GR L 1631; (February, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1631; February 27, 1948
Abelardo Subido, Editor, The Manila Post vs. Roman Ozaeta, Secretary of Justice, and Mariano Villanueva, Register of Deeds of City of Manila
FACTS
Petitioner Abelardo Subido, editor of The Manila Post, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of Justice and the Register of Deeds of Manila to either furnish him a list of real estate sales to aliens registered since the issuance of Department of Justice Circular No. 128 or allow him or his representatives to examine all related records. The Register of Deeds denied his request for a list, and the Secretary of Justice affirmed the denial. The petitioner did not actually request to inspect the records, but the Solicitor General indicated that such inspection would also be denied if attempted. The respondents argued that inspection of land registration records is limited to persons with a special interest and is subject to reasonable regulations, and that disclosure for publication could be prohibited to safeguard public and private interests.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner has a right to inspect the records of real estate sales to aliens in the custody of the Register of Deeds, and whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel such inspection.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the right to inspect public records is statutory, governed by Section 56 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act), as amended. While the law provides that records “shall be open to the public,” this is subject to reasonable regulations prescribed by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office with the approval of the Secretary of Justice. The Court clarified that such regulations should pertain to the manner and hours of inspection to prevent damage to records, undue interference with office duties, and to ensure the rights of others—not to prohibit inspection based on the examiner’s motives or to restrict publication. However, the Court found that the petitioner had not actually made a request to inspect the records, only a request for a prepared list. Since there was no prior denial of an inspection request, mandamus did not lie to compel an act that had not been refused. The Court emphasized that mandamus requires a clear legal right and a corresponding duty violated by respondents, which was not established. The constitutional freedom of the press was not implicated, as the issue concerned access to information, not censorship of publication.
AI Generated by Armztrong.