In the standard presentation of general relativity, one adopts the Levi-Civita connection and the Christophel symbols; one has $\Gamma^a_{bc} = \Gamma^a_{cb}$ and the torsion tensor is zero.
But of course one could equally adopt some other connection and get a different set of connection coefficients, and then the torsion tensor need not be zero. (Einstein-Cartan and teleparallel approaches do this, for example). So this makes it seem that torsion is not a property of a manifold, it is a property of the way one chooses to relate different tangent spaces to one another.
However it is often stated that such-and-such a manifold "is torsionless", or that spacetime is assumed to be torsionless in general relativity. Also, one can give geometric pictures of manifolds with torsion, such as one where one considers the continuous limit of a crystal with the appropriate type of dislocation. So this makes it seem that the torsion is there "in the manifold", as it were.
Which is right? Both? Neither?
To be precise,
(i) is there a (reasonably sensible and non-pathological) manifold which has to have torsion no matter what connection is adopted? Or is that question meaningless because torsion is all about connection and manifold together?
And (just to check), I think it is the case that as soon as we have a metric then we also have the possibility of adopting the Levi-Civita connection.
(ii) Does that imply that approaches to gravity in which there is torsion must either be abandoning the concept of a spacetime metric, or else they are treating an interaction which could equally well be treated by asserting that spacetime is torsionless and they are proposing a new field which couples to spin and mass in some sort of universal way that can be captured through the use of a suitably defined connection? (When I look at Einstein-Cartan theory, I see something called a metric popping up, so it clearly has not been abandoned altogether.)
Added note. I edited the above in order to highlight the two more precise questions.