Torrens System of Registration Term Paper

7/28/2019 Torrens System of Registration Term Paper

1/10

TORRENS SYSTEM

Ramil F. De Jesus

Introduction

A certificate of title (Torrens Title) may be defined as an instrument issued

by the Registrar of Deeds of the place where the land is located, declaring the

owner in fee simple of certain real property described therein, free from all liens

and encumbrances, except as may be expressly reserved or noted therein. (

Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, Noblejas and Noblejas).

Generally, by Torrens systems are meant those systems of registration

of transactions with interest in land whose declared object is, under

governmental authority, to establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute

and indefeasible title to realty, and to simplify its transfer.

(http://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/land-titles-and-deeds/1351-

background-of-the-torrens-system-of-registration.html)

The title issued for the first time to the land after it has undergone the

processes in the land registration, is called original certificate of title. When the

owner of the land having original certificate of title conveys or sell it, the resulting

title is called transfer certificate of title.

Objectives

1. To enumerate the purpose of the Torrens System of Land Registration

2. To discuss the enforceability, indefeasibility and probative value of land

titles and cite relevant cases.

Discussion

The Torrens System of Land Registration aims to quiet the title to land and

to put a stop forever to any question of legality of the title, except claims which

were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise
http://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/land-titles-and-deeds/1351-background-of-the-torrens-system-of-registration.htmlhttp://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/land-titles-and-deeds/1351-background-of-the-torrens-system-of-registration.htmlhttp://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/land-titles-and-deeds/1351-background-of-the-torrens-system-of-registration.htmlhttp://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/land-titles-and-deeds/1351-background-of-the-torrens-system-of-registration.html


2/10

2

subsequent thereto.

Once a title is registered the owner may rest secure, without the necessity

of waiting in the portals of the court, to avoid the possibility of losing his land. All

the world are parties, including the government. After the registration is complete

and final, and there exists no fraud, there are no innocent third parties who may

claim any interest.

The decreed land titles shall be final, irrevocable, and indisputable, and relieved

the land of the burden of known as well as unknown claims. The registration

either relieves the land of all known as well as unknown claims absolutely, or it

compels the claimants to come unto court and to make there a record, so that

thereafter, there may be no uncertainty concerning either the character or the

extent of such claims.(http://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/land-titles-

and-deeds/1353-purpose-of-the-torrens-system.html)

Enforceability of certificate of title

An original certificate of title is made valid and enforceable against the

whole world by the fact that it was issued pursuant to a decree of registration

based on final judgment promulgated by a court of competent jurisdiction after

due publication, notice and hearing provided that the said decree had not been

reopened within one year from the date of its issuance on the ground of actual

fraud. ( Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, Noblejas and Noblejas p 266).

A Torrens title, once registered, cannot be defeated, even by adverse

open and notorious possession. A registered title under the Torrens system

cannot be defeated by prescription. The title, once registered, is notice to the

world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead ignorance of the

registration. ( Egao v. CA, G.R. No. L-79787 June 29, 1989 citing Legarda v.

Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590, 595; see also Sec. 46 of Act 496, Land Registration Act).
http://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/land-titles-and-deeds/1353-purpose-of-the-torrens-system.htmlhttp://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/land-titles-and-deeds/1353-purpose-of-the-torrens-system.htmlhttp://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/land-titles-and-deeds/1353-purpose-of-the-torrens-system.htmlhttp://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law/land-titles-and-deeds/1353-purpose-of-the-torrens-system.html


3/10

3

Titles issued under the Torrens System is said to be indefeasible.

However, Torrens title secured by fraud is void. In G.R. No. 16355, "the main

issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the validity of

OCT No. P-658 and confirming respondent as owner of the property in dispute.

The Court ruled:

The Torrens title is conclusive evidence with respectto the ownership of the land described therein, and othermatters which can be litigated and decided in land registrationproceedings.[26]Tax declarations and tax receipts cannotprevail over a certificate of title which is an incontrovertibleproof of ownership.[27]An original certificate of title issued bythe Register of Deeds under an administrative proceeding is

as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under judicialproceedings.[28]However, the Court has ruled thatindefeasibility of title does not attach to titles secured by fraudand misrepresentation.[29]

In this case, petitioner alleged in his Answer torespondents Complaint in the trial court that respondentstitle,OCT No. P-658, was secured in violation of the law andthrough fraud, deception and misrepresentation, because thesubject parcel of land is a residential lot, which cannot besubject of a free patent, since only agricultural lands aresubject of a free patent.

