G.R. No.

L-1631 February 27, 1948

ABELARDO SUBIDO, Editor, The Manila Post, Petitioner,

vs. ROMAN OZAETA, Secretary of Justice, and MARIANO
VILLANUEVA, Register of Deeds of City of
Manila, Respondents.

Abelardo Subido in his own behalf.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor
Felix V. Makasiar for respondents.

TUAZON, J.:

This is a petition for mandamus. The petitioner, editor of the Manila

Post, a morning daily, prays that an order issue "commanding the
respondents to furnish (petitioner) the list of real estates sold to
aliens and registered with the Register of Deeds of Manila since the
promulgation of the Department of Justice Circular No. 128 or to
allow the petitioner or his duly accredited representatives (to)
examine all records in the respondents' custody relative to the
(said) transactions."chanroble s virtual law library

The first alternative of the petition was denied by the Register of

Deeds and later, on appeal, by the Secretary of Justice. No request
to inspect the records seems to have ever been made, but the
Solicitor General, answering for the respondents, gives to
understand that not even this would the petitioner or his
representatives be allowed to do if they tried. As the petitioner
appears not to insist on his request for a list of sales of real estate
to aliens, we shall confine our discussion to the second part of the
prayer; namely, that the petitioner be allowed to examine all the
records in the respondents' custody to gather the material he
wants. In this connection, the Solicitor General contends that "the
examination or inspection of the records in the office of the register
of deeds may be made only by those having special interest therein
and subject to such reasonable regulations as may be prescribed by
the Chief of the Land Registration Office, and that the Secretary of
Justice has reasonably ruled, to safeguard the public interest and
the interest of those directly concerned in the records, that records
may not be disclosed for publication." chanrobles virtual law library

The petition in part is grounded on the liberty of the press. We do

not believe that this constitutional right is in any way involved. The
refusal by the respondents does not constitute a restriction upon or
censorship or publication. It only affects facilities of publication, and
the respondents are correct in saying that freedom of information or
freedom to obtain information for publication is not guaranteed by
the constitution.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The case is governed by statute and to a certain degree be general

principles of democratic institutions. It has been expressly stated
that the right to examine or inspect public records is purely a
question of statutory construction. (80 A. L. R., 761 citing cases.) chanroble s virtual law library

The right of inspection of title records is a subject of express

statutory regulation in the Philippines. Section 56 of Act No. 496, as
amended by Act No. 3300, provides that "All records relating to
registered lands in the office of the Register of Deeds shall be open
to the public subject to such reasonable regulations as may be
prescribed by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office with
the approval of the Secretary of Justice." The Chief of the General
Land Registration Office does not seem to have adopted any
regulations in pursuance of this provision. Nevertheless, we do not
believe this omission relevant. The Register of Deeds has inherent
power to control his office and the records under his custody and
has some discretion to exercise as to the manner in which persons
desiring to inspect, examine, or copy the records may exercise their
rights. (45 Am. Jur., 531.) The question at issue boils down to a
determination of the scope of this discretion. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual law library

No one will contest the proposition that the power to regulate is not
synonymous with the power to prohibit. Stated differently, the
power to make regulations does not carry with it the power to
prohibit. To the extent that newspapers and others who have no
direct or tangible interest in the records are obstructed from making
an examination thereof, a part, indeed the larger part of the public,
is thereby excluded from the right granted by law. Such prohibition
is at was with the requirement that the books and records of
registered lands shall be open to the public. "Public" is a
comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properly construed, it embraces
every person. To say that only those who have a present and
existing interest of a pecuniary character in the particular
information sought are given the right of inspection is to make an
unwarranted distinction. This interpretation is contrary to the letter
of the law and the whole concept and purpose of registration of
recorded titles, which is to serve notice to all who might be affected
by the registries.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

