You're currently signed in as:
User

HENRY MUNAR CHAN v. CA

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

2007-11-22
QUISUMBING, J.
But we agree with respondents that petitioner cannot rely on the decision in LRC No. 142-A. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, even if a title had been issued to petitioner based on said decision, his title would be of a later date than the title of respondents, hence inefficacious and ineffective. This Court has ruled that, when two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail; and in case of successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the same land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.[9]
2002-06-06
QUISUMBING, J.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner claims that respondent was in bad faith when she registered the land in her name and, based on the abovementioned rules, he has a better right over the property because he was first in material possession in good faith. However, this allegation of bad faith on the part of Amelita Sola in acquiring the title is devoid of evidentiary support.  For one, the execution of public documents, as in the case of Affidavits of Adjudication, is entitled to the presumption of regularity, hence convincing evidence is required to assail and controvert them.[25] Second, it is undisputed that OCT No. 3439 was issued in 1989 in the name of Amelita.  It requires more than petitioner's bare allegation to defeat the Original Certificate of Title which on its face enjoys the legal presumption of regularity of issuance.[26] A Torrens title, once registered, serves as notice to the whole world. All persons must take notice and no one can plead ignorance of its registration.[27]