Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In Bishop v Hon CA the court held that It is an elementary principle that the owner of a
land registered under the Torrens system cannot lose it by prescription. As the Court
observed in the early case Legarda v. Saleeby: The real purpose of the Torrens system
of land registration is to quite title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the
legality of the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration in the
certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it
would seem that once the title was registered, the owner may 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 mirror principle – the Certificate of Title reflects (mirrors) accurately and completely
the current facts about a person’s title. This means that, if a person sells an estate, the
new title has to be identical to the old one in terms of description of lands, except for the
owner’s name. (Contains all info or transactions in it)
The curtain principle – one does not need to go behind the Certificate of Title as it
contains all the information about the title. This means that ownership need not be
proved by long complicated documents that are kept by the owner, as in the ‘old’
system under the Registration of Deeds Act. All of the necessary information regarding
ownership is on the Certificate of Title.
The insurance principle – provides for compensation of loss if there are errors made by
the Land Titles Registry.
In Augusto v Risos the court held that Section 2, PD 1529 (Property Registration
Decree) the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a land registration court, is
no longer as circumscribed as it was under Act No. 496, the former land registration
law. We said that the Decree has eliminated the distinction between the general
jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it
by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court. The amendment was
[a]imed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration
proceedings by conferring upon the required trial courts the authority to act not only on
applications for original registration but also over all petitions filed after original
registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising from such
applications or petitions. At any rate, we have also stated that the limited jurisdiction-
rule governing land registration courts is subject to recognized exceptions, to wit, (1)
where the parties mutually agreed or have acquiesced in submitting controversial issues
for determination; (2) where they have been given full opportunity to present their
evidence; and (3) where the court has considered the evidence already of record and is
convinced that the same is sufficient for rendering a decision upon such controversial
issues.