REGISTRATION TORRENS SYSTEM

A. Torrens Title Purpose

1. Gonzales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and Rural Bank of Pavia.,
G.R. No. L-69622, January 29, 1988;
2. Rural Bank of Sariaya, Inc. vs. Yacon et al., G.R. No. 78011, July 5,
1989;
3. Fernandez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 83141,
September 21, 1990
4. Republic, et al. vs. Umali, et al., G.R. No. 80687, April 10, 1989
5. Director of Lands vs. Abache, et al., 73 Phil., 606 (1942);
6. Lopez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-49739, January
20, 1989
B. Ownership and Title
7.

Leoncio Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of Appeals and Lee Tek Sheng (G.R.
No. 115402, July 15, 1998)

C. Ministerial Duty of the Register of Deed

Denial of Registration
8. Gabriel vs. Register of Deeds of Rizal, et al, G.R. No. L-17956, Sept.
30, 1963
9. Almirol vs. The Register of Deeds of Agusan, G.R. No. L-22486,
March 20, 1968
Registration vs. Validity of Instrument
D. PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION
Binds the land/Third Persons
11. Obras Pias vs. Devera Ignacio, G.R. No. L-17956, September 30,
1963
12. Egao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-79787, June 29, 1989
13. Alfredo and Conchita Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals, Sheriff & RD of
Markina, G. R. No. 102377, July 5, 1996
14. Aznar Brothers Realty vs. Court of Appeals and Aying, et al. G.R. No.
128102, March 7, 2000
Incontestability of Title
15. Estrellado vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-23847, November 18, 1925
Notice to the World

16. Gatioan vs. Gafud, G.R. No. L-21953, March 28, 1969
To Transfer Ownership
17. Reyes vs. Noblejas, G.R. No. L-23691, November 25, 1967
18. Agbulos vs. Alberto, G.R. No. L-17483, July 31, l962
19. Liong-Wong-Shih vs. Sunico and Peterson, G.R. No. 3072, March 21,
1907
20. Tabigue vs. Green, G.R. No. 4277 August 18, 1908
21. Buzon vs. Licauco, G.R. No. L-4966, March 27, 1909
22. Tuason vs. Raymundo, G.R. No. L-9372 December 15, 1914
23. Sikatuna vs. Guevarra, G.R. No. L-18336, March 15, 1922
24. Worcester vs. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-8452 August 2, 1916
25. Roxas vs Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-27234, May 30, 1969
E. Registration of Instruments
26. NHA vs. Basa, G.R. No. 149121, April 20, 2010)
27. DBP vs. Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, UDK No. 7671, June
23, 1988
Voluntary Instrument
28. Government of the Philippine Islands v. Aballe, G.R. No. L-41342 ,
November 28, 1934
29. Bass v. De la Rama, G.R. No. L-47662, September 30, 1942
30. Fidelity & Surety Co. vs. Conegero, G.R. No. L-15466, February 18,
1921
31. Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107967 March 1, 1994
32. Potenciano vs. Dineros, G.R. No. L-7614, May 31, 1955
33. Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, Spouses Tan, et al.
G.R. No. 117609. December 29, 1998
34. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133140. August 10, 1999
35. Gonzales vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-69622 January 29, 1988
36. Pineda vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 114172. August 25, 2003]
37. Toledo-Banaga vs. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 331
RECORDING OF DEALINGS IN UNREGISTERED LANDS

F. Priority of Rights
38. Bayoca vs. Nogales, 340 SCRA 154 - constructive notice

39. Hanopol vs. Pilapil, 7 SCRA 452

40. National Grain Authority vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 380
41. State Investment House vs. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 368
PRINCIPLES UNDER THE TORRENS TITLE SYSTEM

A. Indefeasibility
A Torrens Certificate of Title is the best evidence of ownership of lands
described therein
42. Villanueva vs Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 472
A Torrens title gives constructive notice to the whole world and no one can
plead ignorance of the registration of the land.
43. Egao vs. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 484
A Torrens title bars all prior claims not registered on the title.
44. Republic vs. Umali, 171 SCRA 647
A Torrens certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to
the property in favour of the person whose names appear therein.
45. Muyco vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 358
One who deals with property registered under the Torrens system need
not go beyond the same, but only has to rely on the title. He is charged
with notice only of such burden and claims as are annotated in the title.
He is not required to explore further than what the Torrens title on its face
indicates, in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may
subsequently defeat his right on the title.
46. Seno vs. Mangubat, 156 SCRA 113
Where innocent third persons relying on the correctness of the certificate
of title issued, acquired rights over the property, the court cannot disregard
such rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate for that would
impair public confidence in the certificate of title; otherwise everyone
dealing with the property registered under the Torrens system would have
to inquire in every instance as to whether the title had been regularly or
irregularly issued by the court
47. Case: Director of Lands vs. Abache, et al., 73 Phil., 606 (1942);
48. Lopez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-49739, January
20, 1989)
A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceedings in
accordance with law.

49. Lopez vs. Alberto, G.R. No. L-27559 May 18, 1972
50. Toyota Motors Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 236
51. National Grain Authority vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 380
B. Presumptions
A Torrens title is presumed to have been regularly and legally issued
unless contradicted and overcome by clear, convincing, strong and
irrefutable evidence more than preponderant of evidence. The
presumption is that the transferee of the registered land is not aware of
any defect in the title of the property he purchased.
52. Salao vs. Salao, 70 SCRA 65
Thus, every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor.
53. Halili vs. Court of Industrial Relations 257 SCRA 174
C. Fraud
The Torrens system was not designed to shield and protect one who had
committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus holds title in bad faith. The
Torrens system only protects a title holder in good faith.
54. Walstron vs. Mapa, Jr. 181 SCRA 431
The person in whose name the land is fraudulently registered holds it as a
mere trustee, with the legal obligation to reconvey the property and that
title thereto in veer of the true owner.
55. Pajarillo vs. IAC, 176 SCRA 340
Any registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate
certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instruments shall be null and
void.
56. Case
A forged instrument may become the root of a valid title.
57. Torrens vs. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 672
The doctrine that a forged instrument may become the root of a valid title
cannot be applied where the owner holds a valid and existing certificate of
tile covering the same interest in realty.
58. Torres vs. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 672
A fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the root of a valid
title if the certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of
the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the
forger.

59. Case
The law requires a higher degree of prudence from one who buys from a
person who is not the registered owner, although the land object of the
transaction is registered. While one who buys from the registered owner
does not need to look behind the certificate of title, one who buys from
one who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not only the
certificate of title but all factual circumstances necessary for [one] to
determine if there are any flaws in the title of the transferor, or in [the]
capacity to transfer the land.
60. Abad vs. Guimba, G.R. No. 157002, July 29, 2005
As between two innocent persons, the now who made it possible for the
wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss.
61. Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 642
As between two persons, both of whom are in good faith and both
innocent of any negligence, the law must protect and prefer the playful
holder of a registered title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of any
transmissible rights.
62. Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 354
B. Priority of Rights
Priority of Rights - He who is first in time is preferred in right. The act of
registration in the Registry of Deeds shall be the operative act to convey
or affect the land insofar as third persons are concer
63. Register of Deeds vs. PNB, 13 SCRA 46

Where two certificates of two include the same land, the certificate that is
earlier in date prevails.
64. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 95 SCRA 380