among others. Respondent alleged that these text messages cannot be used as evidence against him because it violates his right to privacy. Issue: Whether or not text messages may be submitted as evidence Ruling: Text messages have been classified as ephemeral electronic communication under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. Respondent himself admitted that those text messages stored on Atty. Madarangs cellphone came from him. That admission would now render the admissibility of these text messages as moot and academic.

San Lorenzo Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 124242. January 21, 2005 Facts: Spouses Lu sold a parcel of land to a certain Pablo Babasanta for the price of P15.00 per square meter. He made a downpayment of P50,000 and several other payments amounting to P200,000. Babasanta sent a letter to the spouses asking for the execution of a final deed of sale. However, he was told by them that the land was sold to another. Babasanta asked that the second sale be nullified. Spouses Lu declined saying that Babasanta had backed down from the sale when they declined his request for a reduction of the price. They even returned the 50,000 downpayment through a certain Eugenio Oya. Babasanta filed for a complaint for specific performance and damages. In their answer, the Spouses Lu said that Babasantas total payments amounted to only 200,000 while a balance of 260,000 still remained. Despite repeated demands, Babasanta still refused to pay. San Lorenzo Development Corporation intervened saying that they had a material interest in the said case as they were buyers in good faith. They claim that, when they bought the land, there was no annotation on the certificate saying that Babasanta had claims over it. Babasanta claimed that good faith was eliminated when a notice of lis pendens was annotated after the sale between SLDC and Spouses Lu had already effected. Issue: Whether or not SLDC is a buyer in good faith. Ruling: Yes. A purchaser in good faith 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 claim or interest of some other person in the property. At the time of SLDCs transaction with Spouses Lu, they had no knowledge of Babasantas claim over the property nor was there any evidence presented showing that they had knowledge. At the time of the sale of the property to SLDC, the vendors were still the registered owners of the property and were in fact in possession of the lands. Babasanta relied on P.D. No. 1529 which reads:
Sec. 52. Constructive notice upon registration. Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed, or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing, or entering.

However, it is clear that the law says that it serves as a constructive notice from the time of such registering. When Babasanta registered his claim over the land, the transaction between SLDC and Spouses Lu had long been consummated.

Spouses Claro and Nilda Bautista vs. Berlinda Silva G.R. No. 157434. September 19, 2006 Facts: Spouses Berlina and Pedro Silva owned a parcel of land. Pedro, through a special power of attorney executed in favor of him by Berlina, sold the subject property to the Spouses Bautista, herein petitioners. It was found that the signature on the SPA was a forgery. The Spouses Bautista were ordered to reconvey the property. However, they refused on the ground that they are purchasers in good faith. Issue: Whether or not the Spouses Bautista are purchasers in good faith. Ruling: No. The SPA being a forgery, it did not vest in Pedro any authority to alienate the subject property without the consent of respondent. Absent such marital consent, the deed of sale was a nullity. A buyer for value in good faith is one who buys property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. He buys the property with the well-founded belief that the person from whom he receives the thing had title to the property and capacity to convey it. To prove good faith, a buyer of registered and titled land need only show that he relied on the face of the title to the property. He must also show that he made further inquiry as to all the factual circumstances. He must show that he inquired beyond the title and to the authority of the one selling it. In the present case, petitioners were dealing with a seller who had title to and possession of the land but, as indicated on the face of his title, whose capacity to sell was restricted, in that the marital consent of respondent is required before he could convey the property. To prove good faith then, petitioners must show that they inquired not only into the title of Pedro but also into his capacity to sell. It was evident that the petitioners were aware that Berlinda was not in the Philippines at the time of the transaction and that they merely relied on the SPA. The Court cannot take into cognizance the Spouses claim that they inspected the SPA because it was merely a photocopy and it did not have a notarial seal. An SPA without a notarial seal is incomplete and is only merely a private document.