Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Information | Reference
Case Title:
CONSUELO LEGARDA, with her
husband MAURO PRIETO, plaintiffs
and appellants, vs. N. M. SALEEBY, [No. 8936. October 2, 1915.]
defendant and appellee.
Citation: 31 Phil. 590 CONSUELO LEGARDA, with her husband MAURO
More... PRIETO, plaintiffs and appellants, vs. N. M. SALEEBY,
defendant and appellee.
Search Result
1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; REGISTRATION OF SAME
LAND IN THE NAMES OF Two DIFFERENT
PERSONS.·L obtained a decree of registration of a
parcel of land on the 25th of October, 1906. S, on the 25th
of March, 1912, obtained a certificate of registration for
his land which joined the land theretofore registered by
L. The certificate of title issued to S included a narrow
strip of the land theretofore registered in the name of L.
On the 13th of December, 1912, L presented a petition in
the Court of Land Registration for the adjustment and
correction of the error committed in the certificate issued
to S, which included said narrow strip of land. Held: That
in a case where two certificates of title include or cover
the same land, the earlier in date must prevail as
between the original parties, whether the land comprised
in the latter certificate be wholly or only in part
comprised in the earlier certificate. In successive
registrations where more than one certificate is issued in
respect of a particular interest in land, the person
holding under the prior certificate is entitled to the land
as against the person who obtained the second certificate.
The decree of registration is conclusive upon and against
all persons.
591
JOHNSON, J.:
594
603
I dissent.
In cases of double or overlapping registration, I am
inclined to .agree with the reasoning and authority on
which it is held in the majority opinion (first) that the
original holder of the prior certificate is entitled to the land
as against the original holder of the later certificate, where
there has been no transfer of title by either party to an
innocent purchaser; both, as is shown in the majority
opinion, being at fault in permitting the double
registration to take place; (second) that an innocent
purchaser claiming under the prior certificate is entitled to
the land as against the original holder of the later
certificate, and also as against innocent purchasers from
the holder of the later certificate; the innocent purchaser
being in no wise at f ault in connection with the issuance of
the later certificate.
But I am of opinion that neither the authorities cited,
nor the reasoning of the majority opinion sustains the
608
611
613