PURPOSE: TORRENS SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION

TRADERS ROYAL BANK VS COURT OF APPEALS

The dispute started with a mortgage executed by the Capays in favour of the Traders Royal Bank pursuant to a loan
granted by TRB to Capays. Included in the mortgage was a parcel of land.

Upon expiration of loan, TRB instituted an extra-judicial foreclosure proceeding upon the property. However, the
Capays filed a petition for prohibition over the proceeding stating that the mortgage was void since the consideration
was lacking. They applied for a notice of lis pendens over the property which was entered but was not carried on in
the title issued in favour of TRB as the highest bidder during the auction of the property when the injunction was lifted.

The land was later sold to Santiago who later subdivided the land and sold portions of it to 3 other individuals. It must
be noted that the notice of lis pendens was not carried over to the title of TRB as well as to Santiago and her co-
owners.

After many years, the Capays challenged and raised the right of the current owners SC ruled in favour of the non-
bank respondents who acted in good faith and have relied on the face of the title which is the principle object of the
torrens certificate. There was nothing annotated in the title which could have aroused their suspicion regarding an
irregularity of the land. Every person dealing with a registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificates of title issued and that no law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the
condition of the property.

The torrens system was adopted in the land because it was believed to be the most effective measure to ensure and
guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect the indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and
recognized. As the buyers bought the land, the title should provide them confidence in relation to the property that
they are interested to acquire.

Purpose: to avoid possible conflict of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the
public the right to rely on the torrens certificate of title and to dispense further inquiry.

INDEAFISIBILITY

SM PRIME HOLDINGS VS MADAYAG
Petition for review on certiorari regarding CAs setting aside of the RTC decision to suspend proceeding on
respondents application for the registration of land

Facts:
Respondent filed an application for registration in RTC Urdaneta for a parcel of land located in Pangasinan.
Attached to the filing was a tracing cloth of survey plan approved by DENR
Petitioner through their cancel, wrote DENR and asked for the cancellation of the survey stating that there
was an encroachment to the land they recently brought. Together with this opposition is that of the Office of
the Solicitor General and heirs of Visperas. Petitioner alleged that they brought several properties, some of
which titles are already named
DENR Asst RED for Legal Services advised petitioner to file formal complaint to DENR so that the agency
may act on it accordingly. Acting upon the said advise, petitioner in his petition alleged that:
1. There was no alienable/ disposable property subject in this case
2. No notice was made upon petitioner s adjoining owner
3. That based on the circumstances, there was bad faith and/or malice attended in the approval of the
plan in question
Petitioner then filed urgent motion to suspend proceeding in the land registration case asking for the
suspension of the survey taking into consideration the pending complaint that he submitted in DENR. This
was granted by RTC noting that the result on the cancellation of the survey plan is prejudicial to the petition
for land registration
The respondent filed a motion for consideration which was denied by RTC. This resulted to a petition for
certiorari filed in the CA which ruled that there was a grave abuse of discretion by the RTC

Issue:
Should the land registration court dismiss the application for registration based solely on the cancellation of the
survey plan?

Ruling/ Decision:
Land Registration Law (Presidential Decree No. 1529)
Purpose: to finally settle title to real property in order to pre-empt any question on the legality of the title except
claims that were noted on the certificate itself at the time of registration or those that arose subsequent thereto.
Consequently, once the title is registered under the said law, owners can rest secure on their ownership and
possession

Torrens title, a land registration court has the duty to determine whether the issuance of a new certificate of title will
alter a valid and existing certificate of title. An application for registration of an already titled land constitutes a
collateral attack on the existing title, which is not allowed by law.

