FACTS:

Petitioners  sought  the  quieting  of  title,  recovery  of  possession  and ownership  over  a  parcel  of  land.    They  allege  that  they  are  the  rightful owners,  having  inherited  the  land  from  their  father.    The  private respondents contend on the other hand that they are the rightful owners, getting rightful ownership from buying the land through a public auction by PNB.  The trial court held in favor of the petitioners while the CA reversed the decision.
 

HELD:

1.    The rule is settled that prescription doesn’t run against registered land—a  title,  once  registered,  cannot  be  defeated  even  by adverse, open and notorious possession.
2.    In order that an action for recovery of ownership of real property may prosper, the person who claims that he has a better right to it  must  prove  not  only  his  ownership  of  the  same  but  also satisfactorily prove the identity thereof.
3.    As a general rule, where  the certificate of title is in the name of the  vendor  when  the  land  is  sold,  the  vendee  for  value  has  the right to rely on  what appears on the face of the title though, by way of exception, the vendee is required to make  the necessary inquiries if there is anything in the certificate of title which indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property. 
4.    Identity of the land doctrine