Legarda vs.

Saleeby
MARCH 25, 2011 ~ VBDIAZ
Legarda vs. Saleeby
G.R. No. 8936
October 2, 1915
FACTS: The plaintiffs and the defendant occupy, as owners, adjoining lots in the district of
Ermita in the city of Manila. There exists and has existed a number of years a stone wall
between the said lots. Said wall is located on the lot of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, March 2,
1906, presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of their lot,
which decreed that the title of the plaintiffs should be registered and issued to them the
original certificate provided for under the Torrens system. Said registration and
certificate included the wall.
Later the predecessor of the defendant presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration
for the registration of the lot now occupied by him. On March 25, 1912, the court decreed the
registration of said title and issued the original certificate provided for under the Torrens
system. The description of the lot given in the petition of the defendant also included said wall.
On December 13, 1912 the plaintiffs discovered that the wall which had been included in the
certificate granted to them had also been included in the certificate granted to the defendant
.They immediately presented a petitionin the Court of Land Registration for an adjustment and
correction of the error committed by including said wall in the registered title of each of said
parties.
The lower court however, without notice to the defendant, denied said petition upon the
theory that, during the pendency of the petition for the registration of the defendant’s land,
they failed to make any objection to the registration of said lot, including the wall, in the name
of the defendant.
ISSUE: Who is the owner of the wall and the land occupied by it?
HELD: The decision of the lower court is based upon the theory that the action for the
registration of the lot of the defendant was a judicial proceeding and that the judgment or
decree was binding upon all parties who did not appear and oppose it
Granting that theory to be correct one , then the same theory should be applied to the
defendant himself. Applying that theory to him, he had already lost whatever right he had
therein, by permitting the plaintiffs to have the same registered in their name, more than six
years before. Having thus lost hid right, may he be permitted to regain it by simply including it
in a petition for registration?
For the difficulty involved in the present case the Act (No. 496) provides for the registration of
titles under the Torrens system affords us no remedy. There is no provision in said Act giving the
parties relief under conditions like the present. There is nothing in the Act which indicates who
should be the owner of land which has been registered in the name of two different persons.
We have decided, in case of double registration under the Land Registration Act, that the
owner of the earliest certificate is the owner of the land. May this rule be applied to
successive vendees of the owners of such certificates? Suppose that one or the other of the
parties, before the error is discovered, transfers his original certificate to an “innocent
purchaser.” The general rule is that the vendee of land has no greater right, title, or interest
than his vendor; that he acquires the right which his vendor had, only. Under that rule the
vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner as against the vendee of the owner of
the later certificate.
It would be seen to a just and equitable rule, when two persons have acquired equal rights in
the same thing, to hold that the one who acquired it first and who has complied with all the
requirements of the law should be protected.
In view of our conclusions, above stated, the judgment of the lower court should be and is
hereby revoked. The record is hereby returned to the court now having and exercising the
jurisdiction heretofore exercised by the land court, with direction to make such orders and
decrees in the premises as may correct the error heretofore made in including the land in the
second original certificate issued in favor of the predecessor of the appellee, as well as in all
other duplicate certificates issued

Republic v. Hon. Umali

Lagangang Butas LAW July 19, 2017 2 Minutes
Republic v. Hon. Umali
G.R. No. 80687, 10 April 1989
Facts:
1) Land in question originally purchased on installment from the government by Florentina
Bobadilla, who transferred her right thereto in favor of Martina Cenizal, et al. Tomasa and Julio
assigned their shares to Martina, Maria and Gregorio, who, in 1971, signed a joint affidavit that
they were entitled to the issuance of a certificate of title over the said land, and that they had
already paid in full.
2) Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources executed a deed, and thereafter a TCT. Several
transfers thereafter followed.
3) Republic filed a complaint for reversion on the ground that the original sale of the land was
tainted with fraud based on forgery, and therefore, void ab initio; claimed that Gregorio died in
1943, Maria in 1959, and could not have signed the joint affidavit.
4) Respondent claimed that they all acquired the property in good faith and for value, invoked
estoppel, laches, prescription and res judicata, others invoked no cause of action as no rights
were violated, government not a real party-in-interest because the land is already covered by
Torrens system.
Issue:
May deception/fraud in the registration of title make the sale null and void, so as to make all
titles derived therefrom ineffectual ab initio?
Ruling:
No. The status of the defendants as innocent transferees for value was never questioned, and
such accorded them the protection of the Torrens system, thus rendering the titles obtained
indefeasible and conclusive.
In the present case, the private respondents acquired the land not by direct grant but in fact after
several transfers following the original sales thereof. They are presumed to be innocent
transferees for value.
The land now being registered under the Torrens system, the government has no more control or
jurisdiction over it; it is no longer part of the public domain.
NB:
A holder in bad faith is not entitled to the protection of the law.
If the patent and the OCT were procured by means of fraud, the land would not revert back to
the State precisely because it has become a private land. The original transfer was not null and
void ab initio but was only voidable. The land remained private as long as the title thereto had
not been voided. In such case, the nullity arises, not from fraud or deceit, but from the fact that
the land is not under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands (now Land Management Bureau).
Sec. 39, Land Registration Act:
Every person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every
subsequent purchaser of registered land who takes/taking a certificate of title for value in good
faith shall hold the same free of all encumbrance except those noted on said certificate.
Sec. 44, P.D. 1529 – Property Registration Decree:
Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration,
and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in
good faith, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted on said certificate
and any of following encumbrances which may be subsisting, and enumerated in law.

