II.

TRANSACTIONS PENDING ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

1. Land may be dealt with pending registration;
Sec. 22 PD 1529;
After the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree of registration,
the land therein described may still be the subject of dealings in whole or in part, in
which case the interested party shall present to the court the pertinent instruments
together with a subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands in case of transfer of
portions thereof and the court, after notice to the parties, shall order such land
registered subject to the conveyance or encumbrance created by said instruments, or
order that the decree of registration be issued in the name of the person to whom the
property has been conveyed by said instruments.
2. Land may be registered in favor of a total stranger;

Mendoza vs CA 84 SCRA 67
84 SCRA 76 Judgment Confirms Title In whose name may title be dealt with Sec
29, PD 1529
ISSUE: Whether or not the title can be dealt with in the name of a third party.

HELD: Yes. The Court of Appeals ruling must be sustained. First of all, it was proven
that Mendoza caused the registration in the name of Cruz pursuant to their contract of
sale. Second, Mendoza overlooks Section 29 of the Land Registration Act which
expressly authorizes the registration of the land subject matter of a registration
proceeding in the name of the buyer (Cruz) or of the person to whom the land has been
conveyed by an instrument executed during the interval of time between the filing of the
application for registration and the issuance of the decree of title.

SEC. 29. After the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree of title
by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, the land therein described may be
dealt with and instruments relating thereto shall be recorded in the office of the register
of deeds at any time before issuance of the decree of title, in the same manner as if no
application had been made. The interested party may, however, present such
instruments to the Court of First Instance instead of presenting them to the office of the
register of deeds, together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with
the application, and the court after notice to the parties, shall order such land registered
subject to the encumbrance created by a said instruments, or order the decree of
registration issued in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the property has
been conveyed by said instruments. . . .
A stranger or a third party may be dealt with in the land registration proceedings. The
only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the
interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the
application; and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. And the peculiar
facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements have been
complied with in this case.
III. CIRTIFICATE OF TITLE
1. Preparation of Certificate of Title
Sec. 39, PD 1529
After the judgment directing the registration of title to land has become final, the court
shall, within fifteen days from entry of judgment, issue an order directing the
Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title.
The clerk of court shall send, within fifteen days from entry of judgment, certified copies
of the judgment and of the order of the court directing the Commissioner to issue the
corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title, and a certificate stating that
the decision has not been amended, reconsidered, nor appealed, and has become final.
Thereupon, the Commissioner shall cause to be prepared the decree of registration as
well as the original and duplicate of the corresponding original certificate of title. The
original certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of registration. The decree of
registration shall be signed by the Commissioner, entered and filed in the Land
Registration Commission. The original of the original certificate of title shall also be
signed by the Commissioner and shall be sent, together with the owner's duplicate
certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the property is situated
for entry in his registration book.

A. Statement of Personal Circumstances;

Sec. 45, supra
B. Entry of Original certificate of Title;
Sec. 40, supra
Upon receipt by the Register of Deeds of the original and duplicate copies of the original
certificate of title the same shall be entered in his record book and shall be numbered,
dated, signed and sealed by the Register of Deeds with the seal of his office. Said
certificate of title shall take effect upon the date of entry thereof. The Register of Deeds
shall forthwith send notice by mail to the registered owner that his owner's duplicate is
ready for delivery to him upon payment of legal fees.
C. Owners certificate of Title;
Sec. 41, supra
The owner's duplicate certificate of title shall be delivered to the registered owner or to
his duly authorized representative. If two or more persons are registered owners, one
owner's duplicate certificate may be issued for the whole land, or if the co-owners so
desire, a separate duplicate may be issued to each of them in like form, but all
outstanding certificates of title so issued shall be surrendered whenever the Register of
Deeds shall register any subsequent voluntary transaction affecting the whole land or
part thereof or any interest therein. The Register of Deeds shall note on each certificate
of title a statement as to whom a copy thereof was issued.
D. Registration Book;
Sec. 42, supra
The original copy of the original certificate of title shall be filed in the Registry of Deeds.
The same shall be bound in consecutive order together with similar certificates of title
and shall constitute the registration book for titled properties.
E. Transfer of Certificate of Title;
Sec. 43, supra
The subsequent certificate of title that may be issued by the Register of Deeds pursuant
to any voluntary or involuntary instrument relating to the same land shall be in like form,
entitled "Transfer Certificate of Title", and likewise issued in duplicate. The certificate
shall show the number of the next previous certificate covering the same land and also
the fact that it was originally registered, giving the record number, the number of the
original certificate of title, and the volume and page of the registration book in which the
latter is found.
F. Statements of Personal Circumstances in the Certificate of Title;
Sec. 45, supra
Every certificate of title shall set forth the full names of all persons whose interests make
up the full ownership in the whole land, including their civil status, and the names of
their respective spouses, if married, as well as their citizenship, residence and postal
address. If the property covered belongs to the conjugal partnership, it shall be issued in
the names of both spouses.
G. Several Certificates covering the same Land
a) General Rule: Where 2 or more certificates cover the same Land, the earlier in
date Prevails

