Dulay v. Merrera
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Juan Dulay and Teodora Bautista owned a parcel of land. Upon Juan's death in 1953, their daughters Josefa Dulay and Petra Dulay, along with their mother Teodora, executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Absolute Sale. In this document, Teodora renounced her interest, and Petra sold her share to Josefa for P200.00. This settlement was registered, and a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. 21067) was issued in Josefa Dulay's name. 2. Procedural History: On April 19, 1960, Josefa Dulay and the other signatories presented a new document, styled "Reformation of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Juan Dulay," to the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan. They alleged the existence of two other legitimate heirs, Restituto and Cecilia Dulay, and sought to reform the original settlement. The Register of Deeds refused to accept and register this reformatory document, deeming it not registrable. Josefa Dulay then filed a petition for Mandamus with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan to compel the Register of Deeds to accept and register the document, arguing that the Register's duty was ministerial and he lacked the authority to determine the document's validity. 3. The Petition: The CFI dismissed the petition for Mandamus, finding the reformatory document fatally defective as not all heirs had signed the original settlement. Josefa Dulay appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court erred in referring to the already registered settlement instead of the reformatory instrument and that the Register of Deeds' duties in accepting and registering voluntary instruments relating to registered land are purely ministerial. The petition seeks to reverse the CFI's order and compel the Register of Deeds to accept and inscribe the reformatory document on TCT No. 21067.
Issue(s)
Whether the Register of Deeds has neglected in the performance of a duty enjoined by law or unlawfully excluded the petitioner from the use and enjoyment of a right. Whether the Register of Deeds has the authority to determine the registrability of a document presented for registration.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's order dismissing the petition for mandamus. It ordered the respondent Register of Deeds to accept the reformatory instrument and inscribe it on the title concerned.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Register of Deeds has neglected in the performance of a duty enjoined by law or unlawfully excluded the petitioner from the use and enjoyment of a right: The Court held that the duties of the Register of Deeds under Sections 56, 57, 58, and 59 of the Land Registration Act are purely ministerial and mandatory. Section 56 explicitly states that the Register of Deeds shall keep an entry book and enter all deeds and other voluntary instruments upon payment of the filing fee. The instrument in question, being a voluntary one relating to registered land, falls within the purview of this ministerial duty. The refusal to accept and inscribe the document constitutes an unlawful neglect in the performance of a duty resulting from his office, making mandamus the proper remedy. The Court cited its pronouncements in In re Consulta by Attorney Vicente J. Francisco on behalf of Domingo Cabantog and Agricultural Credit Cooperative Association of Hinigaran v. Yulo Yusay, et al., emphasizing that registration is a mere ministerial act. On the issue of whether the Register of Deeds has the authority to determine the registrability of a document presented for registration: The Court clarified that the Register of Deeds' role in accepting and registering voluntary instruments is ministerial. While the lower court referred to a previously registered document, the present action concerns the reformatory instrument. The Court reiterated that the Register of Deeds cannot refuse to accept and inscribe a document if it meets the legal requirements for registration. His duty is to record all instruments relative to registered lands that are required or allowed by law. If the Register of Deeds is in doubt as to the propriety of recording an instrument, Section 200 of the Administrative Code provides the procedure to be followed, which does not include outright refusal to accept the document for registration. The assertion that the Register of Deeds has no power to inquire into the validity or legality of the document being registered, beyond ensuring it meets formal requirements, is supported by the nature of his duties.
Main Doctrine
The duties of the Register of Deeds in accepting and registering voluntary instruments relating to registered land are purely ministerial and mandatory, and refusal to perform such duty when the instrument meets legal requirements is a proper ground for mandamus.