G.R. No.

L-21381 April 5, 1924

SANTIAGO QUIMSON, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PABLO SUAREZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

On 1917, the deceased Pablo Tecson leased a large fishpond in Orani, Bataan, to one David
Luna for ten years. Two months later, Luna, with consent of Tecson, assigned the lease to Pablo
Suarez, the defendant. Tecson applied for the registration of the land under Act No. 496 then
died before the final disposal of the case and the final decree and corresponding certificate of
title were issued in the names of Esperanza Tongco de Trias, as administratrix and Maximiana
Tongco, his widow, in equal shares. Neither in the final decree nor in the certificate of title was
any mention made of the lease in favor of Suarez.

Maximiana Tongco, as admininastrix then granted a lease of the land to the plaintiff Quimson. At
the time of the execution of the lease the plaintiff knew that the defendant Suarez was in
possession of the land as a tenant of Maximiana Tongco.

On November 15, 1920, Suarez brought an action in the Court of First Instance against Quimson
and Maximiana Tongco to have Quimson's lease set aside.

ISSUE:

W/ Suarez has a better right over the leased fishpond over Quimson.

HELD:

YES.

The land in question is registered under Act No. 496. The plaintiff's lease is duly entered upon
the certificate of title; the defendant's lease, though prior in date, has never been registered, nor
is any intimation of its existence to be found upon the certificate of title. At the time the plaintiff
entered into his contract of lease, he had knowledge of the fact that the defendant was in
physical possession of the land.

One of the principal features of the Torrens System of registration is that all incumbrances on the
land or special estates therein shall be shown, or, at least, intimated upon the certificate of title
and a person dealing with the owner of the registered land is not bound to go behind the
certificate and inquire into transactions, the existence of which is not there intimated. There being
in the present case not indication on the certificate of title of the existence of the defendant's
lease, and the certificate therefore showing a clear title and right of possession in favor of the
lessor, the plaintiff had a perfect right to rely on the lessor's statement that defendant's right of
possession terminated on April 30, 1921, and was not bound to make further inquiries.
G.R. No. L-9940 March 30, 1960

AVELINO REVILLA and ELENA FAJARDO, plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
GODOFREDO GALINDEZ, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:

On May 18, 1938, Alipio Gasmeña donated to Florencio Gasmeña a portion of the lot. The
donation was duly annotated on the certificates of title. On May 21, 1938, Florencio Gasmeña
mortgaged his unsegregated portion to Godofredo Galindez, defendant-appellee herein; and on
October 5, 1938 sold it outright to defendant-appellee. The mortgage was registered but the
subsequent sale was never registered. However, from the date of the mortgage, defendant-
appellee had been in possession of the property.

Upon death of Florencio Gasmeña, his widow and heirs executed a deed of extrajudicial partition
with sale to the plaintiffs. Before they purchased the land, plaintiffs had examined Florencio
Gasmeña's title and had found no encumbrance noted thereon. Plaintiffs-appellants attempted to
take possession of the land, but defendant’s overseer informed them that defendant had
previously purchased it from Florencio Gasmeña. Defendant’s refusal to relinquish possession of
the lot prompted plaintiffs to commence this action.

ISSUE:

W/N Revilla and Fajardo has better rights of the property over Galindez.

HELD:

NO.

The first sale was in favor of the defendant, and never registered, although from the time the land
was mortgaged to him up to the present, he has been in uninterrupted possession of the land.
But since it is a registered land, defendant-appellee certainly cannot claim title by acquisitive
prescription. To successfully bind the land, he should have registered the sale in his favor. By
reason of his failure to do so, the sale operated only as a contract between him and the vendor,
Florencio Gasmeña, and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
Florencio Gasmeña and his heirs were bound to respect the contract, but innocent third persons
cannot be affected thereby.

Unquestionably, the sale in favor of plaintiffs was a registered one, and a certificate of title was
issued to them. The point of inquiry is whether they are purchasers in good faith. An examination
of Alipio Gasmeña's certificate of title would likewise have yielded the fact that said portion of
land had been mortgaged to defendant. All these circumstances were sufficient to warn plaintiffs
that their transferors did not have clean title to the land. Their failure to make the investigations
required by the circumstances constitutes lack of good faith. Not being purchasers in good faith,
plaintiffs are clearly not entitled to the rights of a registered owner.

Neither of the vendees having registered their respective sales in good faith, their right to the
property must be determined by the priority of possession. Where the same immovable property
was sold to two different persons neither of whom recorded the transfer in good faith, ownership
shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the. The lot, therefore properly belongs to
defendant.
G.R. No. 169454 December 27, 2007

THE HEIRS OF MARCELINO DORONIO, NAMELY: REGINA AND FLORA, BOTH

SURNAMED DORONIO,Petitioners,
vs.
HEIRS OF FORTUNATO DORONIO, NAMELY: TRINIDAD ROSALINA DORONIO-BALMES,
MODING DORONIO, FLORENTINA DORONIO, AND ANICETA ALCANTARA-
MANALO, Respondents.

FACTS:

On April 24, 1919, a private deed of donation propter nuptias5 was executed by spouses Simeon
Doronio and Cornelia Gante in favor of Marcelino Doronio and the latter’s wife, Veronica
Pico. Both parties have been occupying the subject land for several decades8 although they have
different theories regarding its present ownership. According to petitioners, they are now the
owners of the entire property in view of the private deed of donation propter nuptias in favor of
their predecessors, Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico. Respondents, on the other hand,
claim that only half of the property was actually incorporated in the said deed of donation
because it stated that Fortunato Doronio, instead of Zacarias Najorda and Alejandro Najorda, is
the owner of the adjacent property at the eastern side.

Eager to obtain the entire property, the heirs of Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico filed, on
January 11, 1993, before the RTC in Urdaneta, Pangasinan a petition "For the Registration of a
Private Deed of Donation". RTC granted the said order and led to the registration of the deed of
donation. Determined to remain in their possessed property, respondent heirs of Fortunato
Doronio filed an action for reconveyance and damages with prayer for preliminary
injunction against petitioner heirs of Marcelino Doronio (as defendants) before the RTC, Branch
45, Anonas, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. After due proceedings, the RTC ruled in favor of
petitioner heirs of Marcelino Doronio. In a Decision dated January 26, 2005, the CA reversed the
RTC decision

ISSUE:

W/ the donation propter nuptias was valid.

HELD:

NO.

In the instant case, the donation propter nuptias did not become valid. Neither did it create any
right because it was not made in a public instrument.74 Donation propter nuptias of real property
made in a private instrument before the New Civil Code took effecton August 30, 1950 is void.
Hence, it conveyed no title to the land in question to petitioners’ predecessors.

Likewise, the claim of respondents that they became owners of the property by acquisitive
prescription has no merit. A title once registered under the torrens system cannot be defeated
even by adverse, open and notorious possession; neither can it be defeated by prescription.

The torrens system is intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the certificate of
registration, but it cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the
registered land. The system merely confirms ownership and does not create it.