Torrens System Brief Concept
Torrens system is a system of registration of transactions of lands whose objective is to make the certificate of title indefeasible and imprescriptible.
The purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to lands; to bar any question as to the legality of the title except claims which were noted at the time of registration or which may arise subsequent thereto.
Upon successful registration of land in the Torrens system, the owner and subsequent purchaser of such land may safely rely on the certificate of title without dubiety with regard to the information in the said certificate. In short, as a rule, the certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of all information appearing in the certificate of title.
Erasure, Alteration, or Amendment in the Certificate of Title
To highlight the indefeasibility of certificate of title, section 108 of PD 1529 provides that “No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same be Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance”.
This means the once the certificate of title has been issued and after the expiration of one year from the date of entry of the decree of registration ,the certificate of title cannot be attacked nor questioned collaterally except by direct proceeding in court.
Court Intervention: Section 108 of PD 1529 as a Summary Proceeding:
In the case of Rosario Banguis-Tambuyat vs. Wenifreda Balcom-Tambuyat the Supreme Court held that “Proceedings under Section 108 are “summary in nature, contemplating corrections or insertions of mistakes which are only clerical but certainly not controversial issues.”
To illustrate, a discrepancy between the true name and the name appearing in the certificate of title may be considered as either controversial or non- controversial. If the discrepancy is viewed as non-controversial such as clerical errors, the proper remedy is to avail section 108 of PD 1529 which is only a summary proceeding in court. However, if the discrepancy is controversial the same shall be ventilated in a regular action in court.
The grounds available under Section 108 of PD 1529 are the following:
1.) the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased;
2.) or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created;
3.) or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate; or that the same or any person on the certificate has been changed;
4.) or that the registered owner has married,
5.) or, if registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected;
6.) or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not convened the same within three years after its dissolution;
7.) or upon any other reasonable ground;
In sum, any amendment or alteration in the certificate of title requires the intervention of court whether the discrepancy is controversial or non-controversial.
Note that availing Section 108 of PD 1529 will not have the effect of re-opening the decree of registration, hence, the rule that no collateral attack against the certificate of title after one year of decree of registration WILL NOT APPLY. Thus, Section 108 of PD 1529 may be availed at anytime provided that the abovementioned ground/s is available and provided further that it will not result in re-opening the decree of registration nor impair the rights of innocent purchaser in good faith and for value.
Additional Information:
Certificate of Title vs Title
It must be emphasized that in Lacbayan vs Samoy Jr the Supreme Court held that: “what cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title itself. The certificate referred to is the document issued by the Register of Deeds known as the TCT. In contrast, the title referred to by law means ownership which is, more often than not, represented by that document.
Ownership is different from a certificate of title, the latter only serving as the best proof of ownership over a piece of land. The certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. In fact, mere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not named in the certificate, or that the registrant may only be a trustee, or that other parties may have acquired interest over the property subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title. Needless to say, registration does not vest ownership over a property, but may be the best evidence thereof.”
To summarize, registration does not vest title to the land but merely confirms it. Hence, registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