From the language of section 56 of Act No. 496, as amended, it is

our opinion that the regulations which the Register of Deeds, or the
Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or the Secretary of
Justice is empowered to promulgate are confined to prescribing the
manner and hours of examination to the end that damage to, or
loss of, the records may be avoided, that undue interference with
the duties of the custodian of the books and documents and other
employees may be prevented, that the right of other persons
entitled to make inspection may be insured, and the like. The idea is
aptly expressed in People ex rel. Title Guarantee & T. Co. vs. Railly
([1886], 38 Hun [N. Y.], 429): chanrobles virtual law library

"The subject is necessarily committed, to a great degree, to his

(register of deeds') discretion as to how much of the conveniences
of the office are required to be preserved for the accommodation of
these persons. It is not his duty to permit the office to be thronged
needlessly with persons examining its books or papers, but it is his
duty to regulate, govern, and control his office in such a manner as
to permit the statutory advantages to be enjoyed by other persons
not employed by him as largely and extensibly as that consistently
can be done ... . What the law expects and requires from him is the
exercise of an unbiased and impartial judgment, by which all
persons resorting to the office, under legal authority, and
conducting themselves in an orderly manner, shall be secured their
lawful rights and privileges, and that a corporation formed in the
manner in which the relator has been, shall be permitted to obtain
all the information either by searchers, abstracts, or copies, that the
law has entitled it to obtain." chanroble s virtual law library

Except, perhaps, when it is clear that the purpose of the

examination is unlawful, or sheer, idle curiosity, we do not believe it
is the duty under the law of registration officers to concern
themselves with the motives, reasons, and objects of the persons
seeking access to the records. It is not their prerogative to see that
the information which the records contain is not flaunted before
public gaze, or that scandal is not made of it. If it be wrong to
publish the contents of the records, it is the legislature and not the
officials having custody thereof which is called upon to devise a
remedy. As to the moral or material injury which the publication
might inflict on other parties, that is the publisher's responsibility
and lookout. The publication is made subject to the consequences of
the law. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The respondents have been guided in their action by the rule laid
down in the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia in Buck vs.
Collins ([1874], 51 Ga., 391; 21 Am. Rep., 236), copy of which was
furnished the Register of Deeds by the Secretary of Justice in 1933,
evidently in answer to a query covering a situation similar to the
case at bar. As the respondents place much or entire reliance on this
decision, we shall dwell at length on its relevancy in the present
case.chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual law library

Since, as we have pointed out, the right of inspection is dependent

on the construction to be given the statute in force in the particular
jurisdiction, the decision relied upon can not have any controlling or
persuasive effect here unless it is predicated on a statute like or
similar to the Philippine law. It is not. That decision was inspired
largely by common law principles. It is not in harmony with modern
tendencies, and the common law rule has been found to be
inapplicable to the conditions obtaining in the United States and, for
that matter, in the Philippines. The present tendency is to extend
the right of inspection of recorded titles to abstracters, a right
denied in Buck vs. Collins. This tendency, according to American
Law Reports (80, p. 760), has even led the courts in some instances
to overrule prior well-recognized decisions, among which are
Buck vs. Collins and Land Title Warranty & S. D. Co. vs. Tanner
(1896, 99 Ga., 470; 27 S. E., 727); while in at least one other
instance, a holding by the supreme court that abstracters were not
entitled to have access to public records le to the enactment of a
statute by the legislature expressly conferring such right. (80 A. L.
R., 762.) In Atlanta Title & T. Co. vs. Tidewell Co. ([1931], 173 Ga.,
499; 160 S. E., 620), the same court which announced the doctrine
in Buck vs. Collins, while not definitely reversing that decision says
its opinion does not entirely accord with the views expressed
therein. The development of the more modern tendencies is ably
explained with a discussion of the common law rule in Shelby
County Co. vs. Memphis Abstract Co. (1918, 140 Tenn., 74; 203 S.
W., 339). The court said:chanrobles virtual law library

