torrens system cases

7/28/2019 Torrens System Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torrens-system-cases 1/4

Alba vs. Dela Cruz

G.R. No. 5246

Sept. 16, 1910

FACTS: The petitioners herein are the he only heirs of Doña Segunda Alba Clemente and Honorato Grey. The four petitioners,

as co-owners, on Dec. 18, 1906 sought to have registered a parcel of agricultural land in Bulacan. The petition was accompaniedby a plan and technical description of the said lot. After hearing the court, on Feb. 12, 1908, entered a decree directing that

described in the petition be registered in the names of the 4 petitioners.

On Jun, 1908, Anacleto Ratilla de la Cruz filed a motion in the Court of Land Registration (CLR) asking for a revision of the case,

including the decision, upon the ground that he is the absolute owner of the 2 parcels of land described in said motion and which

he alleges to be included in the lands decreed to the petitioners. He alleges that the decree of Feb. 12, 1908 was obtained

maliciously and fraudulently by the petitioners, thereby depriving him of said lands. For him, The

petitioners deliberately omitted to include in their registration his name as one of the occupants of the land so as to be given

notice of registration. He further alleged having inherited the 2 lots from his father, Baldomero R. de la Cruz, who had a state

grant for the same (was duly inscribed in the old register of property in Bulacan on April 6, 1895.)

He therefore asked a revision of the case, and that the said decree be modified so as to exclude the two parcels of land

described in said motion. The Land Court upon this motion reopened the case, and after hearing the additional evidence

presented by both parties, rendered, on the Nov. 23, 1908, its decision modifying the former decree by excluding from the

same the two parcels of land claimed by Anacleto Ratilla de la Cruz.

From this decision and judgment the petitioners appealed.

The court below held that the failure on the part of the petitioners to include the name of the appellee in their petition, as an

occupant of these two parcels of land, was a violation of section 21 of Act No. 496, and that this constituted fraud within the

meaning of section 38 of said Land Registration Act. The trial court further held that the grant from the estate should prevail over

the public document of purchase of 1864.

ISSUE:

1. Did the court below commit an error in reopening this case in June, 1908, after its decree had been entered in February of

the same year?

2. Whether or not,the petitioners did obtain the decree of Feb 12, 1908, by means of fraud.

HELD: The judgment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby reversed and judgment entered in favor of the

petitioners in conformity with the decree of the lower court of February 12, 1908.

1. The said decree of February 12, 1908, should not have been opened on account of the absence, infancy, or other disability of

any person affected thereby, and could have been opened only on the ground that the said decree had been obtained

by fraud.

2. The application for the registration is to be in writing, signed and sworn to by the applicant, or by some person duly authorized

in his behalf. It is to contain, among other things, the names and addresses of all occupants of land and of all adjoining

owners, if known.

The subject land was first rented to Baldomero de la Cruz by petitioners’ uncle Jose Grey and this contract was duly executed in

writing. (While the appellee admits that his father and brother entered into these rental contracts and did, in fact, cultivate the

petitioners’ land, nevertheless he insists that the two small parcels in question were not included in these contracts)

The subsequent State grant was obtained by Baldomero after the death of the petitioners’ parents and while he pet itioners were

minors. So it is clear that the petitioners honestly believed that the appellee was occupying the said parcels as their lessee at the

time they presented their application for registration. They did not act in bad faith, nor with any fraudulent intent, when they

omitted to include in their application the name of the appellee as one of the occupants of the land. They believed that it was not

necessary nor required that they include in their application the names of their tenants.



Indeed, the Land Registration Act requires that all occupants be named in the petition and given notice by registered mail.

However, this did not do the appellee any good, as he was not notified; but he was made a party defendant, as we have said, by

means of the publication “to all whom it may concern.”Every decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto,

subject only to the [given] exceptions. 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.”

As to whether or not the appellee can succesfully maintain an action under the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Land

Registration Act (secs. 2365, 2366, Compilation) we do not decide.

NOTES:

1. The main principle of registration is to make registered titles indefeasible.

1. The element of intention to deprive another of just rights constitutes the essential characteristics of actual - as

distinguished from legal-fraud

1. Looked at either from the point of view of history or of the necessary requirements of justice, a proceeding in rem dealing

with a tangible res may be instituted and carried to judgment without personal service upon claimants within the State or

notice by name to those outside of it, and not encounter any provision of either constitution. Jurisdiction is secured by the

power of the court over the res. As we have said, such a proceeding would be impossible, were this not so, for it hardly

would do to make a distinction between the constitutional rights of claimants who were known and those who were not

known to the plaintiff, when the proceeding is to bar all. (Tyler vs. Judges, supra.)

1. action in rem vs. action in personam:

If the technical object of the suit is to establish a claim against some particular person, with a judgment which generally, in theory

at least, binds his body, or to bar some individual claim or objection, so that only certain persons are entitled to be heard in

defense, the action is in personam, although it may concern the right to or possession of a tangible thing. If, on the other hand,

the object 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 strenght of alleging facts which, if true, show an

inconsistent interest, the proceeding is in rem. (Tyler vs. Judges, supra.)

5. Proof of constructive fraud is not sufficient to authorize the Court of Land Registration to reopen a case and modify its decree.

Specific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive anther of his right, or in some manner injure him, must be alleged and proved;

that is, there must be actual or positive fraud as distinguished from constructive fraud

6. Advantages of the Torrens System:

1. It has substituted security for insecurity. law library

2. It has reduced the costs of conveyances from pounds to shillings, and the time occupied from months to days. law library

3. It has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage. law library

4. It has so simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the “three R’s” can transact his own conveyancing. law librar y

5. It affords protection against fraud.

6. It has restored to their just value many estates held under good holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur or

technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults. (Sheldon on Land Registration, pp. 75, 76.)



