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. | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As regards the first consequence, this Court has applied the same in several cases. Thus, in the old cases of Levin v. Bass,[22] Potenciano v. Dineros,[23] and Development Bank of the Philippines v. Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija,[24] as well as in the fairly recent cases of Autocorp Group v. Court of Appeals,[25] Armed Forces and Police Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Santiago,[26] and National Housing Authority v. Basa, Jr.,[27] we upheld the entry of instruments in the Primary Entry Book to be equivalent to registration despite even the failure to annotate said instruments in the corresponding certificates of title. | |||||
|
2009-10-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that registration in the public registry is notice to the whole world.[32] 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 of 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.[33] Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such presumption may not be rebutted. He is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact shown by the record and to know every fact which an examination of the record would have disclosed. This presumption cannot be overcome by any claim of innocence or good faith. Otherwise, the very purpose and object of the law requiring a record would be destroyed. Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of want of knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law. The rule that all persons must take notice of the facts which the public record contains is a rule of law. The rule must be absolute; any variation would lead to endless confusion and useless litigation.[34] In the present case, since the mortgage contract was registered, petitioner may not claim lack of knowledge thereof as a valid defense. The subsequent sale of the property to petitioner's husband cannot defeat the rights of PNB as the mortgagee and, subsequently, the purchaser at the auction sale whose rights were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered. | |||||