I.

Torrens System of Land Registration

WON the land may be reverted.

A. Background

There is no allegation in the complaint filed by the petitioner that any one of
the defendants was privy to the forged joint affidavit or that they had
acquired the subject land in bad faith. Their status as innocent transferees
for value was never questioned in that pleading. Not having been disproved,
that status now accords to them the protection of the Torrens System and
renders the titles obtained by them thereunder indefeasible and conclusive.
Under Sec. 39. Every person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a
decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land
who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith shall hold the same free
of all encumbrance except those noted on said certificate.

1.

Import and Purpose

Legarda v. Saleeby, G.R. No. L-8936 October 2, 1915

Legarda abd saleeby are owners of adjoining lots separated by a
stonewall located in legardas lot. In 1906, legarda petitioned in the
court of land registration for the registration of their lot which was
granted. It included the lot of the stonewall. In 1912 saleeby petitioned
for the registration of their land and was granted. It also included the lot
of the stonewall. Upon discovery, legarda filed before the CLR for an
adjustment and correction of error. The lower court denied the petition
based on the reason that the action is of a judicial proceeding and its
judgment is binding upon all the parties. For failure of legarda to
opposed the registration, they had lost the land.

The real purpose of the Torrens System of land registration is to quiet title to
land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except
claims which were noted at the time of registration in the certificate, or which
may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it would
seem that once the title was registered, the owner might rest secure, without
the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the "mirador
de su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his land.

WON the defendants own the lot in question.

NO. The real purpose of that system is to quiet title to land; to put a
stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims
which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which
may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it
would seem that once a title is registered the owner may rest secure,
without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in
the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his land. The
primary and fundamental purpose of the torrens system is to quiet title.
If the holder of a certificate cannot rest secure in this registered title
then the purpose of the law is defeated

Republic v. Umali, G.R. No. 80687 April 10, 1989

The land in question was originally purchased on installment from the
govt by Bobadilla who transferred her rights to the cenizal. In 1971, the
assignees signed a joint affidavit filed to the bureau of lands to support
their claims that they are entitles to issuance of certificate. Sec. of ANR
xecuted a deed in their favor. A complaint was files by the state on
ground of forgery and fraud. When the complaint of reversion was filed,
miclat, Pulido, naval were the registered owners. Miclat and Pulido
denied participation in the joint affidavit and acquired the property in
good faith and for value. Miclat filed for dismissal, govt is not a real
party in interest as the subject land is already covered under the
torrens system.

Pino v. CA, G.R. No. 94114 June 19, 1991

The land in question was acquired by spouse gaffud in 1924. Under the
OCT Rafaela and his 2sons are co-owners. The said lot was sold to
Rafaela through a deed of transfer. Rafaela sold a portion to Pascua
(lot A). Rafaela sold to pino the said lot B and a TCT was issued in favor
of pino. One of the sons filed for the nullity of the sale. RTC ruled in
favor of defendants and was affirmed by CA.
WON the sale is void.
The rule applicable to this controversy is well-settled. Where the certificate of
title is in the name of the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value
has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate of title. In the absence
of anything to excite or arouse suspicion, said vendee is under no obligation
to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor
appearing on the face of said certificate. The rationale for the rule is stated
thus:
The main purpose of the Torrens' System is to avoid possible conflicts of title
to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the
public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens Certificate of Title and to
dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned
had actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry. (Pascua v. Capuyoc,
77 SCRA 78) Thus, where innocent third persons relying on the correctness
of the certificate thus issued, acquire tights over the property, the court

cannot disregard such rights. (Director of Land v. Abache, et al., 73 Phil.

606)

In 1988, petitioner purchased from China Bank the land in question which
was previously sold by the mother of Mateo to Rodolfo Pe who in turn
constituted a mortgage on the property in favor of China Bank as security for
a loan. China Bank foreclosed the mortgage and consolidated its ownership
of the property after Rodolfo failed to redeem. A TCT was issued in the name
of China Bank. In 1991, CDC brought an action for unlawful detatiner against
the respondents siblings. Respondent counters that CDC acquired the
property from China Bank in bad faith because it had actual knowledge of
the possession of the property by the respondent and his siblings.

In the case at bar, the evidence on record discloses that when petitioner
purchased the subject property on June 10, 1970, the title thereto (TCT No.
T-32683) was in the name of her vendor Rafaela Donato alone.

Traders Royal Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 114299. September 24, 1999
Capays executed ma mortgage in favor of traders bank which covered
the land in dispute. Failure to pay bank instituted extra judicial
foreclosure. Capay filed a prohibition and preliminary injunction before
the CFI alleging they did not receive the proceeds of the loan. Capay
filed a notice of lis pendens over the property. The property was sold to
the bank as the highest bidder. TCT was issued to the bank without the
notice of lis pendens being carried over. Capay filed for the recovery of
the property. CFI ruled in favor of the capay. The bank appealed to CA,
while pending the bank sold the property to Santiago and Santiago sold
the property to alcantara and his co-owners and again sold to 6
different buyers. CA affirmed in toto.

WON CDC was an innocent purchaser for value.

