“[i]f the Torrens certificate is truly and completely reflective of the register affecting such certificate, then… inquiry into the register is rendered redundant”
MOST disputes in the Philippines arise from ownership, possession, or interest over real property.
It is, therefore, important to understand the different principles underlying the significance of the certificate of title and the land register. The discussion of these principles will be covered in a series of articles.
The “curtain principle” means that “one does not need to go behind the certificate of title because it contains all the information about the title of its holder.”
It dispenses with long, complicated documents to prove ownership “and assures that all the necessary information regarding ownership is on the certificate of title.” (Spouses Manalese v. The Estate of the Late Spouses Narciso, et al., G.R. 254046, Nov. 25, 2024 citing Spouses Cusi v. Domingo)
The objective is to give the “public the right to rely upon the face of the Torrens certificate… [dispensing] with the necessity of inquiring further.”
“[O]n the part of the registered owner, the system gives him complete peace of mind that he would be secured in his ownership as long as he has not voluntarily disposed of any right over the covered land.” (Op cit.)
“Complementing this is the mirror doctrine which echoes the doctrinal rule that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and is in no way obliged to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property.” (Op cit.)
“The real purpose… is to quiet title to land and to put a stop to any question of legality of the title except claims which have been recorded in the certificate of title…” (Op cit. citing Dy vs. Aldea).
Hence, “[t]he prevailing rule in dealing with registered lands is that one need not inquire beyond the four corners of the Torrens certificate of title.” (Op cit. citing Duenas, et al v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.)
However, there are several jurisprudence that require reference to both the “register or certificate of title.”
In the case of Agricultural and Home Extension Development Group v. CA, the Supreme Court declared that “a person dealing with registered land is only charged with notice of the burdens on the property which are noted on the register or certificate of title.” (Op cit.)
“But is there really a marked difference or inconsistency between the earlier pronouncements of the Court wherein the reference is to the register or the certificate of title and the later ones which only mention the certificate of title?”
There is none “where there are no suspicious circumstances… surrounding the dubious title or right of the person who is conveying the registered property…” (Op cit.)
Simply said, “[i]f the Torrens certificate is truly and completely reflective of the register affecting such certificate, then… inquiry into the register is rendered redundant.
“However, if the Torrens certificate is not, inquiry into the register is the consequential action which proceeds from the constructive notice provision of PD 1529 [Section 52] and… ignorance of the registrations affecting the Torrens certificate is inexcusable.” (Op cit.)
“The record is notice to all the world. All persons are charged with the knowledge of what it contains, [hence,] [a]ll persons dealing with the land so recorded, or any portion of it, must be charged with notice of whatever it contains.
“The purchaser is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which the record discloses.” (Op cit. citing Legarda vs. Saleeby)
“Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such presumption is irrebuttable.
“He is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which an examination of the record would have disclosed. This presumption cannot be overcome by proof of innocence or good faith.” (Op cit.)
“While there is need for an inquiry into the register for someone dealing with registered property to enable him or her to assess whether the registered property is worth transacting, Legarda[‘s case] seems to imply that, in the determination of good faith, whether inquiry is made or not makes no difference.” (Op cit.)
“Thus, if the register contains a registered instrument which indicates a flaw or defect in the title or right of the person who that someone is transacting with… the claim of good faith by that someone, whether he or she inquired into the register, cannot be sustained.
“On the other hand, if no such instrument is registered, the good faith of such person is not affected by his or her non-inquiry into the register.” (Op cit.)
