In Erasusta vs CA, it was held that... (http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/july2006/G.R.%20No.%20149231.htm#_ftnref10)
Consistently, this Court has ruled that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. A person is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title. Thus, where there is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defects or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto (State Investment House, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 324 Phil. 642 (1996).)
It is a matter of judicial notice that a banking institution, before approving a loan, sends its representative to the premises of the land offered as collateral and investigates who are the true owners and possessors thereof.
Good luck po nolliem