October 2, 1915G.R. No. L-8936CONSUELO LEGARDA, with her husband MAURO PRIETO, plainti ffs-appellants,vs. N.M. SALEEBY,defendant-appellee.S i n g s o n , L e d e s m a a n d L i m f o r a p p e l l a n t s . D . R . W i l l i a m s f o r a p p e l l e e . JOHNSON, J.:

FACTS: Consuelo Legarda and N.M. Saleeby are owners of adjoining lots in Ermita, Mani la. Between their lots is a stone wal l which is located on the lot of the plaint i f fs. On March 2, 1906, Consuelo andher husband presented a pet i t ion in the Court of Land Regist rat ion to register their lot . The regist rat ionwas al lowed on October 25, 1906. They were then issued an or iginal cert i f icate and the t i t le wasregistered. Both included the wal l . On March 25, 1912, the predecessor of N.M. Saleeby presenteda pet i t ion in the Court of Land Regist rat ion for regist rat ion. The court decreed the regist rat ion of the landwhich also included the wal l . The plaint i f fs Consuelo and Mauro, her husband, discovered that the wal l hasalso been registered to N.M. Saleeby. They presented a pet i t ion in the Court of Land Regist rat ion for adjustment and correct ion of the error where the wal l was indicated in both regist rat ions. However, thelower court contended that dur ing the pendency of the pet i t ion for the regist rat ion of the defendants land,they fai led to make an y object ion to the regist rat ion of said lot , including the wal l , in the name of thedefendant .

ISSUE: WON the defendant is the owner of the wal l and the land occupied by i t?

RULING: NO. The lower court ’s decision would cal l for the plaint i f fs to be always alert and see to i t that noother part ies wi l l register the wal l and i ts land. Else, i f they spot ted someone register ing such wal l in their own name, plaint i f f must immediately oppose. Such would become defeat the real purpose of the Torrenssystem of land regist rat ion.

The real purpose of that system is to quiet t i t le to land; to put a stop forever to any quest ion of the legal i tyof the t i t le, except c laims which were noted at the t ime of regist rat ion, in the cert i f icate, or which may ar isesubsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, i t would seem that once a t i t le is registered theowner may rest secure, without the necessity of wait ing in the portals of the court , or s i t t ing in the mirador de su casa, to avoid the possibi l i ty of losing his land.

So who owns the land? According to Torrens system, the plaint i f fs. Under our law, once a party registersthe land, f inal and in good fai th, no third part ies may claim interest on the same land. The r ights of the

ent ire wor ld are foreclosed by the decree of regist rat ion.

The regist rat ion, under the Torrens system, does not give the owner any bet ter t i t le than he had. Theregist rat ion of a part icular parcel of land is a bar to future l i t igat ion over the same between the samepart ies. I t is a not ice to the world and no one can plead ignorance of the regist rat ion. Adopt ing the rulewhich we bel ieve to be more in consonance with the purposes and the real intent of the torrens system, weare of the opinion and so decree that in case land has been registered under the Land Regist rat ion Act inthe name of two dif ferent persons, the ear l ier in date shal l prevai l . The presumpt ion is that the purchaser has examined every instrument of record af fect ing the t i t le. This presumpt ion is IRREBUTABLE. I t cannotbe overcome by proof of innocence or good fai th. Otherwise the very purpose and object of the lawrequir ing a record would be destroyed. The rule is that al l persons must take not ice of the facts which thepubl ic record contains is a rule of law. The rule must be absolute. Any var iat ion would lead to end lessconfusion and useless l i t igat ion.

DECISION: Judgment of the lower court was revoked. The wal l and the land where i t s i ts are awarded tothe plaint i f fs.



Legarda vs Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590; GR No. 8936, October 2, 1915

(Land Titles and Deeds – Purpose of the Torrens System of Registration)

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.

Traders Royal Bank vs. CA

Facts: A parcel of land owned by the spouses Capay was mortgage to and subsequentlyextrajudicially foreclosed by TradersRoyal Bank (TRB). To prevent property sale in public auction, the Capays filed a petition for preliminary injunction alleging themortgage was void because they did not receive the proceeds of the loan. A notice of lis pendens (suit pending) was filed beforethe Register of Deeds with the notice recorded in the Day Book. Meanwhile, a foreclosure sale proceeded with the TRB as thesole and winning bidder. The Capays title was cancelled and a new one was entered in TRB’s name without the notice of lispendens carried over the title. The Capays filed recovery of the property and damages. Court rendered a decision declaring themortgage was void for want of consideration and thus cancelled TRB’s 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 sincethey purchase the land after it became a subject in a pending suit before the court. Although the lis pendens notice was notcarried over the titles, its recording in the Day Book constitutes registering of the land and notice to all persons with adverseclaim over the property. TRB was held to be in bad faith upon selling the property while knowing it is pending for litigation. TheCapays 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

Ruling:

The court ruled that a Torrens title is presumed to be valid which purpose is to avoid conflicts of title to real properties. When thesubsequent buyers bought the property there was no lis pendens annotated on the title. Every person dealing with a registeredland 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 onehand, 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 theforeclosure of the property. Inconsideration to the declaration of the mortgage as null and void for want of consideration, the foreclosure proceeding has nolegal effect. However, in as much as the Capays remain to be the real owner of the property it has already been passed topurchasers in good faith and for value. Therefore, the property cannot be taken away to their prejudice. Thus, TRB is duty boundto pay the Capays the fair market value of the property at the time they sold it to Santiago.

torrens system cases

Documents