Case Digest (G.R. No. 171056)
Facts:
Dinah C. Castillo v. Antonio M. Escutin, Aquilina A. Mistas, Marietta L. Linatoc, and the Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 171056, March 13, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., wrote the Decision.Petitioner Dinah C. Castillo is a judgment creditor of Raquel K. Moratilla. While executing her judgment she identified Lot No. 13713 (15,000 sq.m.) in Lipa City, covered by a tax declaration and assertedly co‑owned by Raquel, Urbana Kalaw and Perla Moratilla. After securing documents (including a DAR conversion order, city assessor certifications and tax declarations) Castillo levied on and purchased at public auction Raquel’s 1/3 pro‑indiviso share (5,000 sq.m.) on 14 May 2002 and recorded the sheriff’s sale instruments under Act No. 3344 (now PD 1529, §113); the City Assessor thereafter issued Tax Declaration No. 00942‑A in Castillo’s name for 5,000 sq.m.
Before she could perfect her possession, Castillo discovered her Tax Declaration No. 00942‑A had been cancelled without notice and that the parcel was said to be within a larger titled tract, Lot 1‑B, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 129642 in the name of Francisco Catigbac. Entries on the title later showed a sale to Summit Point Realty and Development Corporation (Summit Realty) and, on 25 July 2002, TCT No. 129642 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. T‑134609 in Summit’s name.
Claiming conspiracy and manifest partiality, Castillo filed a Complaint Affidavit with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon charging Register of Deeds Antonio M. Escutin, City Assessor officers Aquilina A. Mistas and Marietta L. Linatoc, and private corporate officers Lauro S. Leviste II and Benedicto L. Orense with grave misconduct and violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (docketed OMB‑L‑A‑03‑0573‑F and OMB‑L‑C‑03‑0728‑F). Castillo alleged irregularities in the Deed of Absolute Sale, the timing of entries, deficient corporate authorization, and that the registration, issuance of TCT T‑134609 and cancellation of her tax declaration were products of collusion to deprive her of the 5,000 sq.m.
Respondents denied wrongdoing, explaining that (a) the Register of Deeds’ act of registering instruments is ministerial and governed by Section 56 of PD No. 1529, and that the Deed and supporting documents were presented and accepted; (b) Assessor personnel acted in accordance with the office’s flow of work and had limited ministerial roles; and (c) Summit acquired title by purchase from Catigbac (through his attorney‑in‑fact) and the Torrens title was conclusive. The private respondents maintained they purchased in good faith and that alleged defects in their documents raised issues for direct attack in court, not collateral administrative proceedings.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, by Joint Resolution dated 28 April 2004 (and later Joint Order of 20 June 2005 denying reconsideration), found no probable cause to sustain administrative or criminal charges: it gave credence to Escutin’s explanation under PD No. 1529 §56; held that Mistas and Linatoc’s functions were ministerial and petitioner failed to show they had the requisite authority or that they personally committed the alleged acts; noted that issues on registrability had been or should be raised en consulta with the LRA and that petitioner’s withdrawal rendered the consulta moot; and determined that the existence of a Torrens title and related LRA principles placed the controversy beyond the Ombudsman’s competence insofar as collateral attack on title was concerned. The Ombudsman recommended dismissal of the administrative case for lack of substantial evidence and of the criminal case for lack of probable cause.
Castillo elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 90533). The Court of Appeals, in a Decision promulgated 18 October 2005, affirmed the Ombudsma...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May this Court, on a Rule 45 petition, reexamine and disturb the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion?
- Did the cancellation of petitioner’s Tax Declaration No. 00942‑A violate Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (the Property Registration Decree)?
- Were respondents Escutin, Mistas and Linatoc administratively liable for grave misconduct or violative of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the cancellation of Castillo’s tax dec...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)