GR 41820; (May, 1935) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-41820; May 29, 1935
THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. ETHEL M. KANE, as administratrix of the estate of the deceased William Kane, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. (plaintiff-appellee) filed an action for recovery of property against Ethel M. Kane, administratrix of the estate of William Kane (defendant-appellant). The property was originally owned by Ruby Holstein/Harnett, then successively transferred to Carlos L. Zamora, then to Mary McDonald Bachrach, and finally to the plaintiff, with corresponding Torrens titles issued at each transfer. Prior to these transfers, George C. Sellner, who was not the registered owner, executed a private document (Exhibit E) in favor of William Kane, which was an unregistered agreement to sell the same property. Kane had paid Sellner a portion of the purchase price and was in possession. In a previous ejectment case (No. 5153), the court ruled in favor of Kane. In the present case, the lower court ruled in favor of Bachrach Motor Co., declaring it the owner and ordering Kane to deliver possession and pay damages.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff, Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., as a registered owner under the Torrens system, has a superior right to the property over the defendant, who claims under an unregistered contract with a non-registered owner.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff’s registered Torrens title prevails. The Torrens system aims to finally settle land titles, and the plaintiff’s title, being registered, is indefeasible unless proven obtained through fraud, which was not alleged or proven. The defendant’s claim, based on an unregistered private document executed by a non-registered owner (Sellner), creates no property right under the Torrens system ( Act No. 496 ). The defense of res judicata was rejected as the prior ejectment case was a different cause of action. The Court also applied the principle of estoppel against Sellner and Zamora, noting that oral testimony could not overcome the registered documents. The defendant’s remedy lies in an action for damages against Sellner.
AI Generated by Armztrong.