One who deals with property registered under the Torrens system need not
go beyond the certificate of title, but only has to rely on the certificate of
title. He is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are
annotated on the title. China Banks TCTs was a clean title, that is, it was
free from any lien or encumbrance, CDC had the right to rely, when it
purchased the property, solely upon the face of the certificate of title in the
name of China Bank. The respondents siblings possession did not translate
to an adverse claim of ownership. They even characterized their possession
only as that of mere agricultural tenants. Under no law was possession
grounded on tenancy a status that might create a defect or inflict a law in the
title of the owner. CDC having paid the full and fair price of the land, was an
innocent purchaser for value. The TCT in the name of CDC was declared
valid and subsisting.

WON the capays has a better right over the respondents.

The non-bank respondents had a right to rely on what appeared on the face
of the title of their respective predecessors-in-interest, and were not bound
to go beyond the same. To hold otherwise would defeat one of the principal
objects of the Torrens system of land registration, that is, to facilitate
transactions involving lands.
The main purpose of the torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts of title
to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the
public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens certificate of title and to
dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned
has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry. Where innocent third
persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued,
acquire rights over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights and
order the total cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such an outright
cancellation would be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for
everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would
have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title has been regularly or
irregularly issued by the court. Every person dealing with registered land
may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor
and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to
determine the condition of the property.

Casimiro Devt. Corp. v. Mateo, G.R. No. 175485. July 27, 2011

2.

Characteristics

Bars all prior claims not registered

Best Evidence of Ownership

Imprescriptible - No title to registered land in derogation of the title of

the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
(Sec. 47, P.D. 1529)

Indefeasible - After the lapse of one year from the entry of the decree of
registration, said the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall
become incontrovertible. (Sec 32, P.D. 1529)

Integrity of titles not subject to collateral attack - A certificate of title shall

not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled
except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. (Sec. 48, P.D. 1529)

Notice to the Whole World

Presumption that title is regular and valid

Reliance on titles

1.

The CA overlooked the difference between the Property

Registration Decree and the Public Land Act. Under the PRD, there
already exists a title which is confirmed by the Court; while under
the PLA, the presumption always is that the land applied for
pertains to the State, and that the occupants and possessors only a
claim an interest in the same by virtue of their imperfect title or
continous, open and notorious possession [since June 12, 1945 or
earlier].
Since the subject lands are alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain, the applicants may acquire title thereto only under
the PLA.
Applicants could not acquire land through adverse possession
since the land was only classified as alienable in 1963 AND their
possession only started in 1950.
(Note: Substantial requirements for public lands are in the PLA
but the procedural requirements are in the PRD.)
Civil Code provisions on prescription, which is subject to
confirmation under the PRD, in general applies to all types of land.
However, excluded therefrom are lands of the public domain which
are covered by the PLA [special law v. general law]

3. Nature of the Proceedings

1.

Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998

Sps laburada applied for the registration of lot 3-a located in
madaluyong which was approved by the trial court. Upon motion of the
sps , the trial court ordered LRA to issue the corresponding decree of
registration. However the LRA refused. Hence sps filed for mandamus.
Based on the record, some portions of the lot 3-a which is sought to be
registered is covered by certificates issued prior to the decree.
WON LRA may be compelled by mandamus.
Court has no jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land
already decreed in an earlier land registration case and a second
decree for the same land is void. This is so, because when once
decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the title to the land
thus determined is already a res judicata binding on the whole
world, the proceedings being in rem. The court has no power in a
subsequent proceeding (not based on fraud nor within the statutory
period) to adjudicate the same title in favor of another person.
Furthermore, the registration of the property in the name of the first
registered owner in the Registration Book is a standing notice to the
world that said property is already registered in his name. Hence,
the latter applicant is chargeable with notice that the land he
applied for is already covered by a title so he has no right
whatsoever.
In other words, the first proceedings are in rem which binds the
second proceedings.
As the title of the respondents, who hold certificates of title under
the Land Registration Act becomes indefeasible, it follows that the
Court of First Instance has no power or jurisdiction to entertain
proceedings for the registration of the same parcels of land covered
by the certificates of title of the respondents.

2.

Secretary of DENR v. Yap, G.R. No. 167707. October 8, 2008

4. In Relation to the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended)

Republic v. Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117. May 26, 2005]

2.

Heirs of Lopez v. De Castro, G.R. No. 112905. February 3, 2000

A proceeding in rem, such as land registration proceedings,
requires constructive seizure of the land as against all persons,
including the State, who have rights to or interests in the property.
Constructive seizure of the land for registration is effected through
publication of the application for registration and service of notice to
affected parties.
Consequently, when respondents De Castro filed their own
application for registration of the same parcel of land in the
Tagaytay CFI branch, strictly speaking, it could no longer entertain
the application for registration as the res involved had been
constructively seized by the Cavite CFI branch. Be that as it may,
the Court is not persuaded that the registration proceedings
instituted by private respondents should be nullified by reason of
the fact that the Cavite City branch of the same court was already
proceeding with another registration case for the same piece of
land.
In land registration proceedings, all interested parties are obliged to
take care of their interests and to zealously pursue their objective of
registration on account of the rule that whoever first acquires title to
a piece of land shall prevail. To illustrate, where more than one
certificate of title is issued over the land, the person holding a prior
certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a
subsequent certificate. It should be stressed that said rule refers to
the date of the certificate of title and not to the date of filing of the
application for registration of title. Hence, even though an applicant
precedes another, he may not be deemed to have priority of right to

register title. As such, while his application is being processed, an

applicant is duty-bound to observe vigilance and to take care that
his right or interest is duly protected.