Esquivias v. Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Salvador S. Esquivias filed a complaint against Rolando Q. Vergara, deputy Register of Deeds of Sorsogon, and Elena G. Domalaon for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3 (e), and Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), Section 51. The complaint stemmed from the registration of a deed of absolute sale of a parcel of land. Petitioner alleged that on December 28, 1977, he executed a deed of sale for P2,000.00 to Jose G. Domalaon et al. When the vendees failed to pay, he cancelled the deed on August 3, 1981. On February 19, 1985, Elena Domalaon borrowed the original title from petitioner's wife, allegedly on the pretext of finding a buyer. With the title, she succeeded in registering the cancelled deed of sale with the Registry of Deeds, with the cooperation of deputy Register of Deeds Vergara. A new title was issued in the names of the vendees. Petitioner claimed Vergara ignored the affidavit of cancellation, violating Act No. 496, Section 51, and R.A. No. 3019, Section 3 (a), (e), and (j). Procedural History: After preliminary investigation, the deputized Tanodbayan prosecutor recommended dismissal for lack of prima facie case. The Ombudsman approved this recommendation and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari assailing the Ombudsman's resolution for acting without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Ombudsman acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint against respondents Rolando Vergara and Elena Domalaon. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charges of violation of R.A. 3019 and Act 496.
Ruling
The Court denies the petition for it is patently devoid of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Ombudsman acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint: The Court agrees with the Ombudsman that there was no sufficient evidence to support the charges. The Ombudsman did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's complaint. The petition is patently devoid of merit. On the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charges of violation of R.A. 3019 and Act 496: The Court found that the evidence was insufficient. Petitioner averred that he was not paid the consideration stated in the deed of sale, but this was contradicted by the deed itself, which stated that he acknowledged receipt of the consideration. Respondent deputy Register of Deeds Vergara was merely exercising the duties of his office in registering the deed of sale, as it complied with all the requirements for registration. Consequently, the Ombudsman correctly found that respondents did not violate either the Land Registration Act or the Anti-Graft Act.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint for violation of R.A. 3019 and Act 496 due to insufficiency of evidence, as the registration of the deed of sale complied with legal requirements and the petitioner's claim of non-payment was contradicted by the deed itself.