IGLESIA NI CRISTO,
vs.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
G.R. No. L-35273 July 25, 1983
We apply the ruling in Pajomayo, et al v. Manipon et al. (39 SCRA 676) that where the
same parcel of land is covered by two titles, necessarily when one of the two titles is
held to be superior over the other, the latter should be declared null and void and should
be cancelled. Petitioner claims that it is an innocent purchaser for value and as such is
entitled to the protections provided by law particularly the guarantee of indefeasibility
and incontrovertibility of a Torrens Title after the expiration of one year within which to
file a petition for review. The respondent Bank is the innocent purchaser for value in this
case and is more entitled to the protection claimed by the petitioner. The rule on
successive registration controls. The Land Registration Court had no jurisdiction to
decree anew the registration of a land already decreed and titled. It had no power to
bestow validity upon the second decree.
Exemptions;
(i) When there are Anomalies, Irregularities in the Issuance of Title.

MATHAY vs. COURT OF APPEALS,

[G.R. No. 115788. September 17, 1998]

The Spouses-Private respondents are the valid owners of the individualproperties in

question because all the subsequent certificates of title including the petitioners titles
are void for the same were forged and falsified. It was further proved that the titles
issued to Mathays are void forthe allegedly Sales Certificate executed by Tomas Lucido
in favor of Pedro Pugay was not signed by the said Tomas Lucido. Neither does it bear
the signature of the latter. It further proved that the deeds showed by Banayoand Pugay
were not for the individual property in question. The circumstances surrounding the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale byPedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay in favor of
the spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay further showed that it did not comply
with the legalformalities and was not duly notarized. Furthermore, the residence
certificates of vendors Banayo and Pugay appeared to be of dubioussource.The
Spouses Mathay utterly failed to discharge the burden of proving thesustainability of
their posture of them being buyers in good faith. Furthermore, thetitle of Pedro Banayo
and Pablo Pugay relied upon by them has been shown by preponderance of evidence
to be the product of forgery.
(i) Mistake
Supra; Legarda vs Saleeby
G. R. No. 8936 October 3, 1915
(ii) Fraudulent Registration
b) Co-owned Land
May co-owner convey a physical portion of land owned in common?
Yes but only in so far his aliquot share, which shall be limited to the portion which may
be allotted to him upon the termination of the co-ownership.
Lopez vs. Ilustre, 5 Phil. 567;
Article 493 provides:
Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved.
But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be
limited to the portion which may be alloted to him in the division upon the termination of
the co-ownership.