1. RTC need not wait for the decision of the DENR in the petition to cancel the survey plan in order to
determine whether the subject property is already titled or forms part of already titled property.
The court may now verify this allegation based on the respondents survey plan vis--vis the certificates of
title of the petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest. After all, a survey plan precisely serves to establish the
true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion thereof already
covered by a previous land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by a
subsequent registration of any adjoining land
2. The court may also directly require the DENR and the Land Registration Authority to submit a report on
whether the subject property has already been registered and covered by certificates of title

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS UFINA ABURAL
Important Questions:
a) When does the registration of title, under the Torrens System of Land Registration, especially under the
different Philippine laws establishing the Cadastral System, become final, conclusive, and indisputable?
b) At what stage of the cadastral proceedings does a decree exist in legal contemplation?
c) Does it exist from the moment that the court, after hearing the evidence, adjudicates the land in favor of a
person and then, or later decrees the land in favor of this person, or does it exist when the Chief of the Land
Registration Office transcribes the adjudication in the prescribed form?
Facts:
Cadastal Proceedings were commenced in Occidental Negros upon the application of the Director of Lands.
Notice of proceedings was published in the Official Gazette and interested parties were given notice.
Subject to the said proceeding is lot no 1608 which was subsequently registered to Siguenza and Guanzon.
Few months after the proceeding, private respondents claimed that lot no 1608 was part of their property
and that Siguenza and Guanzon committed fraud in order to register the land under their name.
It is worthy to note that herein petitioners reside in the municipality and are said to have participated in other
cadastral cases yet they did not enter any opposition to this lot in question


Decision/ Ruling:
"Every decree of registration shall bind the land, and quiet title thereto. . . . It shall be conclusive upon and against all
persons, including the Insular Government and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the
application, notice, or citation, or included in the general description To all whom it may concern, Such decree shall
not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any
proceeding in any court for reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of
land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the Court of Land
Registration (Court of First Instance) a petition for review within one year after entry of the decree, provided no
innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest." Section 38 of the Land Registration Law (Act No. 496)

Cadastral System, pursuant to initiative on the part of the Government, titles for all the land within a stated area, are
adjudicated whether or not the people living within this district desire to have titles issued.
Purpose: To serve the public interests, by requiring that the titles to any lands "be settled and adjudicated." Sec 1,
Cadastral Act (no 2259)



Procedure that should be observed in a Cadastral Proceeding to maintain Due Process:
1. The proceedings are initiated by a notice of survey.
2. When the lands have been surveyed and plotted, the Director of Lands, represented by the Attorney
General, files a petition in court praying that the titles to the lands named be settled and adjudicated.
3. Notice of the filing of the petition is then published twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette in both
the English and Spanish languages. All persons interested are given the benefit of assistance by competent
officials and are informed of their rights. A trial is had. "All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the
court and decrees awarded in favor of the persons entitled to the lands or the various parts thereof, and
such decrees, when final, shall be the bases of original certificates of title in favor of said persons." (Act No.
2259, Sec. 11.) Aside from this, the commotion caused by the survey and a trial affecting ordinarily many
people, together with the presence of strangers in the community, should serve to put all those affected on
their guard.

After trial in a cadastral case, three actions are taken.
The first adjudicates ownership in favor of one of the claimants. This constitutes the decision the judgment the
decree of the court, and speaks in a judicial manner.

The second action is the declaration by the court that the decree is final and its order for the issuance of the
certificates of title by the Chief of the Land Registration Office. Such order is made if within thirty days from the date
of receipt of a copy of the decision no appeal is taken from the decision.

The third and last action devolves upon the General Land Registration Office. This office has been instituted "for the
due effectuation and accomplishment of the laws relative to the registration of land." (Administrative Code of 1917,
Sec. 174.) An official found in the office, known as the chief surveyor, has as one of his duties "to prepare final
decrees in all adjudicated cases."

***As a general rule, registration of title under the cadastral system is final, conclusive and indisputable, after the
passage of the thirty-day period allowed for an appeal from the date of receipt by the party of a copy of the judgment
of the court adjudicating ownership without any step having been taken to perfect an appeal. The prevailing party
may then have execution of the judgment as of right and is entitled to the certificate of title issued by the chief of the
Land Registration Office. The exception is the special provision providing for fraud.

However, the allegation of the petitioners that there was fraud in the registration of the title of the other party was
without basis since it was due to the partys failure to complain or speak up for their rights,

It appearing that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros of September 21, 1916, has
become final, and that no action was taken within the time provided by law for the prosecution of an appeal by bill of
exceptions, this court is without jurisdiction.

