PURPOSE OF TORRENS SYSTEM

DOUBLE REGISTRATION

CASE DIGEST PAPER FOR LAND TITLE AND DEEDS

CASE TITLE: CONSUELO LEGARDA and MAURO PRIETO v. N.M. SALEEBY,

G.R. No. L-8936            
DATE: October 2, 1915

PONENTE: J. JOHNSON

FACTS:

1. The plaintiffs and defendant are both owners of adjoining lots in Ermita Manila and
has been issued original certificate respectively provided for under the Torrens system.
2. The first original certificate has been issued to the plaintiffs including the stone wall
that has existed a number of years between the said lots.
3. 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. In view of this, they filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration for an
adjustment and correction of the error committed by including said wall in the
registered title.
4. However, the lower court denied the said petition by reason of the fact that the
plaintiffs had not opposed the registration of that part of the lot on which the wall was
situated and because of that they had lost it, even though it had been registered in their
name.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not plaintiffs are deprived of their registered title in including a portion of
the land in a subsequent certificate or decree of registration?
2. Whether or not plaintiffs are the owner of land registered in the name of two different
persons.

RULING:

Page 1 of 3
 The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment of lower court is revoked. The record
is hereby ordered returned to the court which has a competent jurisdiction over the case to
make orders and decrees in the premises to correct the error made in including the land in the
second original certificate issued in favor of the predecessor of the appellee (Saleeby), as well
as in all other duplicate certificates issued.

ALAC FORMAT

1st Issue:

Yes. The plaintiffs have been deprived of their registered title when a portion of the
land is included in a subsequent certificate or decree of registration.
The real purpose of that system (Torrens system) 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.
In the instant case, when the Court of Land Registration dismissed the plaintiff’s
petition for an adjustment and correction of error committed by including the wall in the title
of defendant constitutes a deprivation of their registered title. Although the rule says that if
title once registered, with very few exceptions, should not thereafter be impugned, altered,
changed, modified, enlarged, or diminished, except in some direct proceeding permitted by
law. Otherwise all security in registered titles would be lost.

2nd Issue:

Yes. The plaintiffs are the owner of land registered in the name of two different
persons.

The rule provides that in the case of two certificates of

title, purporting to include the same land, the
earlier in date prevails, whether the land

Page 2 of 3
comprised in the latter certificate be wholly, or
only in part, comprised in the earlier certificate.
In the instant case, the plaintiffs have caused first for the registration and titling of the
land which included the stone wall that has existed and the effect of which is undoubtedly the
holder of the earlier one continues to hold the title.

Thus, the plaintiffs were the owner of land registered in the name of two different
persons.

Page 3 of 3