Pino vs. CA
MARCH 25, 2011 ~ VBDIAZ

Pino vs. CA
G.R. No. 94114
June 19, 1991
FACTS: The decision of the CA affirming in toto the decision of the RTC of
Echague, Isabela is now being assailed in the instant petition for certiorari.

Lot 6 was acquired by the spouses Juan Gaffud and Rafaela Donato. Juan
Gaffud died in 1936. On Jan. 11, 1938, Lot 6 was originally registered (OTC
No. 4340) in the Registration Book of the Office of the RD in the names of
Rafaela, Raymundo and Cicero Gaffud (sons of spouses) as co-owners, . The
said lot was sold to Rafaela Donato through a Deed of Transfer which
cancelled OTC NO. 4340 and in lieu thereof a TCT was issued in the name of
Rafaela alone.
On Feb. 1967, Rafaela sold a portion of Lot 6 in favor in Fortunato Pascua.
The aforesaid sale caused the subdivision of the said lot into Lot-6-A and Lot-
6-B. Upon registration of said sale in favor of Pascua, TCT No. T-32683 was
issued in the name of Rafaela Donato on March 2, 1967 covering the land
designated as Lot 6-B.

On Jun. 10, 1970, Rafaela Donato sold to petitioner Felicisima Pino said Lot-
6-B as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale which was duly notarized.
Rafaela undertook to register said Deed with the RD of Isabela and on July
13, 1970, the sale was inscribed therein and a TCT was issued in the
name of Felicisima Pino.

On Sept. 1980, Cicero Gaffud died survived by his wife Demetrian and sons
Romulo and Adolfo, private respondents herein.

On March 9, 1982, private respondents filed a complaint for nullity of sale

and reconveyance against petitioner — Felicisima Pino. (During the
pendency of the case before the trial court, Rafaela Donato, who was not a
party to the case, died on November her 26, 1982.)
The RTC ruled and this was sustained by respondent CA that petitioner Pino
is not a purchaser in good faith, so (a) the Deed of Absolute Sale made by
Rafaela in favor of Pino null and void insofar as the shares of Cicero and
Raymundo are concerned, (b) cancellation of TCT No. 49380 in the name of
Pino and (c) reconvey one-half of Lot-6-B to plaintiffs withing 10 days.

ISSUE:
1. 1. WON Felicisima Pino is a purchaser in good faith
2. 2. WON the filing of an action for reconveyance has already prescribed
HELD:

1. The rule applicable to this controversy is well-settled. Where the

certificate of title is in the name of the vendor when the land is sold, the
vendee for value has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate of
title. In the absence of anything to excite or arouse suspicion, said vendee is
under no obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of
the vendor appearing on the face of said certificate.
In the case at bar, the evidence on record discloses that when petitioner
purchased the subject property on June 10, 1970, the title was in the name
of her vendor Rafaela Donato alone.
There was no allegation, and much less any evidence, that the transfer of
the subject property from the original owners (Rafaela, Cicero and
Raymundo) to Rafaela Donato was fraudulent.

3. TCT No. T-32683 was issued in the name of Rafaela Donato on March 2,
1967. The present action for reconveyance was filed only on March 9,
1982. Clearly then, the action has already prescribed because it was filed
fifteen (15) years after the issuance of TCT No. T-32683
If an action for reconveyance based on constructive trust cannot reach an
innocent purchaser for value, the remedy of the defrauded party is to bring
an action for damages against those who caused the fraud or were
instrumental in depriving him of the property. And it is now well-settled that
such action prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens Title
over the property. (Armerol v. Bagumbaran, 154 SCRA 396, 407; Caro v.
Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 401, 407; Walstron v. Mapa, Jr., 181 SCRA 431,
442).

Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, Patria Capay, et al G.R. No. 118862, Sept. 24, 1999 (315 SCRA
190)

FACTS:

 A parcel of land owned by the spouses Capay was mortgaged to and subsequently extrajudicially
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 TRB’s 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 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 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:

Who has the better right over the land in dispute in the present case?

HELD:

The purchasers in good faith.

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.