G.R. No. L-17084 - Dulay vs. Merrera

The original owners of the parcel of land in question were Juan Dulay and Teodora Bautista, husband and wife, who held title to Lot No. 1253 in the San Carlos Cadastre, San Carlos, Pangasinan, covering approximately 805 square meters and originally described by O.C.T. No. 62708.
Upon the death of Juan Dulay on August 21, 1953, the surviving heirs—Josefa Dulay, Petra Dulay, and Teodora Bautista (the widow)—came into possession of his share of the property.

On May 30, 1956, the surviving heirs executed an “Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the deceased Juan Dulay, with Absolute Sale.”

The document provided that the estate would be divided, with Josefa Dulay and Petra Dulay receiving the entire one-half portion in equal, undivided shares.
Teodora Bautista, the widow, renounced her right of usufruct over the property in favor of her children.
Petra Dulay sold, ceded, and transferred her participation in the property to Josefa Dulay for a consideration of Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00).

The instrument was duly recorded with the Register of Deeds on July 16, 1956; on that same date, O.C.T. No. 62708 was cancelled and TCT No. 21067 was issued in the name of Josefa Dulay, married to Sebastian S. Solomon.

On April 19, 1960, the same parties who had executed the extra-judicial settlement presented before the Register of Deeds a pleading titled “Reformation of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Juan Dulay.”

In this document, the petitioners contended there existed two additional legitimate surviving heirs, Restitute and Cecilia Dulay, whose interests were not reflected in the initial settlement.
The purpose of the reformatory instrument was to “contrarestar o anular los efectos legales” of the previously executed extra-judicial settlement.

The Register of Deeds, through Atty. Dimalanta (the Deputy Register and Examiner of Deeds), refused to register this reformatory document on the ground that it was not registrable.
Consequently, Josefa Dulay filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, alleging that:

The refusal to register the document was done without valid reasons.
The Registrar was overstepping his powers by effectively acting as a judge in determining the instrument’s validity.
Registration of the document was a ministerial obligation imposed by law, provided that the document complied with the necessary legal requisites.

The court held that the extra-judicial settlement was fatally defective because not all legitimate heirs had signed, and therefore, it was not disposed of the land properly.
The court indicated that since the valid document (the extra-judicial settlement) had already been registered, the reformatory instrument could not be accepted for annotation or further action.

The trial court’s reference to the already registered extra-judicial settlement rather than addressing the reformatory instrument under question.
The potential neglect of a ministerial duty by the Register of Deeds in refusing to accept and register the reformatory document.

Whether the Register of Deeds unlawfully refused to register the reformatory instrument by failing to perform his ministerial duty as prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Land Registration Act and the Administrative Code.
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petition for mandamus by basing its decision on deficiencies in the extra-judicial settlement, which had already been registered, instead of evaluating the registrability of the reformatory instrument.
Whether the proper remedy via mandamus is available in cases where a registrar neglects or deviates from his statutory duty to register a voluntary instrument relating to registered land.