This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| While the Court is not unmindful that a buyer is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title, the RTC and the CA are both correct in applying the rule as to the effects of involuntary registration. In cases of voluntary registration of documents, an innocent purchaser for value of registered land becomes the registered owner, and, in contemplation of law the holder of a certificate of title, the moment he presents and files a duly notarized and valid deed of sale and the same is entered in the day book and at the same time he surrenders or presents the owner's duplicate certificate of title covering the land sold and pays the registration fees, because what remains to be done lies not within his power to perform. The Register of Deeds is duty bound to perform it.[17] In cases of involuntary registration, an entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons even if the owner's duplicate certificate of title is not presented to the register of deeds. Therefore, in the registration of an attachment, levy upon execution, notice of lis pendens, and the like, the entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim.[18] | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Such is not the case in the present controversy however. As borne out by the records, Mahinay's Notice of Lis Pendens was duly annotated on the original copy of TCT No. 117531 as early as August 17, 1994. On the other hand, the Real Estate Mortgage upon which Sorensen based her alleged superior right was executed only on October 27, 1994 and inscribed at the back of said title only on the following day, October 28, 1994. The prior registration of Mahinay's Notice of Lis Pendens bound the whole world,[87] including Sorensen. It charged her with notice that the land being offered to her as security for the loan is under litigation and that whatever rights she may acquire by virtue of the Real Estate Mortgage are subject to the outcome of the case.[88] More importantly, it also gave Mahinay a preferential right over subsequent liens and encumbrances annotated on the title.[89] "It is settled that in this jurisdiction the maxim prior est in tempore, potior est in jure (he who is first in time is preferred in right) is followed in land registration.[90] Having registered his instrument ahead of Sorensen's Real Estate Mortgage, Mahinay's Notice of Lis Pendens takes precedence over the said Real Estate Mortgage. | |||||
|
2003-10-03 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Even following petitioners' theory that the prescriptive period should commence from the time of discovery of the alleged fraud, the conclusion would still be the same. As early as May 15, 1970, when the deed of donation was registered and the transfer certificate of title was issued, petitioners were considered to have constructive knowledge of the alleged fraud, following the jurisprudential rule that registration of a deed in the public real estate registry is constructive notice to the whole world of its contents, as well as all interests, legal and equitable, included therein.[54] As it is now settled that the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of property allegedly registered through fraud is ten (10) years, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title,[55] the action filed on December 23, 1985 has clearly prescribed. | |||||