G.R. No. L-81163 September 26, 1988
EDUARDO S. BARANDA and ALFONSO HITALIA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE TITO GUSTILO, ACTING REGISTER OF DEEDS AVITO SACLAUSO, HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and ATTY. HECTOR P. TEODOSIO, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara, Iloilo cadastre. Petitioners Eduardo Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia derived their title from a reconstituted Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. 6406), which was cancelled to issue TCT No. 106098 in their names. Opposing claimants, holding TCT No. 25772 over the same lot, challenged this but ultimately failed. The Supreme Court, in its final Resolutions in G.R. No. 62042 (denied on January 7, 1983) and G.R. No. 64432 (promulgated December 29, 1983), upheld the petitioners’ title, declared TCT No. 25772 null and void, and ordered the implementation of writs of possession and demolition. These Resolutions became final and executory.
To execute the final judgments, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo, Branch 23, under Judge Tito Gustilo, issued an Order on September 5, 1984, directing the Register of Deeds to cancel TCT No. 25772, affirm TCT No. 106098, and register a subdivision agreement. However, the Acting Register of Deeds, Avito Saclauso, filed a motion for reconsideration, citing a pending mandamus case (G.R. No. 67661) filed by Baranda against a former Register of Deeds. Judge Gustilo granted the motion and set aside his own September 5, 1984 Order, leading to further delays in the execution of the Supreme Court’s final judgments.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside his final and executory order for execution, and whether the Register of Deeds properly exercised a discretionary power in challenging that order.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that its Resolutions in G.R. Nos. 62042 and 64432 were already final and executory. The duty of the RTC was purely ministerial—to execute the judgment. Judge Gustilo’s act of setting aside his own final order based on the Register of Deeds’ motion constituted an unjustified deviation from this ministerial duty and facilitated dilatory tactics.
Regarding the Register of Deeds, the Court ruled that his function is purely ministerial under Section 117 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree). The law uses the mandatory term “shall” in directing the Register of Deeds to register instruments upon compliance with formal requirements. He has no legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration against a court order directing registration. If in doubt, the proper course is to seek guidance from the Land Registration Authority (then the Commissioner of Land Registration), not to oppose the court’s directive. Therefore, his motion was improper, and the judge erred in entertaining it.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstated the RTC’s September 5, 1984 Order, and set aside all subsequent orders annulling it. Costs were imposed on the private respondents.