NHA vs Basa [Primary Entry Book]
The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right) gains
Fact: Sheriff certificate was only inscribed on the owner’s duplicate certificate of title and not
on the certificate of title in the possession of the RD.
Ruling:
The annotation in the owner’s duplicate copy was sufficient because entry alone
produces the effect of registration.
Entry in the primary book produces the effect of registration can be applied in the
situation obtaining in that case since the registrant therein complied with all that was
required of it.
It was not NHA's fault that the certificate of sale was not annotated on the transfer
certificates of title which were supposed to be in the custody of the Registrar, since the same
were burned. Neither could NHA be blamed for the fact that there were no reconstituted
titles available during the time of inscription as it had taken the necessary steps in having the
same reconstituted. NHA did everything within its power to assert its right.
While it may be true that, in DBP, the Court ruled that "in the particular situation here
obtaining, annotation of the disputed entry on the reconstituted originals of the certificates of
title to which it refers is entirely proper and justified," this does not mean, as respondents
insist, that the ruling therein applies exclusively to the factual milieu and the issue obtaining
in said case, and not to similar cases. There is nothing in the subject declaration that
categorically states its pro hac vice character. For in truth, what the said statement really
conveys is that the current doctrine that entry in the primary book produces the effect of
registration can be applied in the situation obtaining in that case since the registrant
therein complied with all that was required of it, hence, it was fairly reasonable that its acts
be given the effect of registration, just as the Court did in the past cases.
San Lorenzo vs CA [Double Sales]
Facts:
Sps Lu contract to sell with Babasanta
Sps Lu sold the property to SLDC
In this case, there was no double sale because Sps Lu and Babasanta’s transaction was a mere
contract to sell.
Assuming arguendo, there was contract to sale.
In double sales of immovables, first who registered it in good faith shall be preferred. Sale
with SLDC was consummated before knowledge of the defect. Hence, SLDC was a purchaser
in good faith.
greater significance in case of double sale of immovable property. When the thing
sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first records it in the
Registry of Property, both made in good faith, shall be deemed the owner. 38
Verily, the act of registration must be coupled with good faith— that is, the
registrant must have no knowledge of the defect or lack of title of his vendor or
must not have been aware of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry
and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the
title of his vendor.
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and
fair price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the
claim or interest of some other person in the property.
Antonio vs Santos [Double Sales]
Facts: Petitioner wanted to register. He then found out that one of the lots was already titled
in the name of the respondent. He alleged there was fraud.
Ruling: Respondent is the rightful owner.
First registrant in good faith.
This Court has ruled that, when two certificates of title are issued to different persons
covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail; and in case
of successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the same
land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person
who relies on a subsequent certificate.
1) earlier in date 2) possession of respondent while petitioner never did 3) no
evidence of fraud 4) if there was fraud, it has already prescribed. Complaint lapsed
four-year requirement from issuance of title.
Legarda vs CA [Innocent Purchaser for Value]
Fact: Property of Legarda due to negligence of the counsel was sold to Cabrera, manager of
Cathay and to other subsequent purchaser
Ruling: No reconveyance as it is already in the hands of innocent purchasers of value who
relied on.
"(i)t is settled doctrine that one who deals with property registered under the
Torrens system need not go beyond the same, but only has to rely on the title. He is
charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title." 7
In the case at bar, it is not disputed that no notice of lis pendens was ever annotated
on any of the titles of the subsequent owners. And even if there were such a notice,
it would not have created a lien over the property because the main office of a lien
is to warn prospective buyers that the property they intend to purchase is the
subject of a pending litigation. Therefore, since the property is already in the hands
of Luminlun, an innocent purchaser for value, it can no longer be returned to its
original owner by Cabrera, much less by Cathay itself. cdphil