SALES FINALS COVERAGE

DATE: OCTOBER 14,2018

Mirror Doctrine; The Mirror Doctrine

The general rule is that a purchaser may be considered a purchaser in good faith when he has examined
the latest certificate of title. An exception to this rule is when there exist important facts that would create
suspicion in an otherwise reasonable man to go beyond the present title and to investigate those that
preceded it. Thus, it has been said that a person who deliberately ignores a significant fact which would
create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable man is not an innocent purchaser for value. A purchaser
cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, and then claim that he
acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor as has been held in
other cases, if the buyer fails to take the ordinary precautions which a prudent man would have taken
under the circumstances, specially in buying a piece of land in the actual, visible and public possession of
another person, other than the vendor, constitutes gross negligence amounting to bad faith.

In this connection, it has been held that where, the land sold is in the possession of a person other than
the vendor, the purchaser is required to go beyond the certificate of title to make inquiries concerning the
rights of the actual possessor. Failure to do so would make him purchaser in bad faith.

One who purchases real property which is in the actual possession of another should, at least make
some inquiry concerning the right of those in possession. The actual possession by a person other than
the vendor should, at least put the purchaser upon inquiry. He can scarcely, in the absence of such
inquiry, be regarded as a bona fide purchaser as against such possessors. (Lucena vs. CA, G.R. No.
77468, August 25, 1999).
Mirror doctrine
All persons dealing with a property covered by Torrens
certificate of title are not required to go beyond what
appears on the face of the title. Where there is nothing on
the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the
ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon,
the purchaser is not required to explore further than what
the Torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any
hidden defect or inchoate right that may defeat his right
thereto (Chua v. Soriano, GR.No. 150066, April 13, 2007).

Basic Rules on Transaction on Sales or Return;

Basic Rule on Sale on Approval or Trial (Mobil Oil vs CA);

Article 1546;

Article 1592 (Heirs of Pedro Escaña, 288 SCRA 144, Pangilinan vs CA, 279 SCRA 590);
Maceda Law (Marina Properties Vs CA, 294 SCRA 272);

Vasquez Vs CA, 199 SCRA 102;

Pingol vs CA ;

Legal Redemption (Uy Vs CA, 246 SCRA 703);

Recto Law;

Unpaid Seller Remedies;

Dintinction of Terms, e.g. Warranty against Condition, etc.

Additional topics:

A. Sale of personal property (Sale on installments-art.1484; 1191;1385;1486);

B. the recto law;
C. Sale of immovable property-art. 1591;1592; 1590;
D. the maceda law;
E. actions in case of breach of contract of sale of goods- art. 1595-1599.