Supreme Court Decisions: Defamation and Freedom of the Press

Supreme Court Decisions:

Defamation and Freedom of the Press (Phil. Journalists, Inc. et al. vs. Francis Thoenen, December 13, 2005).


Ordinarily, the relief indicated by the material facts would be the remand of the reconstitution case (LRC No. Q-5405) to the Court of origin with instructions that Ortigas’ and the Solicitor General’s appeals from the judgment rendered therein, which were wrongly disallowed, be given due course and the records forthwith transmitted to the appellate tribunal.

This, in fact, is a relief alternatively prayed for by petitioner Ortigas. Considering however the fatal infirmities afflicting Molina’s theory or cause of action, evident from the records before this Court, such a remand and subsequent appeal proceedings would be pointless and unduly circuitous. Upon the facts, it is not possible for Molina’s cause to prosper. To defer adjudication thereon would be unwarranted and unjust.

The same rationale should apply in the instant case. As already discussed, the validity of respondents’ and petitioners’ title have been squarely passed upon by the LRA and reviewed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which factual findings are no longer reviewable by this Court.

A careful examination of the case of Spouses Cayetano, et al. v. CA, et al.,

40 where this Court, as claimed by petitioners, have affirmed their title over the disputed property, would reveal that the sole issue resolved therein is whether or not a tenancy relationship exists between the parties.

41 There was no adjudication on ownership. In fact, it cannot even be discerned if the property subject of the Spouses Cayetano case refers to the property subject of the instant controversy.

There is no basis in the allegation that petitioners were deprived of "their property" without due process of law when the Court of Appeals ordered the cancellation of their Torrens title, even without a direct proceeding in the RTC.

As already discussed, there is no need to remand the case to the RTC for a re-determination on the validity of the titles of respondents and petitioners as the same has been squarely passed upon by the LRA and affirmed by the appellate court. By opposing the petition for reconstitution and submitting their administratively reconstituted title, petitioners acquiesced to the authority and jurisdiction of the reconstituting officer, the LRA and the Court of Appeals, and recognized their authority to pass judgment on their title.

All the evidence presented was duly considered by these tribunals. There is thus no basis to petitioners’ claim that they were deprived of their right to be heard and present evidence, which is the essence of due process. As held in Yusingco v. Ong Hing Lian:

42 Therefore, it appearing from the records that in the previous petition for reconstitution of certificates of title, the parties acquiesced in submitting the issue of ownership for determination in the said petition, and they were given the full opportunity to present their respective sides of the issues and evidence in support thereof, and that the evidence presented was sufficient and adequate for rendering a proper decision upon the issue, the adjudication of the issue of ownership was valid and binding.

The reconstitution would not constitute a collateral attack on petitioners’ title which was irregularly and illegally issued in the first place.

43 As pertinently held in Dolfo v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite:

44 The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is presumed valid and, hence, is the best proof of ownership of a piece of land does not apply where the certificate itself is faulty as to its purported origin.

In this case, petitioner anchors her arguments on the premise that her title to the subject property is indefeasible because of the presumption that her certificate of title is authentic. However, this presumption is overcome by the evidence presented, consisting of the LRA report … that TCT No. T-320601 was issued without legal basis …….

Thus, petitioner cannot invoke the indefeasibility of her certificate of title. It bears emphasis that the Torrens system does not create or vest title but only confirms and records one already existing and vested. Thus, while it may be true, as petitioner argues, that a land registration court has no jurisdiction over parcels of land already covered by a certificate of title, it is equally true that this rule applies only where there exists no serious controversy as to the authenticity of the certificate.

Under similar circumstances, this Court has ruled that wrongly reconstituted certificates of title secured through fraud and misrepresentation cannot be the source of legitimate rights and benefits.

45 WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. In G.R. No. 162335, the February 24, 2004 Amended Decision of the Third Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481 and directing the Land Registration Authority to reconstitute respondents’ TCT No. 210177; and in G.R. No. 162605, the November 7, 2003 Amended Decision of the Special Division of Five of the Former Second Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners’ TCT No. RT-22481, and the Land Registration Authority to reconstitute respondents’ TCT No. T-210177 and the March 12, 2004 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., and Quisumbing,JJ., concur.
Carpio, J. The Dissenting Opinion
Azcuna,J. I concur in separate opinion.


SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 143372
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC. (PEOPLE’S JOURNAL), ZACARIAS NUGUID, JR. and CRISTINA LEE,

Petitioners,
- versus -

FRANCIS THOENEN,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
December 13, 2005

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

For almost a century, this Court has sought that elusive equilibrium between the law on defamation on one hand, and the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and press on the other. This case revisits that search.

