AN OVERVIEW OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS. rae3
- A Torrens certificate of title services as evidence of anindefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose names appear therein.
( See Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160, Muyco vs CA, 204 SCRA 358, Tirado vsSevilla, 188 SCRA 321, Ortegas vs Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 6356, Jacob vs CA, 266 SCRA189)
Title to the property covered by a Torrens certificate becomesincontrovertible or indefeasible after one year from the entry of the decreeif registration.
**SeePD 1529, Sec 32 Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 208 SCRA 215 Reyes and Nadres vs Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil 791Jacob vs Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189Trinidad vs IAC, 204 SCRA 524Tirado vs Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Association, Inc, vs CA, 254 SCRA 220 Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160 Muyco vs CA, 204 SCRA 358 Ortegas vs. Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 635 Republic vs De Guzman, 326 SCRA 267 Heirs of Simplicio Santiago vs Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago, 404 SCRA 193
A Torrens Title is Imprescriptible
(See PD 1529, Sec 47; Vda. de Villanueva vs CA, 351 SCRA 12)
No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the unregisteredowner shall be acquried by prescription or adverse possesion.
See:PD 1529, Sec 17 Viacrucis vs CA, 44 SCRA 176 J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93 SCRA 146 Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA 390 umbay vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 Cimafranca vs IAC, 147 SCRA 611Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA 248 Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133Jacob vs. CA, 224 SCRA 198 Caiña vs. CA, 239 SCRA 252 Rivera vs. CA, 244 SCRA 218
The owner of the land registered under the Torrens System cannot lose it byprescription
See:Bishop vs CA, 208 SCRA 636 Ruvera vs CA, 244 SCRA 218 J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93 SCRA 146 Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484 Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA 390 Umbay vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 Cimafranca vs IAC, 147 SCRA 611Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA 248 Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133Jacob vs. CA, 224 SCRA 198 Caiña vs. CA, 239 SCRA 252 Vda. de Villanueva vs CA, 351 SCRA 12
Integrity of Titles
-The integrity of the Torrens System must be protected.Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctnessof the certificate of title issued therefore and the law will in no way oblige himto go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property. Staeddifferently, an innocent purchaser for value, relying on a Torrens title issued, isprotected.G.
Not Subject to Collateral Attack
- A certfificate of title shall not be subjectto collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except in adirect proceeding in accordance with law.
See. PD. 1529. Sec. 48; See also National Grains Authority vs IAC, 157 SCRA 380;Tan vs. Philippines Banking Corp., 355 SCRA 292; Windows and Orphans Association, Inc. vs CA, 201 SCRA 165; Toyota Motor Phils. Corp vs CA, 216 SCRA236)
-The person in whose name the land isfraudulently registered holds it as a mere trustee, with the legal obligation toreconvey the properry and the title thereto in favor of the true owner.
(Pajarillovs IAC, 176 SCRA 340)
A Torrens title cannot be used as a shield for fraud or for enriching aperson at the expense of another
(Vda. De Recinto vs Inciong, 77 SCRA 196;Legarda and Prieto vs Saleeby, 31 Phil 590)
The Torrens system was not designed to shield and protect one who hadcommitted fraud or misrepresentation and thus holds title in bad faith.
(Walstrom vs. Mapa, Jr., 181 SCRA 431)
The Torrens system only protects a title holder in good faith, and cannotbe used as shield for fraud and chicanery. Deceit is not to becountenanced; duplicity is not to be rewarded.
(Philippine Commercial &Industrial Bank vs Villalva, 48 SCRA 31)
The Torrens title cannot cover up frauds.
(Adille vs. CA, 157 SCRA 672)
- Any registration procured by the presentation of a forgedduplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument shall be nulland void (PD 1529 Sec 23)A forged instrument may become the "root of a valid title".
(Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)
A fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the root of a valid titleif the certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of thetrue owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger.
(See Duran vs. IAC, 138 SCRA 489; De la Cruz vs Fabie, 35 Phil 14; Roman Catholic Bishop vs Philippine Railway, 49 Phil. 546)
The doctrine that a forged instrument may become the root of a valid titlecannot be applied where the owner still holds a valid and existing certificateof title covering the same interest in a realty.
(Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)
As between two innocent persons, the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss
(See: Legardavs CA, 280 SCRA 642; Cabuhat vs CA, 366 SCRA 176; Tomas vs. Tomas, 98 SCRA280; Traders Royal Bank vs. CA, 315 SCRA 190)
As between two persons, both of them whom are in good faith and bothinnocent of any negligence, the law must protect and prefer the lawfulholder of registered title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of anytransmissible rights.
(Baltazar vs. CA, 168 SCRA 354; Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA672)
Priority of Rights
- "Prior tempore potior jure" -He who is first in time ispreferred in right.The act of registration in the Registry of Deeds shall be the operative act toconvey or affect the lanf insofar as third persons are concerned.L.
. Where two certificates of title include the same land, thecertificate that is earlier in date prevails.
(Garcia vs CA, 95 SCRA 380)
Presumptions: Regular and Valid
- Torrens title presumed to have beenissued regularly and legally.
(Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA 65, Ching vs. Malaya, 153SCRA 412; Ofrecio vs. Lising, 159 SCRA 366, Republic vs. Umali, 171 SCRA 647;People vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 597, Bishop vs. CA, 208 SCRA 636)
A strong presumption exists that a Torrens title is regularly issued and that itis valid.
(Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA 65)
A Torrens title is presumed to have been issued regularly and legally,unless contradicted and overcome by clear, convincing, strong andirrefutable proof. More than merely preponderant evidence is required.
(Ramos vs. CA, 112 SCRA 542)
Good Faith - The presumption is that the transferee of registered land is notaware of any defect in the title of the property he purchased.
(Tajonera vs CA,103 SCRA 467)
Reliance on the Title
-Every person dealing with registered land maysafely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore.
(See Halili vs Court of Industrial Relations, 257 SCRa 174; Kho vs CA, 214 SCRA 329;Legarda vs CA, 208 SCRA 642; Ibarra vs. Ibarra, Sr, 156 SCRa 616)
One who deals with properly registered under the Torrens System neednot go beyond the same, but only has to rely on the title. He is charge withnotice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title.
(Domingo vs. Roces, 401 SCRA 197)
This principle does not apply when the party has acualknowlege of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonablycautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledgeof a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce areasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the propertyin litigation. One who falls withing the exception can neither be dominatedan innocent purchaser for value nor a puchaser in good faith.
(Domingo vs.Roces, 401 SCRA 197)
An innocent purchaser for value has every right to rely on the correctnessof the title.
(A.D. Guerrero vs. Juntilla, 173 SCRA 572; Gevero vs IAC, 189 SCRA201)