Scribd
Upload
234 views1 page

G.R. No. 154409 (Abrigo v. de Vera)

1) Gloria Villapania failed to buy back a house and lot she had previously sold, but was later able to obtain the title and sold the property to the respondent. 2) The petitioners had purchased the same property from different sellers, but failed to register the sale under the Torrens system. 3) The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that a registered Torrens title serves as indefeasible notice against all others, so the petitioners should have inquired about the registration status but did not.

Uploaded by

Allan
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
234 views1 page

G.R. No. 154409 (Abrigo v. de Vera)

1) Gloria Villapania failed to buy back a house and lot she had previously sold, but was later able to obtain the title and sold the property to the respondent. 2) The petitioners had purchased the same property from different sellers, but failed to register the sale under the Torrens system. 3) The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that a registered Torrens title serves as indefeasible notice against all others, so the petitioners should have inquired about the registration status but did not.

Uploaded by

Allan
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
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

154409 June 21, 2004


Spouses NOEL and JULIE ABRIGO, petitioners,
vs.
ROMANA DE VERA, respondent.

FACTS:
Gloria Villapania failed to buy back the house and lot she sold to Rosenda Tigno-Salazar
and Rosita Cave-Go. However, she was able to obtain later a TCT on the lot and sold the
same with the house to the respondent while Salazar and Go sold the subject properties
to the petitioners. The respondent registered the sale and was issued a new TCT while
the petitioners failed to do so. In a case filed by the petitioners for the annulment of the
respondents’ TCT, the CA ruled in favor of the respondents. The petitioners argued that
they were fraudulently misled into believing that the property was unregistered.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners had a better right as they were misled into believing that
the property was unregistered?

RULING:
No, they do not have better right against the respondent.

The Court held that a Torrens title, once registered, serves as a notice and indefeasible
as against the whole world; and that all persons must take notice, and no one can plead
ignorance of the registration.

In this case, the subject property was already registered under the Torrens system in the
name of Villapania when the petitioners purchased the same from Salazar and Go; thus
they should have inquired into the registration of the same or registered the same under
the Torrens system Unfortunately, they failed to do so in contrast to the registration done
by the respondent in good faith and for value.

You might also like