The trial court found that [t]he lot under litigation as

clearly described in the complaint is a residential lot and afree patent title thereto cannot validly be issued. This findingwas one of the bases for the trial courts declaration that theissuance of OCT was tainted with fraud and irregularities andis, therefore, spurious; thus, OCT No. P-658 is null and void.

It should be pointed out that the allegation in theComplaint that the land is residential was made only byrespondent, but the true classification of the disputed land asresidential was not shown to have been made by thePresident, upon recommendation by the Secretary ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, pursuant to Section 9 of

Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise known as The PublicLand Act.[30]Hence, the trial court erred in concluding thatthere was fraud in the issuance of respondents free patenttitle on the ground that it covered residential land based onlyon the Complaint which stated that the property wasresidential land when it was not shown that it was thePresident who classified the disputed property as residential,and OCT No. P-658 itself stated that the free patent titlecovered agricultural land. It has been stated that atpresent, not only agricultural lands, but also residential lands,have been made available by recent legislation for acquisitionby free patent by any natural born Filipino

citizen.[31]Nevertheless, the fact is that in this case, the freepatent title was granted over agricultural land as stated inOCT No. P-658.

Moreover, petitioner contends in his petition that theCertification[32]dated July 24, 1987 issued by Datu Samra I.

Andam, A/Adm. Assistant II, Natural Resources District No.XII-3, Bureau of Lands, Marawi City, certifying that the data
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm


4/10

4

contained in OCT No. P-658 in respondents name had norecords in the said office, showed thatrespondents Torrens title was spurious.

The Court holds that the certification, by itself, isinsufficient to prove the alleged fraud. Fraud andmisrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and

annulment of title, should never be presumed, but must beproved by clear and convincing evidence, merepreponderance of evidence not being adequate.[33]Fraud is aquestion of fact which must be proved.[34]The signatory of thecertification, Datu Samra Andam, A/Adm. Assistant II, NaturalResources District No. XII-3, Marawi City, was not presentedin court to testify on the due issuance of the certification, andto testify on the details of his certification, particularly thereason why the said office had no records of the datacontained in OCT No. P-658 or to testify on the fact of fraud, ifany.

Thus, the Court holds that the evidence on record is

insufficient to prove that fraud was committed in the issuanceof respondents Torrens title. Hence,respondents Torrens title is a valid evidence of his ownershipof the land indispute.http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2011/07/torrens-title-secured-by-fraud-is-void.html

Probative Value of a Torrens Title

A Torrens Title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the

land referred to therein. A strong presumption exists that Torrens Titles are

regularly issued and that they are valid. A Torrens Title is incontrovertible against

any information possessoria or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not

annotated in the title. (Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, Noblejas and

Noblejas)

However, the Supreme Court in the case of Philippine National Bank v.

Tan Ong Zse, 51 Phil 317, said; This rule is not true, however, with respect to the

contents of the annotations or memoranda on a certificate of title. Thus, it was

held that the memorandum of a power of attorney made on the back of an

original certificayte of title is not admissible as evidence of the contents of said

power of attorney, but only to the fact of its execution, of its presentation for

notation, and of it notation fior the purpose of constructive notice to the public in

connection with the creation of preferential righs to the registered land covered
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn35http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2011/07/torrens-title-secured-by-fraud-is-void.htmlhttp://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2011/07/torrens-title-secured-by-fraud-is-void.htmlhttp://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2011/07/torrens-title-secured-by-fraud-is-void.htmlhttp://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2011/07/torrens-title-secured-by-fraud-is-void.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/163551.htm#_ftn34


5/10

5

by the title.( ( Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, Noblejas and Noblejas p.

268).

A Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally, and the issue on its validity

can be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. A collateral

attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different relief, the certificate of

title is assailed as an incident in said action. In G.R. No. 171209, July 27, 2012,

in an action reinvidicatoria and accion publiciana ruled in favor of the one having

the certificate of title in their name and that the act of the respondent is collateral

attack on the title which cannot be accepted, the Supreme Court ruled that :

It is a hornbook principle that "a certificate of title serves asevidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of theperson whose name appears therein."57 In order to establisha system of registration by which recorded title becomesabsolute, indefeasible, and imprescriptible, the legislaturepassed Act No. 496, which took effect on February 1, 1903.

