FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 216504. April 20, 2015.]
EDWARD DY, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES MARIANO DE JOYA AND JUANITA DE JOYA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 20, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 216504 (Edward Dy v. Spouses Mariano De Joya and Juanita De Joya). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the August 22, 2014 Decision 1 and January 21, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 100688 for failure of Edward Dy (petitioner) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that he is a mortgagee in bad faith who is bound by the judgment against his predecessor.
Records show that circumstances existed which should have prompted petitioner to discover that a defect in his predecessor's title existed but which he failed to ascertain. Hence, the CA found petitioner to be a mortgagee/purchaser in bad faith who stands exactly in the shoes of his transferor and is bound by any judgment rendered for or against the latter. 3 Consequently, petitioner's title, derived from his predecessor's defective title, is subject to the incidents and results arising from the pending litigation of the latter which cannot now be questioned. 4 Moreover, it is settled that the question of whether a person acted in good faith or bad faith in dealing with real property is a question of fact which, as a rule, the Court is proscribed to review unless they fall within the recognized exceptions, none of which are obtaining in this case. 5
SO ORDERED." cTDaEH
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 33-47. Penned by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
2. Id. at 49-50.
3. Malayan Bank v. Lagrama, G.R. No. 144844, April 27, 2001; 357 SCRA 429, 437; citations omitted.
4. Id.
5. See Philippine National Bank v. Heirs of Estanislao Militar, G.R. No. 164801, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 308, 319-320; citations omitted.