TEODORO ALMIROL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AGUSAN, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

Almirol versus Register of Deeds of Agusan

The Case

This is a petition for mandamus brought by Teodoro Almirol against the Register of Deeds of Agusan. Almirol bought a parcel of land from Arcenio Abalo and sought to register the deed of sale and obtain a transfer certificate of title in his own name. The Register of Deeds refused, raising the objection that the land was conjugal property and that the seller, a surviving husband, could not dispose of the whole of it after his wife had died. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between two powers: the purely ministerial duty of a register of deeds to accept instruments for registration, and the exclusive power of the courts to declare an instrument invalid. It also teaches the mandatory character of the administrative remedy before the Commissioner of Land Registration.

Procedural History

Almirol filed a petition for mandamus before the Court of First Instance of Agusan, praying that the Register of Deeds be compelled to register the deed of sale and to issue the corresponding transfer certificate of title, and further claiming moral damages, attorney's fees, and expenses of litigation. The Register of Deeds answered, reiterating the grounds in his refusal letter and setting up a counterclaim for damages, and argued that the petitioner had another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law by appealing the matter to the Commissioner of Land Registration. The lower court, in its resolution of October 16, 1963, dismissed the petition, declaring that mandamus does not lie because the adequate remedy is that provided by Section 4 of Republic Act 1151, with costs against the petitioner. Almirol then appealed to the Supreme Court, which resolved the appeal in this decision.

Facts

On June 28, 1961, Teodoro Almirol purchased from Arcenio Abalo a parcel of land situated in the municipality of Esperanza, province of Agusan. The land was covered by original certificate of title P-1237, registered in the name of Arcenio Abalo, married to Nicolasa M. Abalo.

Sometime in May 1962, Almirol went to the office of the Register of Deeds of Agusan in Butuan City to register the deed of sale and to secure a transfer certificate of title in his name. The Register of Deeds refused. In his letter of May 21, 1962, he explained that the title stood in the name of the married couple and was by legal presumption conjugal property; that in the sale of conjugal property acquired after the effectivity of the New Civil Code both spouses must sign the document; and that since the wife had already died when the sale was made, the surviving husband could not dispose of the whole property without violating the law. He added that the property should first be liquidated and transferred to the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased wife by extrajudicial settlement or partition, and that the consent of the other heirs should be procured.

Almirol insisted that the Register of Deeds had only a ministerial duty to perform and that he had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Register of Deeds maintained that the petitioner had another remedy, namely an appeal to the Commissioner of Land Registration.

Issues

• Whether or not mandamus will lie to compel the Register of Deeds to register the deed of sale in question.
• Whether or not the Register of Deeds may refuse registration on the ground that the deed of sale is invalid.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Republic Act 1151 provides:

Reference of doubtful matters to Commissioner of Land Registration. - When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage, or other instrument presented to him for registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with the Register of Deeds with reference to any such matter, the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration either upon the certification of the Register of Deeds, stating the question upon which he is in doubt, or upon the suggestion in writing by the party in interest; and thereupon the Commissioner, after consideration of the matter shown by the records certified to him, and in case of registered lands, after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His decision in such cases shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds: Provided, further, That when a party in interest disagrees we ruling or resolution of the Commissioner and the issue involves a question of law, said decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty days from and after receipt of the notice thereof.

This provision supplies the administrative remedy that a party in disagreement with the Register of Deeds must first exhaust, and it is the ground on which the dismissal of the petition for mandamus is sustained.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that mandamus will not lie, and affirmed the dismissal of the petition. Although the reasons relied upon by the Register of Deeds showed a sincere desire to maintain inviolate the law on succession and the transmission of rights over real property, these did not constitute legal grounds for his refusal to register the deed. The Court explained that whether a document is valid or not is not for the register of deeds to determine; that function belongs properly to a court of competent jurisdiction. A register of deeds is entirely precluded by Section 4 of Republic Act 1151 from exercising his personal judgment and discretion when confronted with the problem of whether to register a deed on the ground that it is invalid. When in doubt as to the proper step to take, all that he is supposed to do is to submit and certify the question to the Commissioner of Land Registration, who shall, after notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step to be taken.

On the second issue, the Court held that the supposed invalidity of an instrument is no valid objection to its registration. Registration is meant to give notice; questions regarding the effect or invalidity of instruments are expected to be decided after, not before, registration. It must follow that registration must first be allowed, and validity or effect litigated afterwards.

Nevertheless, the Court held that the lower court correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus. The administrative remedy under Section 4 must be resorted to by the petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts. The Court quoted the provision that where any party in interest does not agree with the Register of Deeds the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration, who shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made, which shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds.

Doctrine

First, the registration of a deed is a ministerial act. The register of deeds does not sit as a judge of the validity of the instrument presented to him; the question of validity belongs to a court of competent jurisdiction. Second, invalidity is no proof of non-existence and is no valid excuse for denying registration. Because registration serves merely to give notice, the instrument must first be registered, and its validity or effect litigated afterwards. Third, when the register of deeds is in doubt, or when a party in interest disagrees with him, the question must be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration under Section 4 of Republic Act 1151, and that administrative remedy must be exhausted before resort to the courts. The Commissioner's order is conclusive and binding upon all registers of deeds, subject only to an appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law within thirty days from receipt of notice.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the lower court dismissing the petition for mandamus, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the register of deeds does not determine validity; registration must first be allowed, and validity or effect litigated afterwards. Examiners use this case to test the ministerial duty of the register of deeds and the rule on exhaustion of the administrative remedy before the Commissioner of Land Registration under Section 4 of Republic Act 1151.