SPOUSES MARIANO and ERLINDA LABURADA, represented by their attorney-in-fact, MANUEL SANTOS,

JR., petitioners, vs. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, respondent. GR No. 101387; March 11, 1998.

Facts:

Spouses Laburada were applicants for the of a parcel of land located in Mandaluyong City. The Regional Trial Court
of Pasig City acting as a land registration court, granted the decree of registration. After the finality of the decision,
the trial court, on Motion of petitioners, issued an order requiring the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue the
corresponding decree of registration.

However, the LRA refused contending that to issue decree of registration of the subject land would result in the
duplication of titles over the same, and thus contravene the policy and purpose of the Torrens Registration system,
and destroy the integrity of the same as verification of the records on file in the Register of Deeds of the Province of
Rizal yields that the lot in question is already covered by a TCT.

Hence, petitioners filed this action for mandamus.

Issue:

Whether respondent LRA can be compelled to issue the corresponding decree of registration over the subject land.
NO

SC Ruling:

It is settled that a land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the
name of another in an earlier land registration case. A second decree for the same land would be null and void, since
the principle behind original registration is to register a parcel of land only once.

Thus, if it is proven that the land which petitioners are seeking to register has already been registered in 1904 and
1905, the issuance of a decree of registration to petitioners will run counter to said principle. The issuance of a
decree of registration is part of the judicial function of courts and is not a mere ministerial act which may be
compelled through mandamus.

LILIA Y. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and RURAL BANK OF PAVIA, INC.,
respondents. GR No. 69622; January 29, 1988

Facts:

Spouses Buensuceso were the original owners of the property subject of this controversy. For delinquency in the
payment of the real estate taxes due thereon, the land was sold at public auction to the Province of Iloilo in 1955.
However, Hortencia Buensuceso, the daughter of said spouses, discovered in the office of the Register of Deeds of
Iloilo that the Certificate of Title of subject land, was still in the name of her parents.

She then paid the back taxes on the land in behalf of her mother in whose favor the Provincial Treasurer executed a
deed of repurchase. Thereafter she and her husband, Gaudioso Panzo, bought the land from her mother. A TCT was
then issued in the name of spouses Panzo, who then mortgaged the property to respondent Rural Bank of Pavia.
Upon default, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and was later granted a certificate of sale as the highest bidder in the
auction.

Thereafter, petitioner Gonzales as co-administratix of the Intestate Estate of the late Matias Yusay brought an action
against the spouses Panzo and the respondent Rural Bank seeking annulment and cancellation of title in the name of
the Panzos and the issuance of a new title in favor of Yusay.

Petitioner alleged that subject property was verbally sold to Yusay by the spouses Panzo but later wrested
possession of the same property, forcing petitioner (Gonzales) to file an action for forcible entry against them. The
appeal of the case still pends in the CFI of Iloilo. Petitioner further argues that defendant Rural Bank was not a
mortgagee in good faith for not having taken the necessary precaution before accepting the subject property as
collateral for the loan granted by the spouses Panzo. The defendant bank set up defense of good faith.

The IAC dismissed the case on the ground that the subject property having already been sold to defendant Rural
Bank, the said spouses ceased to have any interest in the property.
Issue:

Whether defendant Rural Bank was a mortgagee and subsequent buyer for value and in good faith ruled in favor of
said defendant. YES

SC Ruling:

When the certificate of title in the name of the Panzo spouses was submitted to private respondent bank for purposes
of their loan application, it was free from any lien and encumbrance. There was therefore nothing on the face of the
title of the Panzos which would arouse the suspicion of the respondent bank. The certificate of title was in the name
of the mortgagors when the land was mortgaged by them to respondent bank. Such being the case, said respondent
bank, as mortgagee, had the right to rely on what appeared on the certificate of title and, in the absence of anything
to excite suspicion, was under no obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor
appearing on the face of said certificate.

We agree with the trial court that the respondent Bank was not negligent in failing to consult a lawyer. The loan
application of the Panzos was subjected to the rigid requirements of the bank. There was a physical inspection of the
property. The loan application passed thru the scrutiny of the Credit Committee, the members of which are also the
Directors of the Bank. The mortgage was then duly registered with the Register of Deeds.

The well-known rule in this jurisdiction is that a person dealing with a registered land has a right to rely upon the face
of the Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned
has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make inquiry. It has
also been held that a bank is not required, before accepting a mortgage, to make an investigation of the title of the
property being given as security.