Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

KEN MARTIN CLEMENTE v. ANTONIO RAZO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 208462 2014-12-10	SPS. CARLOS J. SUNTAY v. KEYSER MERCANTILE MENDOZA, J.
Again to stress, any buyer or mortgagee of realty covered by a Torrens certificate of title, in the absence of any suspicion, is not obligated to look beyond the certificate to investigate the title of the seller appearing on the face of the certificate. And, he is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title.[23]
	GR No. 176043 2014-01-15	SPS. BERNADETTE AND RODULFO VILBAR v. ANGELITO L. OPINION DEL CASTILLO, J.
encumbrances.[88] Besides, assuming arguendo that the Gorospes' titles to the subject properties happened to be fraudulent, public policy considers Opinion to still have acquired legal title as a mortgagee in good faith. As held in Cavite Development Bank v. Spouses
	GR No. 171464 2013-11-27	SPS. ELISEO R. BAUTISTA AND EMPERATRIZ C. BAUTISTA v. SPS. MILA JALANDONI AND ANTONIO JALANDONI AND MANILA CREDIT CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
Generally, the law does not require a person dealing with registered land to go beyond the certificate of title to determine the liabilities attaching to the property.[40] In the absence of suspicion, a purchaser or mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith on the certificates of title of the mortgagor and is not obligated to undertake further investigation.[41] For indeed the Court in several cases declared that a void title may be the source of a valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.[42]
	GR No. 174004 2013-10-09	VIRGILIO G. CAGATAO v. GUILLERMO ALMONTE MENDOZA, J.
The CA did not err in amending its decision and recognizing the validity of the sale between Spouses Fernandez and Carlos. Time and again, the Court has repeatedly ruled that a person dealing with a registered land has the right to rely on the face of the Torrens title and need not inquire further, unless the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such an inquiry. The indefeasibility of a Torrens title as evidence of lawful ownership of the property protects buyers in good faith who rely on what appears on the face of the said certificate of title. Moreover, a potential buyer is charged with notice of only the burdens and claims annotated on the title.[28] As explained in Sandoval v. Court of Appeals,[29]
	GR No. 157573 2008-02-11	Elinel Caña v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
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.[40] Moreover, the age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.[41]
	GR NO. 127967 2005-12-14	FEDERATED REALTY CORPORATION v. CA TINGA, J.
Time and again, we have upheld the fundamental principle in land registration that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.[30] It becomes the best proof of ownership of a parcel of land.[31] One who deals with property registered under the Torrens system may rely on the title and need not go beyond the same.[32] Such principle of indefeasibility has long been well-settled in this jurisdiction and it is only when the acquisition of the title is attended with fraud or bad faith that the doctrine finds no application.[33]