On 30 September 1990, the following news item appeared in the People’s Journal, a tabloid of general circulation:

Swiss Shoots Neighbors’ Pets
RESIDENTS of a subdivision in Parañaque have asked the Bureau of Immigration to deport a Swiss who allegedly shoots wayward neighbors’ pets that he finds in his domain.

The BF Homes residents through lawyer Atty. Efren Angara complained that the deportation of Francis Thoenen, of 10 Calcutta BF Homes Phase III, could help "prevent the recurrence of such incident in the future."

Angara explained that house owners could not control their dogs and cats when they slip out of their dwellings unnoticed.

An alleged confrontation between Thoenen and the owner of a pet he shot recently threatens to exacerbate the problem, Angara said.

Cristina Lee

1 The subject of this article, Francis Thoenen, is a retired engineer permanently residing in this country with his Filipina wife and their children.

Claiming that the report was false and defamatory, and that the petitioners acted irresponsibly in failing to verify the truth of the same prior to publication, he filed a civil case for damages against herein petitioners Philippine Journalists, Inc., Zacarias Nuguid, Jr., its publisher, and reporter Cristina Lee.

Thoenen claimed that the article destroyed the respect and admiration he enjoyed in the community, and that since it had been published, he and his wife received several queries and angry calls from friends, neighbors and relatives.

For the impairment of his reputation and standing in the community, and his mental anguish, Thoenen sought P200,000.00 in moral damages, P100,000.00 in exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 in attorney’s fees.

The petitioners admitted publication of the news item, ostensibly out of a "social and moral duty to inform the public on matters of general interest, promote the public good and protect the moral public (sic) of the people," and that the story was published in good faith and without malice.

2 The principal source of the article was a letter3 by a certain Atty. Efren Angara addressed to Commissioner Andrea Domingo of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID, now Bureau of Immigration), which states:

Dear Madame:

We would like to request your office to verify the true status/authenticity of the residency in the Philippines of a foreign national (a Swiss) by the name of Francis Thoenen who is presently residing at No. 10 Calcuta cor. Beirut Street, BF Homes (PH. III), Parañaque, Metro Manila. I received (sic) complaint from my clients residing around his vicinity that this foreigner had (sic) been causing troubles ever since he showed up.

He is too meticulous and had (sic) been shooting dogs and cats passing his house wall everytime.
Such act which (sic) is unacceptable to the owners especially if inspite (sic) of control their pets slips (sic) out unnoticed.

A confrontation between him and the owner of the dog he shoot, (sic) already occurred last time. In some instances this guy had been always driving his car barbarously inside the subdivision with children playing around (sic) the street.

Before my clients petitioned themselves with the endorsement of the Homeowners Association and filed to your office for deportation we’re respectfully seeking your assistance to investigate this alien to prevent further incident occurrence (sic) in the future. He should not be allowed to dominate the citizens of this country.

Very truly yours,

Atty. Efren B. Angara

The petitioners claim that Lee, as the reporter assigned to cover news events in the CID, acquired a copy of the above letter from a trusted source in the CID’s Intelligence Division. They claimed to "have reasonable grounds to believe in the truth and veracity of the information derived (from their) sources."

4 It was proven at trial that the news article contained several inaccuracies. The headline, which categorically stated that the subject of the article engaged in the practice of shooting pets, was untrue.

5 Moreover, it is immediately apparent from a comparison between the above letter and the news item in question that while the letter is a mere request for verification of Thoenen’s status, Lee wrote that residents of BF Homes had "asked the Bureau of Immigration to deport a Swiss who allegedly shoots neighbors’ pets." No complaints had in fact been lodged against him by any of the BF Home-owners,

6 nor had any pending deportation proceedings been initiated against him in the Bureau of Immigration.


**************************************

215 Phil. 430 [1984].
41Id. at 436.
42149 Phil. 688, 709 [1971].
43Heirs of Pael v. Court of Appeals, 423 Phil. 67, 69 [2001].
44Supra at 63 & 66.
45Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85157, December 26, 1990, 192 SCRA 735, 741.

Exh. C-1-A; Records, p. 58.
2 Records, p. 18.
3 Dated 01 September 1990; Records, p. 84.
4 Ibid.
5 TSN, 14 November 1991, pp. 16-19.
6 Id., p. 8.
7 Id., pp. 14-15.