ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 354 -
DISMISSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE FILED AGAINST ATTY. TURIANO U.
TAMAYO, REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR DAGUPAN CITY
This refers to Administrative Case No. 93-1
filed by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) against Atty. Turiano U.
Tamayo, Register of Deeds of Dagupan City, for abuse of authority,
dishonesty and grave misconduct.
On November 10, 1992,
complainant Eladio Sison filed before the LRA a letter-complaint
against respondent Atty. Tamayo for denying the registration/annotation
of the Alias Writ of Attachment issued by the court in Civil Case No.
16930 against a certain piece of land owned by Johnny Gutierrez and
covered by TCT No. 56404.
On October 22, 1992, Deputy
Sheriff Romulo Jimenez presented for annotation the aforesaid writ
together with the Notice of Attachment issued on the same date over TCT
Nos. 56403, 56404 and 56405, all in the name of Gutierrez, and a copy
of the Cancellation of Mortgage, dated October 15, 1992, issued by the
Development Bank of the Philippines over TCT No. 56404. This was denied
by respondent on the ground that the writ was defective in form.
Respondent then advised the Deputy Sheriff to secure from the court
another order with specific reference to TCT No. 56404.
On October 23, 1992, Julian Ong
Cuna, General Manager of New Dagupan Metro Gas Corporation, went to
respondent's office and presented his Affidavit of Adverse Claim for
annotation on TCT No. 56404. Finding the document to be in order,
respondent annotated the said affidavit on TCT No. 56404. Later that
day, the Deputy Sheriff returned with a new court order. Consequently,
respondent instructed his employees to cause the entry of the court
order in the Primary Entry Book and type the necessary annotations on
TCT No. 56404 (Entries Nos. 155511 and 155512).
However, when TCT No. 56404 and
its supporting documents were forwarded to respondent for signature, it
was discovered that the Court Order referred to TCT No. 55404 in the
name of Geneva Coquia, a stranger, and not to TCT No. 56404. Likewise,
it appears that the court order was not signed by the issuing judge nor
authenticated by the Clerk of Court. By reason thereof, respondent
ordered the Deputy Sheriff to return with the correct court order.
In the meantime, respondent
approved the inscription of the Notice of Attachment on TCT Nos. 56403
and 56405 but wrote "denied" on Entries Nos. 155511 and 155512.
Thereafter, complainant withdrew his documents.
On October 26, 1992, respondent
annotated on TCT No. 56404 the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by
spouses Johnny and Aida Gutierrez in favor of the New Dagupan Metro Gas
Corporation as Entry No. 155544. Subsequently, TCT No. 56404 was
cancelled and a new title, TCT No. 59188, was issued in the name of New
Dagupan Metro Gas Corporation. However, on that same day, the order,
dated October 23, 1992, which the Deputy Sheriff sought to be
corrected, was amended by the court to read as TCT No. 56404. When the
amended order was presented to respondent for annotation in TCT No.
56404, the same was denied.
On March 1, 1993, the LRA
Administrator, based on the letter-complaint of Sison, administratively
charged respondent with abuse of authority, dishonesty and grave
misconduct.
After a formal investigation of
the case and finding no substantial evidence to sustain the charges,
the LRA Administrator, in his letter of May 23, 1994, recommended the
exoneration of respondent. The Secretary of Justice agreed with the
findings of the LRA Administrator and likewise recommended the
exoneration of the respondent.
I concur with the findings of
both the LRA Administrator and the Secretary of Justice.
Under Sec. 69 of Presidential
Decree 1529 (Land Registration Decree), an order issued by the court
"shall contain a reference to the number of the certificate of title to
be affected and the registered owner or owners thereof."
The denial by the respondent to
annotate the Alias Writ of Attachment was based upon an erroneous court
order which referred to TCT No. 56404 as 55404 in the name of a certain
Geneva Coquia, a stranger to the civil suit for the recovery of a sum
of money between the complainant and Johnny Gutierrez. This erroneous
referral was affirmed by the Sheriff's Partial Return filed before the
trial court wherein he sought its rectification, which subsequently
resulted in the issuance of an amended order, dated October 26, 1992.
While it is true that the duty
of the Register of Deeds is ministerial, the latter may properly refuse
registration if the court order upon which it is based contains
clerical error(s) that may prejudice an innocent third person. The
ministerial character of the function of Registers of Deeds should not
leave them without authority to determine the registerability of the
deed or document sought to be registered. Where the law itself has
provided for standards, the same must be complied with. Indiscriminate
registration could only result in the erosion of public faith in the
land registration system.
Furthermore, it should be
mentioned that respondent did not deprive complainant of the right to
elevate the matter en consulta, it appearing that the latter withdrew
his documents from the Registry. As provided under Sec. 117 (2nd
paragraph) of PD 1529:
"Where
the instrument is denied registration, the Register of Deeds shall
notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the defects of
the instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that if
he is not agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the
document from the Registry, elevate the matter within five days from
receipt of notice of the denial of registration to the Commissioner of
Land Registration upon payment of a consulta fee in such amount as
shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Land Registration. . . ."
Lastly, counsel for complainant, in his letter dated February 12, 1994, manifested that the complainant has decided to withdraw the complaint against respondent and requested that the matter be considered closed.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Atty. Turiano Tamayo, is hereby EXONERATED from the charges of abuse of authority, dishonesty and grave misconduct.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 7th day of August, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-seven.
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.