Appellants except to the application of this provision in this case for the reason that in
the deed of sale sought to be annulled the vendor disposed of a divided and
determinate half of the land under co-ownership. The argument, as far as it goes,
seems to be tenable. What a co-owner may dispose of under Article 493 is only his
undivided aliquot share, which shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to
him upon the termination of the co-ownership. He has no right to divide the property into
parts and then convey one part by metes and bounds.
c) All co-owners duplicates must be surrendered
Balbin vs RD 28 scra 12; supra
d) Previous Adjudication
REPUBLIC vs. COURT OF APPEALS et al.
G.R. No. L-31303-04 / 83 SCRA 453 May 31, 197
Specifically both Republic and respondents claim ownership over the same Lots Nos.
811 and 2509, hence, this controversy. There is a serious charge, which is also crucial
to the issue between the parties, that respondent de Ocampo used fraudulent
misrepresentations and machinations in securing his title. There is the element of wilfull
intent to deprive Republic of just rights which constitutes the essential characteristics of
actual as distinguished from legal fraud. In the interest of justice, to correct
Identity of the lots that were donated to the then Bureau of Education (admitted by
respondent de Ocampo), as well as those parcels of land applied for by said respondent
in the land registration case.

e) Defective Title vs. Unblemished Title

Lorenzana vs CA
G.R. No. 105027 April 22, 1994
Petitioners also missed the thrust of the assailed Decision with their argument that the
respondent court gave more importance to the misleading annotations in their titles
rather than to their technical descriptions. In pointing out the discrepancies in
petitioners' titles, the respondent court was simply stressing that these titles cannot be
upheld against the unblemished titles of the private respondent. The case at bench is
not one where petitioners are correcting the defects in their titles by reconciling the
annotations therein and the technical descriptions of the lots. Rather, the case involves
actions for quieting of titles where petitioners are urging that their error-filled titles
should be adjudged as superior to the regularly issued titles of the private respondent.
Petitioners would also oust private respondent from the lots it has occupied from 1966
and whose taxes it has paid since then. In sum, defective titles cannot be upheld
against the unblemished titles B.E. San Diego.

f) Overlapping Titles
A Land Owner loses his right to claim that his property has been encroached when his
predecessor did not register any objections at the time the alleged encroachment was
made. A Torrens Certificate of Title, complete and valid on its face may not be defeated
by another Torrens Certificate of Title which on its face, is irregular and which contains
defective technical description.

3. EFFECTS OF ISSUANCE OF TITLE

A. CERTIFICATES OF TITLE CANNOT BE USED TO PROTECT A USURPER

FROM THE TRUE OWNER; NEITHER CAN IT BE USED TO PERPETUATE
FRAUD.
PAGADUAN vs. OCUMA
(G.R. No. 176308 May 8, 2009)

This lack of a trust relationship does not inure to the benefit of the
respondents. Despite a host of jurisprudence that states a certificate of
title is indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world, it
merely confirms or records title already existing and vested, and it
cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can it
be used for the perpetration of fraud; neither does it permit one to
enrich himself at the expense of others.

B. REGISTRATION AS OPERATIVE ACT BINDING THE LAND.

SECTION 51, 2nd Paragraph PD1529

The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect
the land insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases
under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies.

ROXAS vs. DINGLASAN

(G.R. No. L-27234 MAY 30, 1969)

It is well settled that in case of sale of a piece of land titled under

the Torrens System, it is the act of registration, and not tradition, that
transfers the ownership of the land sold.
The principle of innocent purchaser for value that where the
certificate of title was already in the name of the forger when the land was
sold to an innocent purchaser, the vendee had the right to rely on what
appeared in the certificate is applicable to a mortgagee in good faith
and for value.
EGAO VS COURT OF APPEALS
(G.R. No. 79787 JUNE 29, 1989)

A Torrens title, once registered, cannot be defeated, even by

adverse open and notorious possession. A registered title under the
Torrens system cannot be defeated by prescription. The title, once
registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice. No one can
plead ignorance of the registration.
C. NOTICE TO THE WHOLE WORLD.

SECTION 52 PD 1529
Constructive notice upon registration. Every conveyance,
mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or
entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in
the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the
land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons
from the time of such registering, filing or entering.

PEOPLE vs. REYES

(G.R. Nos. 74226-27 JULY 27, 1989)

The rule is well-established that registration in a public registry

is a notice to the whole world. The record is constructive notice of its
contents as well as all interests, legal and equitable, included therein. All
persons are charged with knowledge of what it contains.

D. CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP.

CHING vs. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. No. 59731 JANUARY 11, 1990)

A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the

ownership of the land referred to therein (Section 49, Act 496). A strong
presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly issued and that they
are valid. A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any "information
 possessoria" or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on
the title.
The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land
and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is
registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in
the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casa," to avoid the
possibility of losing his land.

IT ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY; REGISTRATION DOES NOT

VEST TITLE; IT IS NOT A MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP.

HEIRS OF TEODORO DELA CRUZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. No. 117384 OCTOBER 21, 1998)

Next, the Madrids argue that neither prescription nor laches can
operate against them because their title to the property is registered under
the Torrens system and therefore imprescriptible. The principles raised,
while admittedly correct, are not without exception. The fact that the
Madrids were able to secure TCT No. 167250, and Marquez, TCT Nos.
167220 and 167256, did not operate to vest upon them ownership of the
property. The Torrens system does not create or vest title. It has never
been recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership, especially considering
the fact that both the Madrids and Marquezes obtained their respective
TCTs only in October 1986, twenty-seven long (27) years after petitioners
first took possession of the land. If the Madrids and Marquezes wished to
assert their ownership, they should have filed a judicial action for recovery
of possession and not merely to have the land registered under their
respective names. For as earlier mentioned, Certificates of Title do not
establish ownership.

VDA. DE CABRERA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. No. 108547 FEBRUARY 3, 1997)

As can be discerned from the established facts, the Certificates of

Title of the vendees Orais are, to say the least, irregular, and were issued
in a calculated move to deprive Felicidad Teokemian of her dominical
rights over the property reserved to her by descent. Plaintiff could not
have registered the part reserved to Felicidad Teokemian, as this was not
among those ceded in the Deed of Sale between Daniel/Albertana
Teokemian and Andres Orais. It must be remembered that registration
 does not vest title, it is merely evidence of such title over a particular
property.
The defense of indefeasibility of the Torrens Title does not extend
to a transferee who takes the certificate of title with notice of a flaw in his
title. (Anonuevo vs. Court of Appeals). The principle of indefeasibility of
title is unavailing where there was fraud that attended the issuance
of the free patents and titles. (Meneses vs. Court of Appeals)

AVILA vs. TAPUCAR

(G.R. No. 45947 AUGUST 27, 1991)

Registration does not vest title. It is not a mode of acquiring

ownership but is merely evidence of such title over a particular
property. It does not give the holder any better right than what he actually
has, especially if the registration was done in bad faith. The effect is that it
is as if no registration was made at all.
It is axiomatic in this jurisdiction that "while land registration is a
proceeding in rem and binds the whole world, the simple possession of
a certificate of title under the Torrens Systems does not necessarily
make the holder a true owner of all the property described therein. If
a person obtains a title under the Torrens system, which includes by
mistake or oversight land which can no longer be registered under the
system, he does not, by virtue of the said certificate alone, become the
owner of the lands illegally included"

E. A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IS CONCLUSIVE AS TO:

a. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE REGISTRANT

TAN vs. BANTEGUI

(G.R. No. 154027 OCTOBER 24, 2005)
 A certificate of title under the Torrens system serves as
evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person
whose name appears on it. While it is true that Transfer Certificates of
Title have already been issued in the names of the subsequent
purchasers, they should nonetheless be invalidated. Considering the
failure to abide by the mandatory requirements of a proceeding in
personam, no better title than that of the original owner can be assumed
by the transferees.

b. THE IDENTITY OF THE LAND

DEMASIADO vs. VELASCO

(G.R. No. L-27844 MAY 10, 1976

Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act, (Act No. 496) the
certificate of title covering registered land "shall be received as evidence in
all courts of the Philippines, and shall be conclusive as to all matters
contained therein (principally, the Identity of the owner of the land
covered thereby) except so far as provided" in the Act itself.

c. ITS LOCATION

ODSIGUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. No. 111179 JULY 4, 1994)

Petitioner contends that private respondents have not identified the

property sought to be recovered as required by Art. 434 of the Civil Code.
He alleges that Sitio Aduas, where the land in question is located, is at the
boundary of Barangay May-Iba, Teresa, Rizal, and Barangay Lagundi,
Morong, Rizal. On the other hand, petitioner maintains, the parcel of land
 he is occupying is located in Barangay May-Iba. But private respondent's
title (OCT No. 4050) indicates that the property is located in Barangay
Lagundi. A certificate of title is conclusive evidence not only of
ownership of the land referred but also its location. The subject of
these proceedings is the land covered by OCT No. 4050. Accordingly,
petitioners will be required to demolish only whatever is constructed within
its boundaries.

