GR 102259; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102259 ; August 25, 2000
SALVADOR S. ESQUIVIAS, petitioner, vs. HON. OMBUDSMAN, ROLANDO Q. VERGARA and ELENA G. DOMALAON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Salvador S. Esquivias executed a deed of absolute sale for a parcel of land in 1977. He later claimed the vendees failed to pay the consideration, leading him to execute an affidavit cancelling the sale in 1981. In 1985, respondent Elena Domalaon borrowed the original certificate of title from the petitioner’s wife under a pretext and subsequently succeeded in registering the 1977 deed of sale with the Registry of Deeds. A new title was issued to the original vendees. Esquivias filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, charging Domalaon and respondent Rolando Vergara, the deputy Register of Deeds, with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Land Registration Act. He alleged that Vergara registered the deed despite the existing affidavit of cancellation.
After preliminary investigation, the deputized Tanodbayan prosecutor found no prima facie case and recommended dismissal. The Ombudsman approved this recommendation, dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence and later denying Esquivias’s motion for reconsideration. This prompted Esquivias to file the present special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint against the respondents for insufficiency of evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the Ombudsman’s dismissal. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, as the Ombudsman’s finding of insufficient evidence was legally sound. The Court agreed that the charge against deputy Register of Deeds Vergara lacked merit. His duty was to register documents presented for registration that complied with formal requirements. The deed of sale in question contained a formal acknowledgment by Esquivias of receipt of the consideration, which contradicted his later claim of non-payment. Vergara had no legal obligation to investigate beyond the face of the document or to give precedence to a subsequently executed affidavit of cancellation. His act of registration was a regular performance of his ministerial duty.
Consequently, with no unlawful act established on Vergara’s part, the charges under the Land Registration Act and the Anti-Graft Law could not prosper. The Ombudsman’s decision was a proper exercise of investigatory and prosecutorial discretion, well within the bounds of jurisdiction. The petition, being devoid of merit, was therefore denied.