LTD ~ SET 5

LTD ~ SET 5

1Legarda v. Saleeby, October 2, 1915

FACTSA stone wall stands between the adjoining lot of Legarda and Saleeby. The said wall and the strip of land where it stands is registered in the Torrens system under the name of Legarda in 1906. Six years after the decree of registration is released in favor of Legarda,Saleeby applied for registration of his lot under the Torrens system in 1912, and the decree issued in favor of the latter included the stone wall and the strip of land where it stands.

ISSUEWho should be the owner of a land and its improvement which has been registered under the name of two persons?

HELDFor the issue involved, The Land Registration Act (Act 496) affords no remedy. However, it can be construed that where two certificates purports to include the same registered land, the holder of the earlier one continues to hold title and will prevail.The real purpose of the Torrens system of 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, once a title is registered the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in themirador de su casa,to avoid the possibility of losing his land. The law guarantees the title of the registered owner once it has entered into the Torrens system.

2Grey Alba v. Dela Cruz, September 16, 1910

FACTSOn December 18, 1906 petitionerheirs sought the registration of two parcels of agricultural land in Bulacan and the court entered a decree directing the registration in favor of the petitioners, as co-owners subject tothe usufructuary rights if the widower of the petitioners sister. Respondent tenant filed a motion for the revision of the case upon the ground that he is the absolute owner of the disputed lands, having inherited them from his father, who had a state grant for the same.

ISSUEWhether or not the modification of the decree as toexclude said land will prosper.

HELDNo, the main principle of registration is to make registered titles indefeasible. Upon the presentation in court if an application for the registration of the title to lands, the theory under the Torrens system is that all occupants, adjoining owners, adverse claimants, and other interested persons are notified of the proceedings, and have a right to appear in opposition to such application. In other words, the proceeding is against the world. A proceeding isin remwhen the object of the action is to barindifferentlyall who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the strength ofallegingfacts which, if true, show an inconsistent interest.

3Traders Royal Bank v. CA, September 24, 1999

FACTSA parcel of land owned by the spouses Capay wasmortgageto and subsequentlyextra judicially foreclosed byTradersRoyal Bank(TRB). To prevent property sale inpublic auction, the Capays filed a petition for preliminary injunction alleging the mortgage was void because they did not receive the proceeds of the loan. A notice of lis pendens (suit pending) was filed before the Register of Deeds with the notice recorded in the Day Book. Meanwhile, a foreclosure sale proceeded with the TRB as the sole and winning bidder. The Capays title was cancelled and a new one was entered in TRBs name without the notice of lis pendens carried over the title. The Capays filed recovery of the property and damages. Court rendered a decision declaring the mortgage was void for want of consideration and thus cancelled TRBs title and issued a new cert. of title for the Capays. Pending its appeal before thecourt, TRB sold the land toSantiagowho subsequently subdivided and sold to buyers who were issued title to the land. Court ruled that the subsequent buyers cannot be considered purchasers for value and ingood faithsince they purchase the land after it became a subject in a pending suit before the court. Although the lis pendens notice was not carried over the titles, its recording in the Day Book constitutes registering of the land and notice to all persons with adverse claim over the property. TRB was held to be inbad faithupon selling the property while knowing it is pending for litigation. The Capays were issued the cert. of title of the land in dispute while TRB is to pay damages to Capays.

ISSUE1. Who has the better right over the land in dispute?2. Whether or not TRB is liable for damages?

HELDThe court ruled that aTorrenstitle is presumed to be valid which purpose is to avoid conflicts of title toreal properties. When the subsequent buyers bought the property there was no lis pendens annotated on the title. Every person dealing with a registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the title and is not obliged to interpret what is beyond the face of the registered title. Hence the court ruled that the subsequent buyers obtained the property from a clean title in good faith and for value. On one hand, the Capays are guilty of latches. After they filed the notice for lis pendens, the same was not annotated in the TRB title. They did not take any action for 15 years to find out the status of the title upon knowing theforeclosureof the property. In consideration to the declaration of the mortgage as null and void for want of consideration, the foreclosure proceeding has no legal effect. However, in as much as the Capays remain to be the real owner of the property it has already been passed to purchasers in good faith and for value. Therefore, the property cannot be taken away to their prejudice. Thus, TRB is duty bound to pay the Capays the fair market value of the property at the time they sold it toSantiago.

4

Moscoso v. CA, April 24, 1984

FACTSOn March 22, 1966, petitioner applied forland registrationof a 1,147 square meters residential lot situated in the poblacion of the municipality of Palo, province of Leyte, bounded and described in Survey Plan Psu-54699 of the then General LandRegistration Officeas verified and approved underdateJune 16, 1927. Her application substantially stated that petitioner is the owner in fee simple of the land and improvements thereon as her acquisition by inheritance from her father, the late Pascual Monge y Vigera who died on June 9, 1950, and that the same parcel of land is her share in a partial partition of estate she and her brothers and sisters executed on May 22, 1964 at Palo, Leyte (Exhibit "K"); that she and her predecessors in interest have been in continuous, public, actual and adverse possession of the land applied for since time immemorial until the present; that at the last assessment fortaxation, said lot was assessed in her name under Tax Declaration No. 28260 dated May 24, 1964 (Exhibit H and that the taxes are fully paid up to the current year; that to the best of her knowledge and belief, there is no incumbrance or any kind whatsoever affecting said land nor any other person having interest therein, legal or equitable, in posession, remainder, reversion or expectancy; and that the land is now being rented by lessees of the applicant, namely, Angel Encenares, Olanda Bribe, Timoteo Noblejas, Felisa Adre, Celestina Solana, Baltazar Collado, all of Palo, Leyte.After due publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing of the petition in the Official Gazette, Vol. 62, Nos. 46 and 47, issues dated November 14 and 21, 1966 (Exhibit"C"), only the Highway District Engineer of Leyte as public oppositors, and Concordia Lanuncia, Flaviano L. Marchadesch, Jr., and herein private respondent Maximina L. Moron as private oppositors appeared for the initial hearing before thetrial court. The trial court summarily dismissed the opposition of the Highway DistrictEngineerwho merely sought to secure a reservation for a road right-of-way in favor of thenational governmentin view of petitioner's willingness to annotate the same on the certificate of title which might issue. The opposition of theprivate partiesthus remained.

ISSUEWhether or not the registration under the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem.

HELDYes. The proceeding for the registration of title to land under the Torrens system is an action in rem, not in personam. Section 2, PD No. 1529, expressly states that judicial proceedings for the registration of lands shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system. The decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED in the sense that the adjudication of the land subject of the land registration proceedings shall be in the co-ownership of petitioner-applicant Andrea M. Moscoso for 12/13 share and to oppositor-private respondent Maximina L. Moron for 1/13 share. In all other aspects, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

..END..SAFA

1