Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SYLLABUS
DECISION
TUASON , J : p
This is a petition for mandamus. The petitioner, editor of the Manila Post, a
morning daily, prays that an order issue "commanding the respondents to furnish
(petitioner) the list of real estates sold to aliens and registered with the Register of
Deeds of Manila since the promulgation of the Department of Justice Circular No. 128
or to allow the petitioner or his duly accredited representatives (to) examine all records
in the respondents' custody relative to the (said) transactions."
The rst alternative of the petition was denied by the Register of Deeds and later,
on appeal, by the Secretary of Justice. No request to inspect the records seems to have
ever been made, but the Solicitor General, answering for the respondents, gives to
understand that not even this would the petitioner or his representatives be allowed to
do if they tried. As the petitioner appears not to insist on his request for a list of sales
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
of real estate to aliens, we shall con ne our discussion to the second part of the prayer;
namely, that the petitioner be allowed to examine all the records in the respondents'
custody to gather the material he wants. In this connection, the Solicitor General
contends that "the examination or inspection of the records in the of ce of the register
of deeds may be made only by those having special interest therein and subject to such
reasonable regulations as may be prescribed by the Chief of the Land Registration
Of ce, and that the Secretary of Justice has reasonably ruled, to safeguard the public
interest and the interest of those directly concerned in the records, that records may
not be disclosed for publication."
The petition in part is grounded on the liberty of the press. We do not believe that
this constitutional right is in any way involved. The refusal by the respondents does not
constitute a restriction upon or censorship of publication. It only affects facilities of
publication, and the respondents are correct in saying that freedom of information or
freedom to obtain information for publication is not guaranteed by the constitution. The
case is governed by statute and to a certain degree by general principles of democratic
institutions. It has been expressly stated that the right to examine or inspect public
records is purely a question of statutory construction. (80 A. L. R., 761 citing cases.)
The right of inspection of title records is a subject of express statutory
regulation in the Philippines. Section 56 of Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 3300,
provides that "All records relating to registered lands in the of ce of the Register of
Deeds shall be open to the public subject to such reasonable regulations as may be
prescribed by the Chief of the General Land Registration Of ce with the approval of the
Secretary of Justice." The Chief of the General Land Registration Of ce does not seem
to have adopted any regulations in pursuance of this provision. Nevertheless, we do not
believe this omission relevant. The Register of Deeds has inherent power to control his
of ce and the records under his custody and has some discretion to exercise as to the
manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine, or copy the records may
exercise their rights. (45 Am. Jur., 531.) The question at issue boils down to a
determination of the scope of this discretion.
No one will contest the proposition that the power to regulate is not synonymous
with the power to prohibit. Stated differently, the power to make regulations does not
carry with it the power to prohibit. To the extent that newspapers and others who have
no direct or tangible interest in the records are obstructed from making an examination
thereof, a part, indeed the larger part of the public, is thereby excluded from the right
granted by law. Such prohibition is at war with the requirement that the books and
records of registered lands shall be open to the public. "Public" is a comprehensive, all-
inclusive term. Properly construed, it embraces every person. To say that only those
who have a present and existing interest of a pecuniary character in the particular
information sought are given the right of inspection is to make an unwarranted
distinction. This interpretation is contrary to the letter of the law and the whole concept
and purpose of registration of recorded titles, which is to serve notice to all who might
be affected by the registries.
From the language of section 56 of Act No. 496, as amended, it is our opinion
that the regulations which the Register of Deeds, or the Chief of the General Land
Registration Of ce, or the Secretary of Justice is empowered to promulgate are
con ned to prescribing the manner and hours of examination to the end that damage
to, or loss of, the records may be avoided, that undue interference with the duties of the
custodian of the books and documents and other employees may be prevented, that
the right of other persons entitled to make inspection may be insured, and the like. The
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
idea is aptly expressed in People ex rel. Title Guarantee & T. Co. vs. Railly ([1886], 38
Hun [N. Y.], 429):
Separate Opinion s
BRIONES, M., conforme en parte y disidente en parte:
Disiento.
