REGISTRATION TORRENS SYSTEM

A. Ownership and Title

1. Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of Appeals
B. Ministerial Duty of the Register of Deeds
2. Baranda vs. Judge Gustillo, G.R. No. 81163 September 26, 1988
Denial of Registration
3. Almirol vs. The Register of Deeds of Agusan, G.R. No. L-22486, March 20, 1968
Registration vs. Validity of Instrument
4. Gabriel vs. Register of Deeds of Rizal, G.R. No. L-17956 , September 30, 1963
C. PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION
Binds the land/Third Persons
5. Obras Pias vs. Devera Ignacio, G.R. No. L-17956, September 30, 1963
6. Egao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-79787, June 29, 1989
7. Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 102377, July 5, 1996
8. Aznar Brothers Realty vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128102, March 7, 2000
Incontestability of Title
9. Estrellado vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-23847, November 18, 1925
Notice to the World
10. Gatioan vs. Gafud, G.R. No. L-21953, March 28, 1969
To Transfer Ownership
11. Reyes vs. Noblejas, G.R. No. L-23691, November 25, 1967
12. Agbulos vs. Alberto, G.R. No. L-17483, July 31, l962
13. Liong-Wong-Shih vs. Sunico and Peterson, G.R. No. 3072, March 21, 1907
14. Tabigue vs. Green, G.R. No. 4277 August 18, 1908
15. Buzon vs. Licauco, G.R. No. L-4966, March 27, 1909
16. Tuason vs. Raymundo, G.R. No. L-9372 December 15, 1914
17. Sikatuna vs. Guevarra, G.R. No. L-18336, March 15, 1922
18. Worcester vs. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-8452 August 2, 1916
19. Roxas vs Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-27234, May 30, 1969
D. Registration of Instruments
14. NHA vs. Basa, G.R. No. 149121, April 20, 2010)
15. DBP vs. Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, UDK No. 7671, June 23, 1988
Voluntary Instrument
16. Government of the Philippine Islands v. Aballe, G.R. No. L-41342 , November 28, 1934
17. Bass v. De la Rama, G.R. No. L-47662, September 30, 1942
18. Fidelity & Surety Co. vs. Conegero, G.R. No. L-15466, February 18, 1921
19. Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107967 March 1, 1994
20. Potenciano vs. Dineros, G.R. No. L-7614, May 31, 1955
21. Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, Spouses Tan, et al. G.R. No. 117609.
December 29, 1998
22. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133140. August 10, 1999
23. Gonzales vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-69622 January 29, 1988
24. Pineda vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 114172. August 25, 2003]
25. Toledo-Banaga vs. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 331
RECORDING OF DEALINGS IN UNREGISTERED LANDS
E. Priority of Rights
23. Bayoca vs. Nogales, 340 SCRA 154 - constructive notice
24. Hanopol vs. Pilapil, 7 SCRA 452
25. National Grain Authority vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 380
26. 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
27. 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.

B.

C.

28. Egao vs. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 484

A Torrens title bars all prior claims not registered on the title.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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
32. Case
A mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears in the certificate of title and, in the absence
of anything to excite suspicion, he is under no obligation to look beyond the certificate and
investigate the title of the mortgagor appearing on the face of said certificate.
33. Case
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.
34. Lopez vs. Alberto, G.R. No. L-27559 May 18, 1972
35. Toyota Motors Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 236
36. National Grain Authority vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 380
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.
37. 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.
38. Halili vs. Court of Industrial Relations 257 SCRA 174
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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Case
A forged instrument may become the root of a valid title.
42. 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.
43. 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.

B.

44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 354
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
48. 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.
49. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 95 SCRA 380