Angeles vs Sec. of Justice
994
Facts:
 Land involved is 1,342 hectares and which stretches to 3
different cities (Quezon City, Malabon and Coloocan). Bigger
than the state of Monaco and the Vatican. (OCT No. 994)
 Petition is seeking to enforce the decision against the
respondent dated January 08, 1998. (Final and executory
March 12, 1998)
 On May 03, 1965 petitioner together with the other Heirs of
Concepcion Vidal. (Bartolome et at vs Isabel gil de Sola et
al)
o They alleged that they are entitled to inherit her
proportional share of the Maysilo estate.
o They Alleged that OCT no. 994 was registered on
April 19, 1917
o That other heirs were able to secure TCTs in their
name
o They claim that two OCT No. 994 was registered
twice. One on May 03 and another in April 19, 1917.
(MWSS vs CA). Prior title prevails.
 RTC ruled in favor of the heirs including Angeles (105, 969
sq. m)
 Angeles alleges that RD refused to comply with the RTC
ruling claiming that they are still waiting for the approval of
the LRA Administrator
 Petitioner requested LRA to direct RD to comply with the
order
 LRA said in their reply:
o LRA denied request because of order form Sec. of
DOJ. Claiming that there is only one OCT No. 994
that was issued and it was on May 03, 1917 and not
April 19, 1917.
o DOJ through OSG, recommended to file a pleading
for the order of Jan. 08, 1998.
 The LRA in its reply letter said there is only one OCT No.
and it was issued May 03, 1917 and not April 19, 1917
o That the OCT dated April 19, 1917 was a fabrication
of Norberto Vasquez (Former Deputy of RD Caloocan)
o That the heirs are not the true heirs of Concepcion
Vidal
o That former RD of Caloocan, Yolanda Alfonso and
Vasquez acted in bad faith issuing TCT to Rivera with
fully knowing it was derived from the OCT dated on
April 17.1917.
 LRA said the order of January 08, 1998 had many deficiencies
o OCT No. 994 has long been cancelled totally due to
issuance of various titles to different persons
o And plan and descriptions of land was not based on
a subdivision plan by the proper govt. agency but
were mere sketches (in violation of PD 1529)
o Compliance with the order will result to duplicate
titles
Allegations of the Petitioner:
 That Sec. of DOJ made a substantive modification of the
ruling of the court in MWSS vs CA
 That not even the DOJ has the power or authority to set aside
or alter and established ruling made by the highest court,
when it claimed that there was only one OCT no.994 and it
was dated May 03, 1917
 That duty of RD and LRA is ministerial when there is an order
from a court
Respondent Guingona’s Allegations
 No cause of action against Guingona as he is no longer Sec.
of Justice
  Issuance of the Order of LRA was conducted during Sept. 22,
1997 and it did not modify the courts ruling as it was only
and administrative issuance
 And petitioner was not denied due process as the first order
was issued before judgement on January 08, 1998.
Petitioner’s Answer:
 Guingona should be named as private respondent as he was
the cause of the public respondent’s duty to comply wit its
ministerial duty
 Pertinent acts of the private respondent resulted in the
supplanting a judgement of the SC
 That they are entitled to petition for mandamus citing rule
65 and 39 of the rules of court
Public respondent’s allegations
 That petitioner’s claim as co heirs of Concepcion Vidal is an
untrue statement and was made to deceive
 That the fact-finding committee of the DOJ supports that the
petitioners are not entitled of the issuance of titles in their
name
 That the following facts are true:
o That petitioner and co-plaintiffs are not the true
heirs of Concepcion Vidal
o That as early as 1917 subject property has been
partitioned and divided among its true owners
o And that they were issued titles in their names
Issues:
 WON respondents unlawfully neglected to perform their
duties when it refused to issue titles to petitioner
Held:
 No, mandamus does not lie.
 Mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when
refused of a ministerial duty but not to compel the
performance of a discretionary duty
 Rather than a sign of negligence or nonfeasance in the
performance of its duty, the LRA's reaction is reasonable,
even imperative. Considering the probable duplication of
titles over the same parcel of land, such issuance may
contravene the policy and the purpose, and thereby destroy
the integrity, of the Torrens system of registration
 The issuance of the LRA of a decree of registration is not
purely ministerial in cases where it would result to doubling
of titles for the same parcel of land.
 Respondents cannot be compelled by mandamus because
there is merit in their explanation in refusing petitioner
o 1st indorsement by Guingona
o LRA circular 97-11
o Senate Committee report 1031
As resolved by Manotok vs CLT Realty:
 The question of the existence of another OCT no. 994 has
been laid to rest and the case at bar is bound to its resolution
 If titles are sourced from OCT No. 994 dated April 17, 1917
such titles are void and not recognized by the court
 MWSS and Gonzaga cases can no longer be relied on as
precedents
 There is only one OCT No. 994 and is dated May 03, 1917