Oca Vs Matas
Oca Vs Matas
RTJ-92-836 ISSUE: WON Judge Matas acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of
the case, and WON Judge Matas acted with gross inexcusable negligence
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR and gross ignorance of the law when ruling for George Mercado
vs
JUDGE JESUS V. MATAS, RTC, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao del Norte (acting HELD:
Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 18, Digos Davao del Sur) and EDUARDO C. NO for both.
TORRES, JR., OIC, Clerk of Court, RTC, Tagum, Davao del Norte The subject parcel of land was well within the jurisdiction of the
court of Judge Matas.
FACTS: The so-called municipality of Sto Tomas in Davao never legally
Judge Jesus Matas and Eduardo Torres, the OIC Clerk of Court, existed because it was created only by then President Carlos P.
were accused of violating RA 3019. Garcia and not by Congress.
Deputy Court Administrator Ernani Cruz Pano to recommend that The land was actually part of Kapalong which is within the
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) file administrative coverage of Branch 1 of the RTC of Davao del Norte where Judge
charges against the two but said charges will be suspended Matas sits. It was impropriety of venue which may be waived by
pending the outcome of the criminal case. the parties.
The said recommendation was approved, thus the OCA filed with Also, there was no gross inexcusable negligence and gross
this Court an administrative complaint charging the herein ignorance of the law given that Judge Matas actually ordered the
respondents with the violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-graft required posting to give notice.
and Corrupt Practices Act. In the case at bar, the respective certificate of title of the
The complaint alleged that Judge Matas and Torres, in connivance properties in question on file with the Register of Deeds are
with one George Mercado, concealed from J.K. Mercado and Sons existing, and it is the owner's copy of the certificate of title that
Agricultural Enterprises his knowledge of the petition for issuance was alleged to have been lost or destroyed. Thus, it is Section 109
of new owner’s duplicate copies as well as taking cognizance of of P.D. 1529 which was approved on June 11, 1978 that becomes
the case which was allegedly outside of the jurisdiction of his effective and is applicable, a reading of which shows that it is
court, the land being in Kapalong, Davao. practically the same as Section 109 of Act No. 496, governing
Notwithstanding that the land in question was owned by J.K. reconstitution of a duplicate certificate of title lost or destroyed.
Mercado and Sons, Judge Matas still ordered the posing of the Consequently, it is sufficient that the notice under Section 109 is
order and ultimately issued instructed the Register of Deeds for sent to the Register of Deeds and to those persons who are
the issuance a new owner’s duplicate to George Mercado. known to have, or appear to have, an interest in the property as
The counsel for the private complainant and the OCA shown in the Memorandum of encumbrances at the back of the
representative moved for a suspension of the proceedings original or transfer certificate of title on file in the office of the
because they intended to amend the complaint. Justice Imperial Register of Deeds. From a legal standpoint, there are no other
granted the motion. interested parties who should be notified, except those above-
The amended complaint added the grounds of gross inexcusable mentioned since they are the only ones who may be deemed to
negligence and gross ignorance of the law as well as modifying have a claim to the property involved. A person dealing with
other portions of the complaint. The complaint alleged that Judge registered property is not charged with notice of encumbrances
Matas and Torres acted with bad faith and partiality in ruling in not annotated on the back of the title.
favor of George Mercado.