F. GENERAL INCIDENTS

SECTION 46, PD 1529

General incidents of registered land. Registered land shall be
subject to such burdens and incidents as may arise by operation of law.
Nothing contained in this decree shall in any way be construed to relieve
registered land or the owners thereof from any rights incident to the
relation of husband and wife, landlord and tenant, or from liability to
attachment or levy on execution, or from liability to any lien of any
description established by law on the land and the buildings thereon, or on
the interest of the owner in such land or buildings, or to change the laws of
descent, or the rights of partition between co-owners, or the right to take
the same by eminent domain, or to relieve such land from liability to be
recovered by an assignee in insolvency or trustee in bankruptcy under the
laws relative to preferences, or to change or affect in any way other rights
or liabilities created by law and applicable to unregistered land, except as
otherwise provided in this Decree.

BUDLONG vs. PONDOC

(G.R. No. L-27702 SEPTEMBER 9, 1977)

We find the appeal to be meritorious. The trial court erred in

assuming that the donee ceased to be a co-owner because her name
does not appear in OCT No. 4718 which was issued two years after the
execution of the deed of donation. Overlooked by the trial court is the
provision of section 70 of Act No. 496 that "registered land, and
ownership therein, shall in all respects be subject to the same
burdens and incidents attached by law to unregistered land", and that
nothing in Act No. 496 "shall in any way be construed" "to change the laws
of descent, or the rights of partition between coparceners, joint tenants
 and other cotenants" "or to change or affect in any other way any other
rights or liabilities created by law and applicable to unregistered land,
except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in the amendments
hereof."

4. ATTRIBUTES:

a. IMPRESCRIPTIBLE

Section 47 PD 1529
Registered land not subject to prescriptions. No title to registered
land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE IN LAND REGISTRATION THAT THE

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE SERVES AS EVIDENCE OF AN
INDEFEASIBLE AND INCONTROVERTIBLE TITLE TO THE
PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS
THEREIN.

CAA vs. EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF THE PHILIPPINES

(G.R. No. 157573 FEBRUARY 11. 2008)

The self-serving and unsubstantiated affidavits of petitioner and his

witnesses alleging that it was MCEC which owns the subject property
because it paid the purchase price failed to overcome the documentary
evidence presented by respondent, consisting of the notarized deed of
sale and the title over the property in question. Respondent's title over the
subject property is evidence of its ownership thereof. It is a fundamental
principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as
evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property
in favor of the person whose name appears therein. Moreover, the
age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is
entitled to possession thereof.
NATALIA RALTY CORPORATION VS VALLEZ
(G.R. No.78290-94 MAY 23, 1989)

Appellants' claim of acquisitive prescription is likewise baseless.

Under Article 1126 of the Civil Code, prescription of ownership of lands
registered under the Land Registration Act shall be governed by special
laws. Correlatively, Act No. 496 provides that no title to registered land
in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
adverse possession. Consequently, proof of possession by the
defendants is both immaterial and inconsequential.

PROTECTION IS ONLY IN FAVOR OF REGISTERED OWNERS.

ALZONA vs. CAPUNITAN

(G.R. No.L-10228 FEBRUARY 28, 1962)

While Section 46 of the Land Registration act provides "that no title

to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession", the protection given by
the law is in favor only of registered owners.

