278514 Sotero Diola, Felixberto Cubero, Judy U. Lim, Manuel R. Lahoz, and Nerissa C. Natividad Vs. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. — Official PDF

Decision 3 G.R. No. 278514 they contended that the mandamus petition was filed out of time. Since there was no order explicitly denying Laguna West's demand, the 60-day reglementary period should be reckoned from the expiration of 15 days from the time it was received by the Register of Deeds. Second, they argued that Laguna West failed to exhaust administrative remedies, having neither moved for reconsideration nor elevated the matter en consulta to the Land Registration Authority. Lastly, they maintained that the JVAs were void for violating the proscription against the transfer of lands conferred through certificates of land ownership award. 13 Ruling of the RTC The RTC conducted a hearing on the affirmative defenses raised by Diola et al. and thereafter issued an Order denying the same. This ruling was later affirmed by the CA via the action for certiorari filed by Diola et al. in CA-G.R. SP No. 150402. 14 In due course, the RTC rendered the Decision granting the Amended Petition for Mandamus and disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. Let a Writ of [Mandamus] be issued directing the respondent Register of Deeds of Tanauan City, Batangas, to carry over and annotate the adverse claims of [Laguna West], appearing in [the] following cancelled titles with their respective adverse claim entry numbers, to their respective succeeding titles. SO ORDERED. 15 (Emphasis in the original) In its Decision, the RTC brushed aside the issue regarding the validity of the subject JVAs, stating that jurisdiction on the administrative implementation of agrarian laws exclusively pertains to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. 16 As regards the procedural requirements of the petition for mandamus, the RTC ruled that these had already been raised as affirmative defenses and were accordingly denied. It nonetheless reiterated that, because the Register of Deeds' inaction was the very premise of Laguna West's mandamus petition, there was no judgment, order, or resolution from which notice could be reckoned. 17 On the substantive aspect, the RTC held that the Register of Deeds' failure to perform its ministerial duty to carry over the omitted adverse claim was an omission compellable by mandamus. 18 13 Id. at 37-38. 14 id. at 15, 38-39. 15 id. at 308. 16 Id. at 305. 17 Id. at 306. 18 /d.at307.