No creo que sea procedente acceder a la solicitud de mandamus ordenando a
los recurridos que permitan al recurrente o su representante "to examine, extract
abstract or make memoranda of the records of sales of real properties to aliens
subject to such restriction and limitation as may be deemed necessary not
incompatible with this decision."
No hay alegacion en la solicitud de que el recurrente haya pedido a los recurridos
que le dieran acceso a los libros de la o cina del Registro de Propiedad de Manila para
tomar datos sobre las ventas de propiedades a extranjeros, y que los recurridos con
abuso de discrecion no le hayan permitido. Es evidente que bajo el articulo 56 de la Ley
No. 496, el recurrente tiene derecho a tomar datos de las ventas anotadas en los libros
de registro, y si los recurridos no le hubieran permitido al pedirles permiso para tal n,
entonces cabe emplear el recurso de mandamus.
La simple peticion en la solicitud de que este Tribunal ordene a los recurridos
que permitan al recurrente o a su representante a examinar todos los records que
estan bajo su custodia, sin alegacion de que los recurridos le hayan indebidamente
privado de tal derecho, no es base su ciente para una solicitud de mandamus. La
solicitud es defectuosa porque no contiene alegacion en que fundar la peticion. Esto
desde el punto de vista procesal. Como hecho consumado, ha pedido el recurrente que
le den oportunidad los recurridos para ver los libros sobre las ventas de bienes a
extranjeros? No. Nunca. Entonces, ¿en que funda su peticion de una orden perentoria de
este Tribunal contra los recurridos? No tenemos derecho a condenar por anticipado a
ellos ordenandoles que permitan al recurrente a tomar datos cuando no le han negado
tal derecho.
El recurrente pidio que le proporcionasen lista completa de las ventas a
extranjeros desde la expedicion de la Circular No. 128 del Departamento de Justicia,
con los siguientes datos: (1) nombre del vendedor, (2) nombre del comprador, (3)
extension y situacion del terreno, (4) precio, (5) fecha de la venta, (6) numero del
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
certi cado de titulo del vendedor, y (7) numero del certi cado del comprador; pero
nunca pidio permiso para ver los records y tomar notas que le interesan.
Si el Procurado General alego en su contestacion: "the examination or inspection
of the records in the of ce of the Register of Deeds may be made only by those having
special interest therein and subject to such reasonable regulations as may be
prescribed by the Chief of the Land Registration Of ce, and that the Secretary of
Justice has reasonably ruled, to safeguard the public interest and the interest of those
directly concerned in the records, that records may not be disclosed for publication", no
se deduce necesariamente que los recurridos con abuso de discrecion hayan impedido
al recurrente a ejercitar un derecho que le garantiza la ley del Registro de la Propiedad
de tener acceso a los archivos de la oficina del Registrador de Titulos.
Y de los datos que obtenga de los archivos, el recurrente tiene perfecto derecho
a hacer uso de ellos en la forma que quiera o publicarlos en su periodico, si asi le place.
No puedo suscribir a la teoria de que se prohiba su publicacion. Prohibir es coartar el
libre albedrio del periodista. Que cada individuo gobierne sus propios actos. Despues
de todo, nadie responde de ellos sino el mismo.
Hay muchas causas en este Tribunal porque se abusa demasiado de los
remedios especiales. Por cualquiera orden o resolucion de un juzgado inferior que no
es del agrado de una parte, se acude a este Tribunal con mandamus o certiorari. Y en el
presente caso, sin alegacion que de motivo de accion, y sin culpa, accion u omision de
parte de los recurridos, se pide una orden perentoria contra ellos. Y la mayoria les
concede. En mi humilde opinion, esa orden perentoria es una herejia procesal.
La solicitud debe ser sobreseida.