October 2, 1915 G.R. No. L-8936 CONSUELO LEGARDA, with her husband MAURO PRIETO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. N.M.SALEEBY, defendant-appellee. Singson, Ledesma and Lim for appellants. D.R. Williams for appellee. JOHNSON, J.: FACTS: Consuelo Legarda and N.M. Saleeby are owners of adjoining lots in Ermita, Manila . Between their lots is a stone wall which is located on the lot of the plaintif fs. On March 2, 1906, Consuelo and her husband presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration to register their lot. The registration was allowed on Oct ober 25, 1906. They were then issued an original certificate and the title was r egistered. Both included the wall. On March 25, 1912, the predecessor of N.M. Saleeby presented a petition in the C ourt of Land Registration for registration. The court decreed the registration o f the land which also included the wall. The plaintiffs Consuelo and Mauro, her husband, discovered that the wall has also been registered to N.M. Saleeby. They presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for adjustment and c orrection of the error where the wall was indicated in both registrations. Howev er, the lower court contended that during the pendency of the petition for the r egistration of the defendantâ s land, they failed to make any objection to the regist ration of said lot, including the wall, in the name of the defendant. ISSUE: WON the defendant is the owner of the wall and the land occupied by it? RULING: NO. The lower courtâ s decision would call for the plaintiffs to be always al ert and see to it that no other parties will register the wall and its land. Els e, if they spotted someone registering such wall in their own name, plaintiff mu st immediately oppose. Such would become defeat the real purpose of the Torrens system of land registration. â The real purpose of that system 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 th e time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent theret o. That being the purpose of the law, it would seem that once a title is registe red the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals o f the court, or sitting in the â mirador de su casa,â to avoid the possibility of losing his land. â So who owns the land? According to Torrens system, the plaintiffs. Under our law, once a party registers the land, final and in good faith, no thir d parties may claim interest on the same land. â The rights of all the worlda re fore closed by the decree of registration.â The registration, under the Torrens system, d oes not give the owner any better title than he had. The registration of a parti cular parcel of land is a bar to future litigation over the same between the sam e parties. It is a notice to the world and no one can plead ignorance of the reg istration. Adopting the rule which we believe to be more in consonance with the purposes an d the real intent of the torrens system, we are of the opinion and so decree tha t in case land has been registered under the Land Registration Act in the name o f two different persons, the earlier in date shall prevail. The presumption is t hat the purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title. T his presumption is IRREBUTABLE. It cannot be overcome by proof of innocence or g ood faith. Otherwise the very purpose and object of the law requiring a record w ould be destroyed. The rule is that all persons must take notice of the facts wh ich the public record contains is a rule of law. The rule must be absolute. Any variation would lead to endless confusion and useless litigation. DECISION: Judgment of the lower court was revoked. The wall and the land where i t sits is awarded to the plaintiffs.