Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    MCIAA vs. Sps Tirol 2

    Uploaded by

    Jezza
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents in a land dispute case. The respondents purchased land in 1993 that was covered by a reconstituted land title issued in 1986. In 1996, the petitioner claimed ownership of the same land, citing its purchase from the original owners in 1986. However, the petitioner only registered the sale under Act 3344 and not under the Land Registration Act, as was required since the land had a Torrens title. As such, the petitioner's registration did not provide proper notice. The Court affirmed that registration must be done properly under the correct law to affect third parties. Since the petitioner's registration was improper, it did not bind the respondents who had acquired the land in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MCIAA vs. Sps Tirol 2

    Uploaded by

    Jezza
    47 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents in a land dispute case. The respondents purchased land in 1993 that was covered by a reconstituted land title issued in 1986. In 1996, the petitioner claimed ownership of the same land, citing its purchase from the original owners in 1986. However, the petitioner only registered the sale under Act 3344 and not under the Land Registration Act, as was required since the land had a Torrens title. As such, the petitioner's registration did not provide proper notice. The Court affirmed that registration must be done properly under the correct law to affect third parties. Since the petitioner's registration was improper, it did not bind the respondents who had acquired the land in good faith.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents in a land dispute case. The respondents purchased land in 1993 that was covered by a reconstituted land title issued in 1986. In 1996, the petitioner claimed ownership of the same land, citing its purchase from the original owners in 1986. However, the petitioner only registered the sale under Act 3344 and not under the Land Registration Act, as was required since the land had a Torrens title. As such, the petitioner's registration did not provide proper notice. The Court affirmed that registration must be done properly under the correct law to affect third parties. Since the petitioner's registration was improper, it did not bind the respondents who had acquired the land in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    47 views1 page

    MCIAA vs. Sps Tirol 2

    Uploaded by

    Jezza
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents in a land dispute case. The respondents purchased land in 1993 that was covered by a reconstituted land title issued in 1986. In 1996, the petitioner claimed ownership of the same land, citing its purchase from the original owners in 1986. However, the petitioner only registered the sale under Act 3344 and not under the Land Registration Act, as was required since the land had a Torrens title. As such, the petitioner's registration did not provide proper notice. The Court affirmed that registration must be done properly under the correct law to affect third parties. Since the petitioner's registration was improper, it did not bind the respondents who had acquired the land in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY vs.

    SPOUSES EDITO
    and MERIAN TIROL and SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND MIRANDA NGO
    G.R. No. 171535 June 05, 2009
    Puno, C.J.:

    Facts:
    • Respondents purchased Lot No. 4763-D on September 15, 1993 after ascertaining
    clean title thereof of the vendor, Mrs. Jenkins, who bought the same on December
    15, 1987 from spouses Cuizon, who bought the same in January 1974 from
    spouses Cuison, the original owners by virtue of Land Registration Act. Spouses
    Cuizon also successfully secured the reconstitution of the land title in 1986.
    • In January 1996, petitioner claimed ownership over Lot No. 4763, in which the
    respondents’ lot is a part of, by way of sale by original owner spouses Cuison to
    the government through the CAA, on March 23, 1986. Since then, the petitioner
    has been in open, continuous, exclusive and adverse possession of the entire lot
    in the concept of an owner. Since the duplicate copy of the title was lost during the
    war, the parties agreed to register the property under Act 3344 pending the
    reconstitution and issuance of title.
    • Petitioner alleged that spouses Cuison again sold the same property in bad faith,
    until respondents became the latest purchaser of a portion thereof, i.e., subject Lot
    No. 4763-D. Petitioner further imputes bad faith to respondents citing the latter’s
    acquisition of their title via a reconstituted one.

    Issue: Whether petitioner has a better right over the subject property.

    Ruling: No. Respondents have the better right.

    Well-settled is the rule that registration of instruments must be done in the


    proper registry in order to effect and bind the land. Prior to the Property Registration
    Decree of 1978, Act No. 496 (or the Land Registration Act) governed the
    recording of transactions involving registered land, i.e., land with a Torrens title.
    On the other hand, Act No. 3344, as amended, provided for the system of
    recording of transactions over unregistered real estate without prejudice to a
    third party with a better right. Accordingly, if a parcel of land covered by a Torrens
    title is sold, but the sale is registered under Act No. 3344 and not under the Land
    Registration Act, the sale is not considered registered and the registration of the deed
    does not operate as constructive notice to the whole world.

    Consequently, the fact that petitioner MCIAA was able to register its Deed of
    Absolute Sale under Act No. 3344 is of no moment, as the property subject of the sale
    is indisputably registered land. Section 50 of Act No. 496 in fact categorically states
    that it is the act of registration that shall operate to convey and affect the land; absent
    any such registration, the instrument executed by the parties remains only as a
    contract between them and as evidence of authority to the clerk or register of deeds
    to make registration.

    An improper registration is no registration at all. Likewise, a sale that is not


    correctly registered is binding only between the seller and the buyer, but it does not
    affect innocent third persons.

    You might also like