This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| [T]he Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to insure their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of losing his acquisition. If this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of ownership.[98] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| In this regard, well-settled is the rule that registration of instruments must be done in the proper registry in order to effect and bind the land.[19] Prior to the Property Registration Decree of 1978, Act No. 496 (or the Land Registration Act) governed the recording of transactions involving registered land, i.e., land with a Torrens title. On the other hand, Act No. 3344, as amended, provided for the system of recording of transactions over unregistered real estate without prejudice to a third party with a better right.[20] Accordingly, if a parcel of land covered by a Torrens title is sold, but the sale is registered under Act No. 3344 and not under the Land Registration Act, the sale is not considered registered[21] and the registration of the deed does not operate as constructive notice to the whole world.[22] | |||||