G.R. No. 142549
March 9, 2010
Facts
The property in dispute is covered by OCT No. 994 which encompasses 1,342 hectares of the Maysilo Estate. Petitioner, together with other individuals, commenced a special civil action for partition and accounting of the covered by OCT No. 994, allegedly registered on April 19, 1917. They claimed to be the heirs of a certain Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, and alleging that they are entitled to inherit her proportional share in the parcels of land. The RTC granted the action for partition.
However, the Register of Deeds refused to comply with the RTC Order because they are still awaiting word from the LRA Administrator before proceeding. The LRA Administrator contended that there is only one OCT No. 994 which was issued by the Rizal Register of Deeds on 3 May 1917 (and not on 19 April 1919).
Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for mandamus seeking that respondents Secretary of Justice, the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), and the Register of Deeds to comply with the RTC Order which was issued a Certificate of Finality on March 12, 1998.
Issue
Whether or not the Register of Deeds can be compelled, through a petition for mandamus, to issue a certificate of title when the latter found that issuance of such would result to double titling.
Held
No. Issuance by the LRA officials of a decree of registration is not a purely ministerial duty in cases where they find that such would result to the double titling of the same parcel of land. Moreover, petition for mandamus against the Register of Deeds will not prosper if there is a substantial dispute or to which a substantial doubt exists over the title to the parcels of land subject to registration.
In this case, there exists a substantial doubt as to the validity of the OCT dated April 1917 to which the petitioners assert their rights. The 1st Indorsement issued by the Secretary of Justice, LRA Circular No. 97-11, and Senate Committee Report No. 1031 finds that that OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917, on which petitioner and her co-plaintiffs in the civil case clearly anchored their rights, did not exist. In addition, there were existing transfer certificates of title covering the subject parcels of land and there was reason to question the rights of those requesting for the issuance of the TCTs.
Consequently, the Register of Deeds cannot be compelled by mandamus to comply with the RTC Order. Neither could respondent LRA Administrator be mandated by the Court to require the Register of Deeds to comply with said Order. It was lawful for public respondents to refuse compliance with the RTC Order, and the act being requested of them is not their ministerial duty; hence, mandamus does not lie and the petition must be dismissed.