LTD ~ SET 5

1



1

Legarda v. Saleeby, October 2, 1915

FACTS A 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.
ISSUE Who should be the owner of a land and its improvement which has been registered under the name of
two persons?
HELD For 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 the mirador 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.

2

Grey Alba v. Dela Cruz, September 16, 1910

FACTS On December 18, 1906 petitioner heirs 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 to the 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.
ISSUE Whether or not the modification of the decree as to exclude said land will prosper.
HELD No, 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 is in rem when the object of the action is to
bar indifferently all 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 of alleging facts which, if
true, show an inconsistent interest.

3

Traders Royal Bank v. CA, September 24, 1999

FACTS A parcel of land owned by the spouses Capay was mortgage to and subsequently extra judicially
foreclosed by Traders Royal Bank (TRB). To prevent property sale in public 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
the court, TRB sold the land to Santiago who 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 in good faith since 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 in bad faith upon 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.
ISSUE 1. Who has the better right over the land in dispute?
2. Whether or not TRB is liable for damages?
LTD ~ SET 5

2

HELD The court ruled that a Torrens title is presumed to be valid which purpose is to avoid conflicts of title
to real 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 the foreclosure of 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
to Santiago.

4


Moscoso v. CA, April 24, 1984
FACTS On March 22, 1966, petitioner applied for land registration of 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 Land Registration Office as verified and approved
under date June 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 for taxation, 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 the trial
court. The trial court summarily dismissed the opposition of the Highway District Engineer who merely
sought to secure a reservation for a road right-of-way in favor of the national government in view of
petitioner's willingness to annotate the same on the certificate of title which might issue. The opposition
of the private parties thus remained.
ISSUE Whether or not the registration under the Torrens system is a proceeding in rem.
HELD Yes. 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