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/1351background-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

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-titlesand-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).

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 respect to the ownership of the land described therein, and other matters which can be litigated and decided in land registration proceedings.[26]Tax declarations and tax receipts cannot prevail over a certificate of title which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership.[27] An original certificate of title issued by the Register of Deeds under an administrative proceeding is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under judicial proceedings.[28] However, the Court has ruled that indefeasibility of title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation.[29] In this case, petitioner alleged in his Answer to respondents Complaint in the trial court that respondents title,OCT No. P-658, was secured in violation of the law and through fraud, deception and misrepresentation, because the subject parcel of land is a residential lot, which cannot be subject of a free patent, since only agricultural lands are subject 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 a free patent title thereto cannot validly be issued. This finding was one of the bases for the trial courts declaration that the issuance of OCT was tainted with fraud and irregularities and is, therefore, spurious; thus, OCT No. P-658 is null and void. It should be pointed out that the allegation in the Complaint that the land is residential was made only by respondent, but the true classification of the disputed land as residential was not shown to have been made by the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, pursuant to Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise known as The Public Land Act.[30] Hence, the trial court erred in concluding that there was fraud in the issuance of respondents free patent title on the ground that it covered residential land based only on the Complaint which stated that the property was residential land when it was not shown that it was the President who classified the disputed property as residential, and OCT No. P-658 itself stated that the free patent title covered agricultural land. It has been stated that at present, not only agricultural lands, but also residential lands, have been made available by recent legislation for acquisition by free patent by any natural born Filipino citizen.[31] Nevertheless, the fact is that in this case, the free patent title was granted over agricultural land as stated in OCT No. P-658. Moreover, petitioner contends in his petition that the Certification[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

4
contained in OCT No. P-658 in respondents name had no records in the said office, showed that respondents Torrens title was spurious. The Court holds that the certification, by itself, is insufficient to prove the alleged fraud. Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not being adequate.[33] Fraud is a question of fact which must be proved.[34] The signatory of the certification, Datu Samra Andam, A/Adm. Assistant II, Natural Resources District No. XII-3, Marawi City, was not presented in court to testify on the due issuance of the certification, and to testify on the details of his certification, particularly the reason why the said office had no records of the data contained in OCT No. P-658 or to testify on the fact of fraud, if any. Thus, the Court holds that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove that fraud was committed in the issuance of respondents Torrens title. Hence, respondents Torrens title is a valid evidence of his ownership of the land in dispute.http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2011/07/torrens-titlesecured-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

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 as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein."57 In order to establish a system of registration by which recorded title becomes absolute, indefeasible, and imprescriptible, the legislature passed Act No. 496, which took effect on February 1, 1903. Act No. 496 placed all registered lands in the Philippines under the Torrens system. The Torrens system requires the government to issue a certificate of title stating that the person named in the title is the owner of the property described therein, subject to liens and encumbrances annotated on the title or reserved by law. The certificate of title is indefeasible and imprescriptible and all claims to the parcel of land are quieted upon issuance of the certificate. Presidential Decree No. 1529, known as the Property Registration Decree, enacted on June 11, 1978, amended and 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 collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. 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.59 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.60 In this case, the original complaint filed by PEC-EDNP before the 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-EDNP alleged ownership of the Ken-geka property as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1. In their defense, the spouses Decaleng raised issues as to the validity of Certificate of Title No. 1 (by asserting in their Answer that Certificate of Title No. 1 covered an area much larger than that actually owned by PEC-EDNP), and as to the existence of Certificate of Title No.

6
1 (by presenting Mountain Province Register of Deeds DailayPapas certification that Certificate of Title No. 1 does not appear in the record of registered titles). Nevertheless, the spouses Decaleng only sought the dismissal of the complaint of PEC-EDNP, plus the grant of their counterclaim for the payment of moral damages, exemplary damages, litigation expenses, and attorneys fees; and they conspicuously did not pray for the annulment or cancellation of Certificate of Title No. 1. Evidently, the spouses Decalengs attack on the validity, as well as the existence of Certificate of Title No. 1 is only incidental to their defense against the accion publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria instituted by PEC-EDNP, hence, merely collateral. The spouses Decaleng, in an effort to skirt the prohibition against collateral attack of certificates of title, argue that they are 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 the purported non-existence of Certificate of Title No. 1, but also questioned the validity of the certificate itself. The Court stresses that PEC-EDNP submitted to the RTC the owners duplicate certificate of Certificate of Title No. 1, which can be used in evidence before Philippine courts in the same way 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 or city where the land is situated, and the seal of the court, and also the owners duplicate certificate, shall be received as evidence in all the courts of the Philippine Islands and shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein except as far as otherwise provided in this 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 land placed under the operation of the Torrens system way back in 1959, or more than thirty (30) years before petitioners instituted the present action in the court a quo, and for which Original Certificate of Title No. 400 was issued. 6 The rule is well-settled that prescription does not run against registered land. Thus, under Sec. 47 of PD 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, it is specifically provided that "no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession." A title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession. The certificate of title issued is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. It is binding and conclusive upon the whole

7
world. 7 All persons must take notice and no one can plead ignorance of the registration. Neither can the tax declarations and tax receipts presented by petitioners as evidence of ownership prevail over respondents' certificate of title which, to reiterate, is an incontrovertible proof of ownership. It should be stressed that tax declarations and receipts do not by themselves conclusively prove title to the land. 9 They only constitute positive and strong indication that the taxpayer concerned has made a claim either to the title or to the possession of the property for which taxes have been paid. 10 Stated differently, tax declarations and tax receipts are only prima facie evidence 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. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding 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 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 report and only alleged that the title of the Payatas Estate was spurious, without offering any proof to substantiate this claim. TCT No. 8816, however, having been issued under the Torrens System, enjoys the conclusive presumption of validity. As we declared in an earlier case (Reyes and Nadres vs. Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil. 791), "(t)he very purpose of the Torrens system would be destroyed if the same land may be subsequently brought under a second action for registration." The application for registration of the petitioners in this case would, under the circumstances, appear to be a collateral attack of TCT No. 8816 which is not allowed 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 reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgment, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.

9
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other person responsible 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 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.