"According to the rules of the common law as administered in

England there was no general or public right of inspection of public
records, that right being confined to those who had a personal
interest in the property affected by the records. The greater portion
of the real property in England was held by the nobility and the
aristocracy in large estates, and the system that prevailed looked to
the descent of reality to the oldest son and other heirs, often by
entail, and this resulted in few transfers. In America different ideals
have prevailed, and these brought, as a necessary consequence, a
decided change. Small holdings in fee have resulted from the
American concept and principle of equality as heirs, and activity of
sales and freedom of transfer have been encouraged by the policy
of our laws. The earlier common law decisions are, therefore, not
applicable to the changed conditions, and should have little
influence in the molding of precedents respecting the right to
inspect and make use of registries of titles. If subsequent
purchasers and encumbrances are to be charged with notice of all
that appears of record affecting the particular real estate, it is but
sheer justice that the law should be liberalized so as not only to
extend the right of inspection to members of the public who may be
interested in the title, but so as to expand the opportunity for notice
to all who may be injured should they act or deal without notice.
Sound policy would give to the contents of the registries of deeds,
mortgages and liens the widest possible publicity, and in the form
that is most reliable and reassuring. Whatever adds to the
vendibility of real property at its full value augments the wealth of
the state. While the title examiner or abstractor has followed his
profession ever since a system of registration was adopted, there
has come in modern times the creation and development of the
abstract company, which in turn has paved the way for and made
possible the title guaranty company. The constantly increasing
complication of land titles, especially in populous estates, has made
each of these not only a utility, but a necessity, as aids in the
ascertainement and assurance of rights based upon titles of
reality."
chanroble s virtual law library

Independently of statutes the petitioner, as editor of a newspaper,

has the requisite interest in land records even under the common
law theory entitling him to the writ of mandamus. Newspapers have
a better-established right of access to records of titles by reason of
their relations to the public than abstracters or insurers of title.
Whether by design or otherwise, newspapers perform a mission
which does not enter into the calculation of the business of
abstracting titles conducted purely for private gain. Newspapers
publish information for the benefit of the public while abstracters do
so for the benefit of a limited class of investors and purchasers of
real estate only. It is through the medium of newspapers that the
public is informed of how public servants conduct their business.
The public through newspapers have the legitimate right to know
the transaction in real estate which they believe, correctly or
erroneously, have been registered in violation of the constitution.
The publication of these matters is certainly not only legitimate and
lawful but necessary in a country where, under the constitution, the
people should rule. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
In this connection, it will profit us to quote the following passages
from The Rights and Privileges of the Press, Chapter II, by Siebert:

If the Press is to report fully and accurately the affairs of

government, it must have ready access to all relevant sources of
information. Public officers, public records, and public proceedings
furnish quantities of such information to the daily newspaper, whose
duty in turn is to pass it on to the reading public. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual law library

The majority rule in the United States is that any member of the
public can demand the right of access to public documents where it
can be shown that the public's interest would be benefited. No
special pecuniary interest in the record need be shown. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual law library

This rule does not apply, for reasons of public policy, to demands for
access to certain records such as diplomatic correspondence, police
records, records of the grand jury, and communications by
voluntary informers. Also, where examination has been prompted
by a desire for scandalous details, the inspection of court records
(especially in divorce cases) has been denied. chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual law library

In addition to his rights as a citizen and an elector, the newspaper

proprietor can demand access to public records on the basis of his
special pecuniary interest. The interest of the newspaper man in
public records is the interest of the manufacturer in his raw
materials. By being denied access to the records the newspaper is
cut off from a source of income and profit. That the newspaper's
prospective business from the sale of copies containing information
gathered from the records was a sufficient pecuniary interest to
entitle the proprietor or employee to access to the documents was
finally established in two cases.

Upon the foregoing considerations, mandamus is the appropriate

remedy, and the petition will be granted commanding the
respondents to allow the petitioner or his accredited representatives
to examine, extract, abstract or make memoranda of the records of
sales of real properties to aliens subject to such restriction and
limitation as may be deemed necessary not incompatible with his
decision, without costs.chanroble svirtualawlibrary chanroble s virtual law library

Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Hilado, Bengzon, and Padilla, JJ., concur.