AND HIS HEIRS

BARCELONA Vs. BARCELONA
(G.R. No. L-9014 October 31, 1956)

Prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner but

also against his hereditary successors because the latter merely step
into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are merely the
continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest
OWNERSHIP MAY BE LOST THROUGH LACHES

LUCAS VS GAMPONIA
(G.R. No. L-9335 October 31, 1956)

Upon a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances, we

are constrained to find, however, that while no legal defense to the action
lies, an equitable one lies in favor of the defendant and that is, the
equitable defense of laches. We hold that the defense of prescription or
adverse possession in derogation of the title of the registered owner
Domingo Mejia does not lie, but that of the equitable defense of laches.
Otherwise stated, we hold that while defendant may not be considered as
having acquired title by virtue of his and his predecessors' long continued
possession for 37 years, the original owner's right to recover back the
possession of the property and title thereto from the defendant has, by the
long period of 37 years and by patentee's inaction and neglect, been
converted into a stale demand.
The four elements of laches are present in the case at bar
1. Conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims,
giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the
complaint seeks a remedy;
2. Delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had
knowledge or notice, of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded
an opportunity to institute a suit;
3. Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the
complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and
4. Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.

RIGHT TO RECOVER POSSESSION IS IMPRESCRIPTIBLE

J.M. TUASON AND CO., INC vs. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. No. L-23480 SEPTEMBER 11, 1979)

We are inclined to adhere to the aforementioned view, taking into

consideration the fundamental principle in law applicable to the
 circumstances of this case that mere possession of whatever length
cannot defeat the imprescriptible title to the holder of registered
Torrens Title to real property, and that registered real property under
the Torrens system cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription.
The petitioner who is the registered owner of the disputed land has a right
to possess and recover the same, as against private respondent Reosa
who merely claims a right to possess from his predecessor-in-interest
Capt. Cruz who likewise never acquired any right to possess the disputed
property.

WHEN LACHES IS UNAVAILING

DABLO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

(G.R. No. 93365 SEPTEMBER 21, 1993)

Nor will laches bolster the claim of ownership of private

respondents over this eastern portion. An action by the registered
owner to recover possession based on a Torrens title is not barred
by laches. . . . Sulpicia's title over her one- half undivided property
remained good and continued to be good when she segregated it into a
new title (T.C.T. No. 82275, Exhibit "A") in 1969. Sulpicia's ownership over
her one-half of the land and which is the land in dispute was always
covered by a Torrens title, and therefore, no amount of possession thereof
by the respondents, could ever defeat her proprietary rights thereon. It is
apparent, that the right of plaintiff (now petitioner) to institute this action to
recover possession of the portion the land in question based on the
Torrens Title of Sulpicia Jimenez, T.C.T. No. 82275 (Exhibit "A") is
imprescriptible and not barred under the doctrine of laches. (J.M. Tuason
& Co. v. Macalindong, L-15398, December 29, 1962, Francisco v. Cruz, et
al., 43 O.G. 5105). (Jimenez vs. Fernandez, 184 SCRA 190, 197 [1990]).

b. INDEFEASIBLE AND INCONTROVERTIBLE

CANA vs Evangelical Free Church

(GR no. 157573 February 2008)

Who has a better title?

 A person who has acquired his right through registration?
OR
A purchaser who failed to question for one year the registration of the owner to
whom he had purchased the property and where the latter failed to repurchase
the property from the purchaser after the lapse of the period stipulated?

A person who has acquired his right through registration.

Land registration proceedings under Act 496 are in rem and that such proceedings, as
well as the title issued as a result thereof, are binding and conclusive upon the whole
world. Upon the expiration of one year within which a petition to review the decree of
registration may be filed, said decree and the title issued pursuant thereto become
incontrovertible, and the same may no longer be changed, altered or modified, much
less set aside. (Section 38, Act 496)

The object of the Torrens system, namely, to guarantee the indefeasibility of the title to
the property, would be defeated if it were the other way around.

Requisite:

1. Indefeasibility of title thereunder could be claimed only if a previous valid title to

the same parcel of land does not exist
2. Issuance of Title is not attended by fraud
Title over the subject property shall serve as:

a. Evidence of ownership thereof.

b. Evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of

the person whose name appears therein.

c. Entitlement to possession thereof

Eagle realty corporation vs Republic

(GR no 151424 July 2008)

Principle of indefeasibility not applicable:

1. where fraud attended the issuance of the title because Torrens title does not
furnish a shield for fraud.
 Effect: A title issued based on void documents may be annulled.