Act No. 496 placed all registered lands in the Philippinesunder the Torrens system. The Torrens system requires thegovernment to issue a certificate of title stating that theperson named in the title is the owner of the property

described therein, subject to liens and encumbrancesannotated on the title or reserved by law. The certificate oftitle is indefeasible and imprescriptible and all claims to theparcel of land are quieted upon issuance of the certificate.Presidential Decree No. 1529, known as the PropertyRegistration Decree, enacted on June 11, 1978, amendedand updated Act No. 496.58

Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides:

Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateralattack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelledexcept in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

A Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally, and the issueon its validity can be raised only in an action expresslyinstituted for that purpose.59 A collateral attack is madewhen, in another action to obtain a different relief, thecertificate of title is assailed as an incident in said action.60

In this case, the original complaint filed by PEC-EDNP beforethe RTC is for accion publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria(for recovery of possession and ownership) of the Ken-geka

and Ken-gedeng properties. In said complaint, PEC-EDNPalleged ownership of the Ken-geka property as evidenced byCertificate of Title No. 1. In their defense, the spousesDecaleng raised issues as to the validity of Certificate of TitleNo. 1 (by asserting in their Answer that Certificate of Title No.1 covered an area much larger than that actually owned byPEC-EDNP), and as to the existence of Certificate of Title No.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/171209.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/171209.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/171209.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/171209.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/171209.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/171209.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/171209.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/171209.htm


6/10

6

1 (by presenting Mountain Province Register of Deeds Dailay-Papas certification that Certificate of Title No. 1 does notappear in the record of registered titles). Nevertheless, thespouses Decaleng only sought the dismissal of the complaintof PEC-EDNP, plus the grant of their counterclaim for thepayment of moral damages, exemplary damages, litigation

expenses, and attorneys fees; and they conspicuously didnot pray for the annulment or cancellation of Certificate ofTitle No. 1. Evidently, the spouses Decalengs attack on thevalidity, as well as the existence of Certificate of Title No. 1 isonly incidental to their defense against the accion publicianaand accion reinvindicatoria instituted by PEC-EDNP, hence,merely collateral.

The spouses Decaleng, in an effort to skirt the prohibitionagainst collateral attack of certificates of title, argue that theyare not attacking the validity of Certificate of Title No. 1, but,rather, the existence of such a certificate. The Court notes

that the spouses Decaleng did not only put in issue thepurported non-existence of Certificate of Title No. 1, but alsoquestioned the validity of the certificate itself.

The Court stresses that PEC-EDNP submitted to the RTC theowners duplicate certificate of Certificate of Title No. 1, whichcan be used in evidence before Philippine courts in the sameway as the original certificates in the registration book.Section 47 of Act No. 496 clearly states:

SEC. 47. The original certificate in the registration book,any copy thereof duly certified under the signature of

the clerk, or of the register of deeds of the province orcity where the land is situated, and the seal of the court,and also the owners duplicate certificate, shall bereceived as evidence in all the courts of the PhilippineIslands and shall be conclusive as to all matterscontained therein except as far as otherwise provided inthis Act.

In the case of Heir of Leopoldo Vencilao, Jr. et al v. CA et al, GR No.

123713, April 1, 1998, the Court did not favor prescription against the registered

land in question, thus:

It should be noted that the land in dispute is a registered landplaced under the operation of the Torrens system way back in1959, or more than thirty (30) years before petitionersinstituted the present action in the court a quo, and for whichOriginal Certificate of Title No. 400 was issued. 6 The rule iswell-settled that prescription does not run against registeredland. Thus, under Sec. 47 of PD 1529, otherwise known asthe Property Registration Decree, it is specifically providedthat "no title to registered land in derogation of that of the

registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adversepossession." A title, once registered, cannot be defeated evenby adverse, open and notorious possession. The certificate oftitle issued is an absolute and indefeasible evidence ofownership of the property in favor of the person whose nameappears therein. It is binding and conclusive upon the whole


7/10

7

world. 7 All persons must take notice and no one can pleadignorance of the registration.

Neither can the tax declarations and tax receipts presented bypetitioners as evidence of ownership prevail overrespondents' certificate of title which, to reiterate, is an

incontrovertible proof of ownership. It should be stressed thattax declarations and receipts do not by themselvesconclusively prove title to the land. 9 They only constitutepositive and strong indication that the taxpayer concerned hasmade a claim either to the title or to the possession of theproperty for which taxes have been paid. 10 Stated differently,tax declarations and tax receipts are only prima facieevidence of ownership or possession.