BORROMEO VS DESCALLAR
The property in question is owned by an Australian national but registered under the name of a Filipina woman whom
he once loved. It must be noted that foreign nationals cannot acquire any property in the country and so the property
was named after herein respondent whom Jambrich cohabited for years.

However, as time changed, the love faded and the relationship fell apart. Both however found new love.

It is then that Jambrich met petitioner whom he bought parts and accessories for his speedboat. Jambrich however
was indebted to petitioner which resulted to his selling of his rights and interests over the property in question to
petitioner.

When petitioner sought to register the deed of assignment, he found out that the property was subject to mortgage.
This resulted to petitioners filing of complaint against respondent to recover and claim rights over the property.

Decision/ Ruling:
Despite the fact that the property was registered under the name of respondent, evidences show that the property
was Jambrichs and that herein petitioner has rights over the property. Thus, the mere fact that the respondent has
the titles of the disputed properties in her name does not necessarily, conclusively and absolutely make her the
owner. A certificate of title implies that the title is quiet, and that it is perfect, absolute and indefeasibl e. However,
there are well-defined exceptions to this rule, as when the transferee is not a holder in good faith and did not acquire
the subject properties for a valuable consideration.

CARMELITA FUDOT VS CATTLEYA LAND INC
Nine lots were brought by Cattleya Land Inc from spouses Troadio and Tecson. Upon registration in the register of
deeds, the register of deeds atty refused to annotate the deed of sale on the titles of three (3) lots because of a
pending case.
However, herein petitioner was able to register the questioned lots under her name by presenting her copy of the title
and a deed of sale purportedly executed by the Tecsons in favour of her.
Respondent protested and Asuncion Tecson even filed an affidavit stating that she never executed such document.
Upon trial, RTC rendered its decision in favour of respondent and ordering the quieting of the land n favour of
Cattleya Land. This decision was also upheld in the CA.

Ruling:
Petitioner argues that this is a case of double sale and that he who registers the land in good faith must be able to
have rights over the land. However, the courts contend that there was no double sale to speak of. There was no sale
that occurred between Fudot and the Tecsons and that the lawful owner of the lots subject to this case is Cattleya
Land

The purpose of Torrens System of registering lands is to ensure that your title over the land is Indefeasible and that
your rights are protected. However, the law will not succumb to fraudulous acts. Regardless of the 1 year prescriptive
period, one can still claim his rights over a land if the ground is Fraud.

BAGUIO VS MICHAEL
The land in question is claimed to be owned by Francisco Baguio when it is shown based on the evidences that it
was Michaels family who cultivated and occupied the land since 1963. Baguio applied for a free patent covering the
land wherein in his application he stated that the land in question was agricultural and that no one is occupying it.
Michael as predecessor in interest protested. Decision of RTC favoured him.

The indefeasibility of a title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation. The registration of a
patent under the Torrens System merely confirms the registrants title. It does not vest title where there is none
because registration under this system is not a mode of acquiring ownership.

PO SUN TAN vs PRICE AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF LEYTE
The lot was sold twice but the last to have bought the land was the first to register the land.

Registration in general, as the law uses the word, means any entry made in the books of the
Registry, including both registration in its ordinary and strict sense, and cancellation, annotation,
and even the marginal notes. In its strick acceptation, it is the entry made in the Registry which
records solemnly and permanently the right of ownership and other real rights

It results as a matter of course since the deed made by Gabino Barreto P. Po Ejap in favor of Jose H. Katigbak was
not only not first recorded in the registry of deeds but never legally so recorded, and since the purchaser who did
record his deed was Price, who secured a Torrens title and transferred the same to the Province of Leyte, that Po
Sun Tun, the holder of a defeasible title, has no legal rights as against Price and the Province of Leyte, the holders of
indefeasible titles. Also, if necessary, it could be ruled that within the meaning of section 38 of the Land Registration
Law, Price and the Province of Leyte are innocent purchasers for value of the disputed property.