Renz Paula E.

Rollorata 2009-44756
Land Titles and Deeds August 27, 2016

What is the purpose of the Torrens system of registration and what specific benefits evolve
from the system?

The Torrens systems generally 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.

The real purpose of the Torrens system of registration, as expressed in Legarda v. Saleeby1,
a 1915 decision, is to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of
the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which
may arise subsequent thereto. The Torrens system aims to decree land titles that shall be
final, irrevocable, and indisputable2, and to relieve the land of the burden of known as well as
unknown claims3.
However, the Torrens system does not furnish a shield for fraud4, nor permit one to enrich
himself at the expense of others,5 otherwise its acceptability is impaired6.

Sir Robert Torrens summarized the benefits of the system of registration of titles, to wit:

a) Substituted security for insecurity;

b) Reduced the cost of conveyance from pounds to shillings, and the time occupied
from months to days;
c) It has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage;
d) It has so simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the 3 Rs can
transact his own conveyancing;
e) It affords protection against fraud; and
f) It has restored to their just value many estates, held under good holding titles, but
depreciated in consequence of some blur or technical defect, and has barred the
reoccurrence of any similar faults.7

Additionally, the Torrens system aims to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and to
facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of a
Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further except when the
party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a
reasonably cautious man to make further inquiry.

1 GR No. 8936, Oct. 2, 1915, 31 Phil. 590, 31 Phil. 590; see also Ching v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 59731,
Jan. 11, 1990, 181 SCRA 9; National Grains Authority v. Intermediate Appellate Court, GR No. L-68741,
Jan. 28, 1988, 157 SCRA 388.
2 Government of the Philippine Islands v. Abural, GR No. 14167, Aug. 14, 1919, 39 Phil. 996.
3 SM Prime Holdings, Inc. v. Madayag.
4 15Rodriguez v. Lim, GR No. 135817, Nov. 30, 2006, 459 SCRA 412; Manlapat v. Court of Appeals, GR

No. 125585, June 8, 2005.

5 Ibid.
6 17Ermac v. Ermac, GR No. 149679, May 30, 2003, 403 SCRA 291.
7 Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, GR No. L-5246, Sept. 16, 1910, 17 SCRA 49, citing Sheldon on Land

Registration.