Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Office of Court Administrator v. Matas, AM RTJ-92-836, Aug. 2, 1995, 247 SCRA 9

    Uploaded by

    Gia Dimayuga
    This document summarizes a court case regarding Office of Court Administrator v. Matas. The key details are: 1) Judge Jesus V. Matas and Eduardo C. Torres, Jr. were accused of criminal violations and the Office of the Court Administrator sought to file administrative charges against them. 2) The case examines whether Judge Matas failed to require proper publication of a petition in the Official Gazette and notify registered owners. 3) The court ruled that Judge Matas had ordered proper and sufficient notice of the petition by requiring posting in the clerk of court, municipal hall, barangay hall, and near the property in question.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Office of Court Administrator v. Matas, AM RTJ-92-836, Aug. 2, 1995, 247 SCRA 9

    Uploaded by

    Gia Dimayuga
    27 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding Office of Court Administrator v. Matas. The key details are: 1) Judge Jesus V. Matas and Eduardo C. Torres, Jr. were accused of criminal violations and the Office of the Court Administrator sought to file administrative charges against them. 2) The case examines whether Judge Matas failed to require proper publication of a petition in the Official Gazette and notify registered owners. 3) The court ruled that Judge Matas had ordered proper and sufficient notice of the petition by requiring posting in the clerk of court, municipal hall, barangay hall, and near the property in question.

    Original Description:

    LTD

    Original Title

    338. Office of Court Administrator v. Matas, AM RTJ-92-836, Aug. 2, 1995, 247 SCRA 9

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding Office of Court Administrator v. Matas. The key details are: 1) Judge Jesus V. Matas and Eduardo C. Torres, Jr. were accused of criminal violations and the Office of the Court Administrator sought to file administrative charges against them. 2) The case examines whether Judge Matas failed to require proper publication of a petition in the Official Gazette and notify registered owners. 3) The court ruled that Judge Matas had ordered proper and sufficient notice of the petition by requiring posting in the clerk of court, municipal hall, barangay hall, and near the property in question.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views2 pages

    Office of Court Administrator v. Matas, AM RTJ-92-836, Aug. 2, 1995, 247 SCRA 9

    Uploaded by

    Gia Dimayuga
    This document summarizes a court case regarding Office of Court Administrator v. Matas. The key details are: 1) Judge Jesus V. Matas and Eduardo C. Torres, Jr. were accused of criminal violations and the Office of the Court Administrator sought to file administrative charges against them. 2) The case examines whether Judge Matas failed to require proper publication of a petition in the Official Gazette and notify registered owners. 3) The court ruled that Judge Matas had ordered proper and sufficient notice of the petition by requiring posting in the clerk of court, municipal hall, barangay hall, and near the property in question.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    338. Office of Court Administrator v. Matas, AM RTJ-92-836, Aug.

    2, 1995, 247
    SCRA 9

    FACTS

    In his Memorandum dated 26 February 1992, then Deputy Court Administrator, now
    Court Administrator, Ernani Cruz Paño informed the Court of a letter he received from
    Atty. Ma Dolores L. Balajadia, Deputy Clerk of Court, Third Division of the
    Sandiganbayan, notifying his office that Judge Jesus V. Matas and Eduardo C. Torres,
    Jr. were accused in Criminal Case No. 17378 of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
    3019, as amended. He then recommended that the Office of the Court Administrator
    (OCA) be authorized to file the proper administrative charges against Judge Matas and
    Torres, provided that, pending the outcome of Criminal Case No. 17378, proceedings in
    the administrative case be suspended after the filing by the respondents of their
    comment.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not there was failure on the respondent Judge to require publication of the
    petition in the Official Gazette and notices to the registered owners?

    RULING

    No. In the case at bar, the respective certificate of title of the properties in question on
    file with the Register of Deeds are existing, and it is the owner's copy of the certificate of
    title that was alleged to have been lost or destroyed. Thus, it is Section 109 of P.D.
    1529 which was approved on June 11, 1978 that becomes effective and is applicable, a
    reading of which shows that it is practically the same as Section 109 of Act No. 496,
    governing reconstitution of a duplicate certificate of title lost or
    destroyed. Consequently, it is sufficient that the notice under Section 109 is sent to the
    Register of Deeds and to those persons who are known to have, or appear to have, an
    interest in the property as shown in the Memorandum of encumbrances at the back of
    the original or transfer certificate of title on file in the office of the Register of Deeds.
    From a legal standpoint, there are no other interested parties who should be notified,
    except those above-mentioned since they are the only ones who may be deemed to
    have a claim to the property involved. A person dealing with registered property is not
    charged with notice of encumbrances not annotated on the back of the title.

    The only piece of evidence that would show the alleged ownership of the J.K. Mercado
    over the four (4) parcels of land, subject of Misc. Case No. 1626 is the alleged private
    Memorandum of Agreement entered on November 19, 1981 by and between George
    Mercado and J.K. Mercado. Said agreement was never entered on the Certificate of
    Titles in the name of their original/former owners on file with the Register of Deeds at
    the time of the filing or pendency of Misc. Case No. 1626. As such, how can private
    complainant expect to be notified.
    Respondent Judge Matas, dated March 24, 1987 issued the following Order anent
    notice of the petition, to wit:

    . . . At Least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled hearing, a copy of this
    Order and the petition shall be posted at the expense of the petitioner on
    each bulletin board of the following: the office of the Clerk of Court; the
    Municipal Hall and the Barangay Hall or if there be none, the Barangay
    School where the subject property is located. If there is no bulletin board
    in any of the aforementioned places, the posting shall be made on a
    conspicuous place, near the main door. . . . (emphasis supplied.)

    Clearly, respondent Judge Matas had ordered proper and sufficient notice of the
    petition. Furthermore, he had the right to rely on the 1st indorsement and certification of
    PFC Ciriaco Obenza that posting was made (quoted on page 5 and numbered 11 of this
    report). The mere fact that said certification did not specifically mention that posting was
    also made in the bulletin board of the Clerk of Court does not rule out the posting
    thereon considering the presumption that official duty has been done.

    You might also like