Spouses Elipidia Apostol vs Court of Appeal G.R. No. 125375 June 17, 200 Callejo, Sr., J.

: Facts: Spouses Emmanuel and Edna Chua, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioners, Spouses Elpidio and Amelia Apostol. Respondents alleged that they had contracted with the Spouses aulo and !eorgina ascua for the purchase of a parcel of land. "he petitioners, who were present during the negotiations, #er$ally assured the respondents that they would #acate the property within ten %&'( days from the e)ecution of the sale. "he Spouses ascua e)ecuted a *eed of A$solute Sale o#er the property and the impro#ements in fa#or of the respondents. Respondents were issued "ransfer Certificate of "itle. *espite demand the petitioners refused to #acate the property. "he petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents, the Spouses Chua, the Spouses ascua, and the Register of *eeds for annulment of deed of sale and "C". "he petitioners alleged that they had $een in possession of the property since &+,-. .ssue: /hether or not the R"C collaterally attac0ed the title of the spouses Chua o#er the disputed property 1eld: 2es. "he su$ject property is registered under the "orrens System in the names of the petitioners whose title to the property is presumed legal and cannot $e collaterally attac0ed, much less in an action for unlawful detainer. 3o title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner may $e ac4uired $y prescription or ad#erse possession "he Court held that it is an accepted rule that a person who has a torrens title o#er the property, such as the respondents, is entitled to the possession of it. A certificate of title shall not $e su$ject to collateral attac0. .t cannot $e altered, modified or cancelled, e)cept in a direct proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law. The issue of the validity of the title of the respondents can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.

!oli"arpio vs A"tive #an$ G.R. No. 157125 Septe%&er 1', 200( 5uisim$ing, J. Facts: Septem and !relita Rica6a are the registered owners of a parcel of land located at Ayala Ala$ang, 7untinlupa City, co#ered $y "ransfer Certificate of "itle. "hey mortgaged the property to respondent Acti#e 8an0 %formerly 7aunlad Sa#ings and 9oan 8an0(. For failure to settle their o$ligation, respondent foreclosed the mortgage. "he spouses Rica6a also failed to redeem the property during the redemption period. 1ence, respondent consolidated its ownership o#er the property. Respondent su$se4uently filed a etition for .ssuance of /rit of ossession. .luminada :9umen; R. olicarpio opposed it and su$mitted a *eed of Sale. .ssue: /hether or not the petitioner is a third party in possession of the property 1eld: 3o. etitioner<s reliance on the certified true copy which was gi#en to her $y Septem, is misplaced. .t is settled that a person dealing with registered property is charged with notice only of such $urdens and claims which are annotated on the title. etitioner simply $elie#ed Septem<s assurance that the title was clean and accepted a copy consisting only of the first page sans the dorsal page where respondent<s mortgage was annotated. /hat is more, we find it hard to $elie#e that petitioner did not compel the spouses Rica6a to register the sale in her fa#or and to ha#e the proper title issued in her name.

)ui%son vs Suare* G.R. No. +,213(1 April 5, 1'2 =strand, J. Facts: "he deceased a$lo "ecson leased a large fishpond situated in 8ataan, to *a#id 9una for the term of ten years at an annual rent of +''. "wo months later 9una, with the consent of "ecson, assigned the lease to a$lo Suare6. "ecson applied for the registration of the land $ut died $efore the final disposal of the case and the final decree and corresponding certificate of title were issued in the names of Esperan6a "ongco de "rias, as administratri) of "ecson>s estate, and 7a)imiana "ongco, his widow, in e4ual shares. 3either in the final decree nor in the certificate of title was any mention made of the lease in fa#or of Suare6. Esperan6a "ongco de "rias appears to ha#e $een succeeded as administratri) $y 7a)imiana "ongco and the latter as such administratri), and as guardian of the heirs of "ecson, and also in her own $ehalf, granted a lease of the land to the plaintiff 5uimson. *uring the e)ecution of the lease 5uimson 0new that the defendant Suare6 was in possession of the land as a tenant of 7a)imiana "ongco, $y whom he had $een told that the term of Suare6> lease e)pired on 7arch &, &+?&, and there is no e#idence showing that he had notice of the fact that the term e)tended $eyond that date. Suare6 $rought an action against 5uimson and 7a)imiana "ongco to ha#e 5uimson>s lease set aside. .ssue:/ho had $etter right o#er the leased land 1eld: .t is Suare6 who had $etter right. =ne of the principal features of the "orrens System of registration is that all incum$rances on the land or special estates therein shall $e shown, or, at least, intimated upon the certificate of title and a person dealing with the owner of the registered land is not $ound to go $ehind the certificate and in4uire into transactions, the e)istence of which is not there intimated. "here $eing in the present case not indication on the certificate of title of the e)istence of the defendant>s lease, and the certificate therefore showing a clear title and right of possession in fa#or of the lessor, the plaintiff had a perfect right to rely on the lessor>s statement that defendant>s right of possession terminated.