This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In these lights, the Court's pronouncements in Villasor and Levin continue to be the governing rulings under our present land registration system (PD No. 1529). The invocation of the Court's ruling in these earlier cases, and their reiteration in the more recent cases of Caviles v. Bautista,[36] Armed Forces and Police Mutual Benefit Association v. Santiago,[37] and Saberon v. Ventanilla,[38] remain to be valid. | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| To this latter finding, the Court agrees. The Saberons could not be said to have authored the entanglement they found themselves in. No fault can be attributed to them for relying on the face of the title presented by Marquez. This is bolstered by the fact that the RTC decision shows no categorical finding that the Saberons' purchase of the lots from Marquez was tainted with bad faith. That the Saberons should have harbored doubts against Marquez is too high a standard to impose on a buyer of titled land. This is in consonance to the rule that the one who deals with property registered under the Torrens system is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title.[9] "All persons dealing with property covered by Torrens certificate of title are not required to explore further than what the Torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto."[10] These rules remain as essential features of the Torrens system. The present case does not entail a modification or overturning of these principles. | |||||
|
2006-02-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Entry alone produces the effect of registration, whether the transaction entered is voluntary or involuntary, so long as the registrant has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent solely on the Register of Deeds.[16] Here, petitioner admits that the second lease contract was refused registration by the Register of Deeds for his failure to comply with certain conditions for registration. And since petitioner failed to comply with all the requisites for entry and annotation, the entry in the primary book did not ripen into registration. | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title.[9] It is our view here that the petitioners, spouses Victor and Honorata Orquiola, are fully entitled to the legal protection of their lot by the Torrens system, unlike the petitioner in the Medina case who merely relied on a mere Titulo de Composicion. Coming now to the second issue, were petitioners purchasers in good faith and for value? A buyer in good faith is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property. He is a buyer for value if he pays a full | |||||
|
2000-08-25 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| acknowledged receipt of the consideration. On the facts of the case, respondent deputy Register of Deeds Vergara[5] was just exercising the duties of his office in registering the deed of sale which complied with all the requirements for registration.[6] | |||||