Scribd
Upload
47 views2 pages

Legarda v. Saleeby

This case involves a dispute over ownership of a stone wall and land between two adjoining lots owned by Plaintiffs Legarda and Defendant Saleeby. Both lots were registered under the Torrens system, with Legarda registering their lot including the wall six years prior to Saleeby registering their adjacent lot also including the wall. The lower court denied Legarda's petition to correct the duplicate registration of the wall. The Supreme Court held that under the Torrens system, Legarda's earlier registration of the wall prevails over Saleeby's subsequent registration of the same land. Once a title is registered, the owner is secure in their ownership without needing to constantly monitor court proceedings to prevent duplicate registrations of the same

Uploaded by

Alyssa Louissie Abrera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views2 pages

Legarda v. Saleeby

This case involves a dispute over ownership of a stone wall and land between two adjoining lots owned by Plaintiffs Legarda and Defendant Saleeby. Both lots were registered under the Torrens system, with Legarda registering their lot including the wall six years prior to Saleeby registering their adjacent lot also including the wall. The lower court denied Legarda's petition to correct the duplicate registration of the wall. The Supreme Court held that under the Torrens system, Legarda's earlier registration of the wall prevails over Saleeby's subsequent registration of the same land. Once a title is registered, the owner is secure in their ownership without needing to constantly monitor court proceedings to prevent duplicate registrations of the same

Uploaded by

Alyssa Louissie Abrera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Legarda v.

Saleeby

Plaintiffs: Consuelo Legarda with her husband Mauro Prieto


Defendant: N. M Saleeby

Facts:

A stone wall stands between the adjoining lot of Legarda and Saleeby. The said wall and the
strip of land where it stands is registered in the Torrens system under the name of Legarda. Six
years after the decree of registration is released in favor of Legarda, Saleeby applied for
registration of his lot under the Torrens system in 1912, and the decree issued in favor of the
latter included the stone wall and the strip of land where it stands.

Later the predecessor of the defendant presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for
the registration of the lot now occupied by him. The court decreed the registration of said title
and issued the original certificate provided for under the torrens system. The description of the
lot given in the petition of the defendant also included said wall.

The plaintiffs, upon discovery that the wall which had been included in the certificate granted to them
had also been included in the certificate granted to the defendant, immediately presented a petition
in the Court of Land Registration for an adjustment and correction of the error committed by
including said wall in the registered title of each of said parties. The lower court however, without
notice to the defendant, denied said petition upon the theory that, during the pendency of the petition
for the registration of the defendant's land, they failed to make any objection to the registration of
said lot, including the wall, in the name of the defendant.

That the land occupied by the wall is registered in the name of each of the owners of the adjoining
lots. The wall is not a joint wall.

Issue: Who should be the owner of a land and its improvement which has been registered under
the name of two persons?

Held:

The decision of the lower court is based upon the theory that the action for the registration of the lot
of the defendant was a judicial proceeding and that the judgment or decree was binding upon all
parties who did not appear and oppose it.

Applying that theory to him, he had already lost whatever right he had therein, by permitting the
plaintiffs to have the same registered in their name, more than six years before. Having thus
lost his right, may he be permitted to regain it by simply including it in a petition for
registration? The plaintiffs having secured the registration of their lot, including the wall, were they
obliged to constantly be on the alert and to watch all the proceedings in the land court to see that
some one else was not having all, or a portion of the same, registered? If that question is to be
answered in the affirmative, then the whole scheme and purpose of the torrens system of
land registration must fail.

For the issue involved, The Land Registration Act (Act 496) affords no remedy. However, it can
be construed that where two certificates purports to include the same registered land, the holder
of the earlier one continues to hold title and will prevail.

The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration, is to quiet 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, once a title is 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.

You might also like