Advantages of the Torrens system
The following, according to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 5246, September 16, 1910, citing Sheldon on Land Registration, pp. 75, 76), are the benefits of the system of registration of titles, to wit:
The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of being told later that his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not only be unfair to him. What is worse is that if this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of ownership. The further consequence would be that land conflicts could be even more numerous and complex than they are now and possibly also more abrasive, if not even violent. The Government, recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system, should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law are satisfied. (G.R. No. 107967, March 1, 1994)
- Promotes security over insecurity;
- Reduces the costs of and the time needed for conveyances;
- Promotes brevity and clarity over obscurity and verbiage;
- Simplifies ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the ‘three R’s’ can transact his own conveyancing;
- It affords protection against fraud;
- Restores to their just value estates held under good holding titles but suffered depreciation due to some technical defect; and
- Bars the re-occurrence of any similar faults in the holding of titles over estates.
The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of being told later that his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not only be unfair to him. What is worse is that if this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of ownership. The further consequence would be that land conflicts could be even more numerous and complex than they are now and possibly also more abrasive, if not even violent. The Government, recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system, should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law are satisfied. (G.R. No. 107967, March 1, 1994)