Case Digest (G.R. No. 41915)
Facts:
- La Urbana, a construction and loan company, filed cases against individuals Simeon Bernardo, Mateo Buenaventura, and others for the issuance of illegal land titles.
- The lands in question were registered under the Torrens system.
- La Urbana claimed that the titles issued were invalid.
- La Urbana also sought indemnity and damages for the loss of portions of land included in the titles.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court ruled in favor of the defendants, declaring the titles valid.
- The court denied La Urbana&...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court based its decision on the principles of the Torrens system, which governs registered land in the Philippines.
- The court held that the registered owners of the lands were purchasers in good faith and for value, and therefore, their titles should be respected.
- The court found that La Urbana was not an innocent purchaser in good faith when it acquired the land at public auction, as it had knowledge of the pending litigations and notices of lis pendens.
- Therefore, La Urbana was not entitled to indemnity from the assurance fund.
- Additionally, the court noted that La Urbana had already profited from the sale of the land and therefore should not be entitled to claim damages.
Conc...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 41915)
Facts:
The case of La Urbana v. Bernardo involves a construction and loan company, La Urbana, filing cases against individuals for the issuance of illegal land titles. La Urbana, Sociedad Mutua de Construccion y Prestamos, filed two cases against Simeon Bernardo et al. and Mateo Buenaventura et al. The lands in question were registered under the Torrens system and had titles issued under its provisions. La Urbana alleged that 16 transfer certificates of title had been illegally issued over lands of which it was the sole owner, and it sought to have these titles declared null and void. Alternatively, if cancellation was not in order, La Urbana sought damages resulting from the loss of the portions of land included in the titles.
Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether the titles issued over the lands in question are valid and whether La Urbana is entitled to indemnity from the assurance fund.
Ruling:
The court ruled that all the titles, except for the one issued to La Urbana, are valid. The court applied the provisions of the Land Registration Act, which proclaim the indefeasibility of the original title and the rights of subsequent purchasers in good faith and for value. The court held that the registered owners were purchasers in good faith and had the right to rely on the titles they received.
The court also ruled that La Urbana i...