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. He is under no obligation to look beyond the certificate

and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of the certificate. By

way of exception, the vendee is required to make the necessary inquiries if there

is anything in the certificate of title which indicates any cloud or vice in the

ownership of the property. Otherwise, his mere refusal to believe that such

defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of

a defect in his vendor's title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value if

it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he

had such notice of the defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted

with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent

man in a like situation. (G.R. No. 123713 April 1, 1998).

In another case where the validity of the certificate of title was collaterally

attacked, the Supreme Court ruled that:

Likewise, Section 48 of PD 1529 provides:

Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. Acertificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. Itcannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a directproceeding in accordance with law. (Underscoring ours)

Respondents application for registration of a parcel of land already

covered by a Torrens title is actually a collateral attack against petitioners title

not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. It is well


8/10

8

settled that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue on the validity

of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an

action expressly instituted for the purpose.9 Hence, whether or not respondents

have the right to claim title over the property in question is beyond the province of

the instant proceeding. That should be threshed out in a proper action. It has

been invariably stated that the real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title

to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is

registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the

portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casa" to avoid the possibility of

losing his land.

In Ramos v. Rodriguez,11 we held:

It must be noted that petitioners failed to rebut the LRA reportand only alleged that the title of the Payatas Estate wasspurious, without offering any proof to substantiate this claim.TCT No. 8816, however, having been issued under theTorrens System, enjoys the conclusive presumption of

validity. As we declared in an earlier case (Reyes and Nadresvs. Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil. 791), "(t)he verypurpose of the Torrens system would be destroyed if thesame land may be subsequently brought under a secondaction for registration." The application for registration of thepetitioners in this case would, under the circumstances,appear to be a collateral attack of TCT No. 8816 which is notallowed under Section 48 of P.D. 1529. (underscoring ours)

Corollarily, Section 32 of the same law states:

Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser

for value. The decree of registration shall not be reopenedor revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disabilityof any person adversely affected thereby, nor by anyproceeding in any court for reversing judgment, subject,however, to the right of any person, including the governmentand the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate orinterest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of titleobtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of FirstInstance a petition for reopening and review of the decree ofregistration not later than one year from and after the date ofthe entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shallsuch petition be entertained by the court where an innocent

purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interesttherein whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever thephrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phraseoccurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include aninnocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.


9/10

9

Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree ofregistration and the certificate of title issued shall becomeincontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree ofregistration in any case may pursue his remedy by action fordamages against the applicant or any other personresponsible for the fraud. (underscoring ours)

A decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive

not only on the questions actually contested and determined, but also upon all

matters that might be litigated or decided in the land registration proceedings.

In G.R.L-26582, the Court reiterated the requisites for reopening a decree

and who may file the petition and stated that It will be noted that the essential

requisites or elements for the allowance of the reopening or review of a decree

are: (a) that the petitioner has a real or dominical right; (b) that he has been

deprived thereof; (c) through fraud; (d) that the petition is filed within one year

from the issuance of the decree; and (e) that the property has not as yet been

transferred to an innocent purchaser (Ponce, The Phils. Torrens System, page

208). It will also be noted from the provision that "any person" may file the

petition, provided the other requisites are present; and that the provision does not

require that the petitioner be an original claimant who had filed an answer. And

reasonably so, because fraud might intervene precisely to prevent a person from

filing an answer. Thus, a party deprived of an estate in land was accorded relief

where the fraud consisted in deliberate failure to notify the party entitled to notice

(Salva vs. Salvador, 18 Phil. 193), or in inducing him not to oppose an application

(Reyes vs. City of Manila, 38 Phil. 350), or in misrepresentation to the true owner

by an applicant of the identity of the lot, causing the true owner to withdraw his

opposition (Marquiala, et al. vs. Ybaez, et al., 92 Phil. 911). Under these rulings,

it follows that a petitioner for review under Section 38 of Act 496, as amended,

need not be an original claimant in a cadastral proceeding and need not secure

the lifting of the order of general default with respect to himself. The aim of the

law in giving aggrieved parties, victimized by registration proceedings of their

estate in land by means of fraud, the opportunity to review the decree would be


10/10

10

defeated if such parties would be limited to those who had filed their opposition to

the petition for registration or to first require them to procure the lifting of the

order of general default before they could file a petition for review.

Conclusion

The certificate of title to the land once issued cannot be attacked

collaterally and is indefeasible, however, when the registration of the land

contained therein was attended by fraud, the aggrieved party may still question

the validity of the issued certificate of title in a direct proceedings.

Documents

Torrens System of Registration Term Paper