TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION
Registration Act, that the owner of the earliest certificate is the owner
REPUBLIC VS UMALI
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.
PURPOSE OF LAND REGISTRATION
TRADERS ROYAL BANK VS CA
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.
LEGARDA VS SALEEBY
We have decided, in case of double registration under the Land
of the land.
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
PINO VS CA
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.
CASIMIRO DEVELOPMENT VS MATEO
One who deals with property registered under the Torrens system
need not go beyond the certificate of title, but only has to rely on the
certificate of title. He is charged with notice only of such burdens
and claims as are annotated on the title. China Bank’s TCT’s was a
clean title, that is, it was free from any lien or encumbrance, CDC had
the right to rely, when it purchased the property, solely upon the face
of the certificate of title in the name of China Bank
MADRID VS MAPOY