Legarda v. Saleeby G.R. No.
L-8936 except claims which were noted, at the time of registrations in the certificate, or
October 2, 1915
FACTS:
Consuelo Legarda and N.M. Saleeby are owners of adjoining lots in
Ermita, Manila. Between their lots is a stone wall which is located on the lot of
the plaintiffs. Consuelo and her husband presented a petition in the Court of
Land Registration to register their lot. The registration was allowed and they
were issued an original certificate and the title was registered which included the
stone wall.
The predecessor of N.M. Saleeby, Teus, presented a petition in the
Court of Land Registration for registration of the lot now occupied by him. The
court decreed the registration of the land which also included the wall.
The plaintiffs Consuelo and Mauro, her husband, discovered that the
wall which was included in the certificate granted to them has also been
registered to N.M. Saleeby. They immediately presented a petition in the Court
of Land Registration for adjustment and correction of the error where the wall
was indicated in both registrations. However, the lower court, without notice to
the defendant, denied said petition upon the theory that, during the pendency of
the petition for the registration of the defendant’s land, they failed to make any
objection to the registration of said lot, including the wall, in the name of the
defendant.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the predecessor of N.M. Saleeby owns the land? No. Spouses
Legarda owns it since they registered the land first. N.M. Saleeby cannot also be
considered an “innocent purchaser” and be protected against the mistake of his
predecessor.
HELD:
The argument of defendants is not valid because the court held that if
this was a valid argument that the defendant can use against the plaintiff (check
no. 3 facts), the plaintiff may also use said argument since the defendant did not
oppose as well to the registration of the land which included the wall.
The real purpose of the torrens system of land registration is to quiet
title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title,
which may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it would
seem that once the title was registered, the owner might rest secure, without the
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the "mirador de su
casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his land. The proceeding for the
registration of land under the torrens system is a judicial proceeding. It is
clothed with all the forms of an action and the result is final and binding upon all
the world. It is an action in rem.
While the proceeding is judicial, it involves more in its consequences
than an ordinary action. All the world are parties, including the government.
After the registration is complete and final and there exists no fraud, there are no
innocent third parties who may claim an interest. The rights of all the world are
foreclosed by the decree of registration. The government itself assumes the
burden of giving notice to all parties.
The registration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to future litigation
over the same between the same parties. In view of the fact that all the world are
parties, it must follow that future litigation over the title is forever barred; there
can be no persons who are not parties to the action. A title once registered
cannot be defeated, even by an adverse, open, and notorious possession; or by
prescription.(section 46, Act No. 496). No one can plead ignorance of the
registration.
According to Torrens system, the plaintiffs own the land. Under our law, once a
party registers the land, final and in good faith, no third parties may claim
interest on the same land. The rights of all the world are foreclosed by the decree
of registration.
Thus, where two certificates of title include or cover the same land, the earlier in
date must prevail as between the original parties, whether the land included in
the latter certificate be wholly or only in part comprised in the earlier certificate.
In case of double registration under the Land Registration Act, the owner of the
earliest certificate is the owner of the land. That is the rule between original
parties. This may be applied to successive vendees of the owners of such
certificates. The general rule is that the vendee of land has no greater right, title,
or interest than his vendor; that he acquires the right, which his vendor had,
only. Under that rule the vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner as
against the vendee of the owner of the later certificate. (So kung ano yung rights
nung vendor ganon din sa vendee; kung ano rights ni Teus yon din rights ni
N.M. Saleeby,) However, there are provisions in Act No. 496 (Sections 38, 55,
and 112) which give rights to vendees who are considered as “innocent
purchasers” that are not given to vendors.

But in this case, the purchaser of a land which has been included in the “second
original title” cannot be considered as an “innocent” purchaser” The first
original certificate is recorded in the public registry. It is never issued until it is
recorded. The record notice to all the world. All persons are charged with the
knowledge of what it contains. Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the
purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such
presumption is irrebutable. This presumption cannot be overcome by proof of
innocence or good faith. (So sina N.M. Saleeby hindi pwede maging innocent
purchaser ng “second original title” ng land kasi presumed na alam nila yung
registration ng plaintiffs. They can’t say na they didn’t know about the
registration of the first because of the rule of notice)