De guzman vs Agbagala

(GR no 163566 February 2008)

2. when the patent and the title based thereon are null and void as when a patent
was issued by the Director of Lands without authority.

Effect: An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is
susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral, attack.

Heirs of Tiro vs PES

(GR no 170528 August 2008)

Effects of fraudulent registration

Consequently fraudulent registration of the property in the name of such person

would not be sufficient to vest in him or her title to the property.

Reason:

a. Certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing and vested.
b. The indefeasibility of the Torrens title should not be used as a means to
perpetrate fraud against the rightful owner of real property.
c. Good faith must concur with registration because, otherwise, registration
would be an exercise in futility
Except:

Innocent purchaser for value

Requisite:

a. he buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a
right or an interest in such property
b. pays a full price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has
notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.
Thus, a title procured by fraud or misrepresentation can still be the source of a
completely legal and valid title if the same is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value.

PATENTS

- an exclusive land grant made by a sovereign entity with respect to a

particular tract of land

Patents and Certificate issued over a Private land

Agne vs Director of Lands

(GR No. L-40399 February 6, 1990)

- The indefeasibility and imprescriptibility of a Torrens title issued pursuant to a

patent may be invoked only when the land involved originally formed part of
the public domain. Null if it were to be a private property.

Free Patent No. 23263 issued to Herminigildo Agpoon is null and void and the
subsequent titles issued pursuant thereto cannot become final and
indefeasible. Hence, we ruled in Director of Lands vs. Sisican, et al. that if at
the time the free patents were issued in 1953 the land covered therein were
already private property of another and, therefore, not part of the disposable
land of the public domain, then applicants patentees acquired no right or title
to the land.

a certificate of title fraudulently secured is null and void ab initio if the fraud consisted in
misrepresenting that the land is part of the public domain, although it is not.

Procured through fraud

Martinez vs CA

(GR No. 170409 January 2008)

 - A certificate of title issued based on a free patent procured through fraud or in
violation of the law may be cancelled.
- The principle of indefeasibility of title is unavailing where fraud attended the
issuance of the free patents and titles.

Caragay-Layno vs CA

(G.R. No. L-52064 December 26, 1984)

- A property which has been wrongfully registered in the name of another, but
which had not yet passed into the hands of third parties, can properly seek its
reconveyance.
Reason:

mere possession of a certificate of title under the Torrens System is not

conclusive as to the holder's true ownership of all the property described
therein for he does not by virtue of said certificate alone become the owner of
the land illegally included.

Incontrovertible and indefeasible

IGLESIA NI CRISTO vs CFI

(G.R. No. L-35273 July 25, 1983)

- once registered under the Registration Act, becomes indefeasible as a

Torrens Title if the parcel of agricultural land patented or granted as
homestead by the government after the requirements of the law had been
complied with was a part of the public domain.

c. DOCTRINE OF NON-COLLATERAL ATTACK

Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be
subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.

Heirs of Sps. Lim vs RTC Judge

(GR No. 173891 September 2008)

- a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can be altered,

modified or cancelled only in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

- The question on the validity of a Torrens title, whether fraudulently issued or

not, can be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.
Exception:

Void title

Ferrer vs Bautista

(G.R. No. L-46963 March 14, 1994)

- An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is
susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral, attack.

d. PURPOSE OF TORRENS SYSTEM

National Grains Authority vs IAC

(G.R. No. 74470 March 8, 1989)

The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any
question as to its legality. "Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without
the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casato,"
avoid the possibility of losing his land." "An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title
is not allowed

Section 31, PD 1529

The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to such
exceptions or liens as may be provided by law. It shall be conclusive upon and against
all persons, including the National Government and all branches thereof, whether
mentioned by name in the application or notice, the same being included in the general
description "To all whom it may concern".