FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 102259.
August 25, 2000]
SALVADOR S. ESQUIVIAS, petitioner, vs. HON.
OMBUDSMAN, ROLANDO Q. VERGARA and ELENA G. DOMALAON, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case before
the Court is a special civil action for certiorari assailing the
resolution of the Ombudsman dismissing for insufficiency of evidence the
charges of violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3 (e) and Act 496,
Section 51 leveled against Rolando G. Vergara, deputy Register of Deeds of
Sorsogon and Elena G. Domalaon.[1]
We deny the
petition for it is patently devoid of merit.
The facts are as
follows:
On March 20,
1987, petitioner Salvador S. Esquivias filed with the Office of the Ombudsman,
through the Provincial Fiscal of Sorsogon, as deputized Tanodbayan prosecutor,
an affidavit/ complaint charging Rolando Q. Vergara, deputy Register of Deeds
of Sorsogon, and Elena G. Domalaon with violation of Republic Act No. 3019,[2] Section 3 (e), and
Act No. 496,[3] Section 51.
The complaint
was based on the ground that on December 28, 1977, petitioner executed a deed
of absolute sale of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title
No. P-10445 of the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon, situated in Sta. Barbara,
municipality of Bulusan, province of Sorsogon, for a consideration of
P2,000.00, which he sold to Jose G. Domalaon, Romulo G. Domalaon, Emma G.
Domalaon, Margarita Dematera Domalaon, and Rosario Domalaon-Gapas.
When the vendees
failed to pay petitioner the consideration of the sale, on August 3, 1981, he
cancelled and nullified the same.
On February 19,
1985, Elena Domaloan borrowed the original title of the property from
petitioner's wife on the pretext that she had a buyer, and once in possession
of the title, succeeded in registering the cancelled deed of sale with the
Registry of Deeds with the cooperation of deputy Register of Deeds Vergara. A
new title was issued in the names of Jose G. Domalaon et al., the persons named
in the deed. Allegedly, deputy Registrar Vergara ignored the affidavit of
cancellation of the deed of sale, in violation of Act No. 496, Section 51 and
also in violation of Rep. Act No. 3019, Section 3 (a), (e) and (j), for which
he is charged in the affidavit-complaint together with Elena G. Domaloan.
After
preliminary investigation, at which respondents Rolando Vergara and Elena
Domalaon submitted their counter-affidavits, on December 8, 1987, the deputized
Tanodbayan prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the charges finding no prima
facie case. On July 26, 1989, the Ombudsman approved the recommendation of
deputized prosecutor Honesto J. Borromeo for the dismissal of petitioner's
complaint for insufficiency of evidence. He denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration.
Hence, this
petition.[4]
At issue in this
petition is whether or not respondent Ombudsman acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
dismissing the complaint against respondents Rolando Vergara and Elena
Domalaon.
We agree with
the Ombudsman that that there was no sufficient evidence to support the
charges. To begin with, petitioner avers that he was not paid the consideration
stated in the deed of sale. However, this is contradicted by the very deed he
signed which states that he acknowledged receipt of the consideration.
On the facts of
the case, respondent deputy Register of Deeds Vergara[5] was just
exercising the duties of his office in registering the deed of sale which
complied with all the requirements for registration.[6]
Consequently,
the Ombudsman is correct in finding that respondents did not violate either the
Land Registration Act[7] or the Anti-Graft
Act.[8] The Ombudsman did not act without
or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
petitioner's complaint.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DENIES the
petition. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and
Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., no part.
[1] Petition, Annex “E”, Rollo, pp. 25-36.
[2] Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[3] Land Registration Act.
[4] Filed on November 20, 1991, Rollo, pp. 6-16. On September 16, 1996, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 104)
[5] On March 17, 1995, he retired from the government service.
[6] Caviles, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 102648, November 24, 1999; Baranda v. Gustilo, 165 SCRA 757 (1988)
[7] Superseaded by P.D. No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree.
[8] Republic Act No. 3019, as amended.