Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. 222-MJ June 30, 1975
SANTIAGO PALADIN, complainant, ARTURO V. MIRALLES as Municipal Judge of Biliran, Leyte, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
Complainant Santiago Paladin charges Municipal Judge Arturo V. Miralles of Biliran, Leyte, with grave abuse of authority and acts unbecoming of a public official in that the latter had allegedly extended a loan to the former's brother named Amado Paladin sometime in 1970, and accepted as security for the payment thereof an agricultural land belonging to said complainant, and that respondent did so by taking advantage of his profession as a lawyer and as Municipal Judge, without even bothering to ascertain from said complainant whether his brother's act was with complainant's conformity, but instead deliberately and deceitfully made it appear that complainant participated in the transaction by signing the deed of assignment when in truth and in fact he did not do so; thereby enabling respondent Judge to enter upon the land in question and appropriate the fruits thereof for his own personal gain.
The respondent denied the charges. The records reveal that the property in question was inherited from complainant's parents. The heirs agreed to transfer title to the property, as in fact they did, to complainant's name as sole owner, only for the purpose of enabling him to obtain a loan from the DBP, without prejudice, however, to the rights and interests of his brothers and sisters. By this means, complainant succeeded in using the property as a collateral for a loan of P2,000.00. However, for his failure to repay the loan, a sheriff's certificate of sale was issued. On July 10, 1970, the complainant executed a "waiver", whereby he and his wife renounced and waived their right to redeem and repurchase the parcel of land they had mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines, which right was only up to August 9, 1970, in favor of complainant's brother Amado Paladin who in turn exercised the right waived in his favor and became the owner of the said parcel of land. As owner thereof, he sold the same with right of repurchase to the herein respondent. The latter, as vendee a retro, became the owner of the property sold a retro pending the repurchase thereof. It results therefore that when respondent took possession of the land in question, utilized it, and enjoyed the fruits thereof, he did so in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant complaint is hereby dismissed.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Aquino, JJ., concur.
Santiago Paladin vs. Arturo V. Miralles
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in 1975. The case involves a complaint filed by Santiago Paladin against Arturo V. Miralles, a municipal judge of Biliran, Leyte, for grave abuse of authority and acts unbecoming of a public official. Paladin accused Miralles of extending a loan to his brother, Amado Paladin, using Paladin's land as security, and deceitfully making it appear that Paladin participated in the transaction. However, the Supreme Court found that the property in question was inherited by Paladin from his parents and was transferred to his name solely for the purpose of obtaining a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines. The Court further found that Paladin had already waived his right to redeem the property in favor of his brother, who then sold it to Miralles. Hence, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, as Miralles had taken possession of the property in accordance with law.
Quick Answers
- What is Santiago Paladin vs. Arturo V. Miralles about?
- This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in 1975. The case involves a complaint filed by Santiago Paladin against Arturo V. Miralles, a municipal judge of Biliran, Leyte, for grave abuse of authority and acts unbecoming of a public official. Paladin accused Miralles of extending a loan to his brother, Amado Paladin, using Paladin's land as security, and deceitfully making it appear that Paladin participated in the transaction. However, the Supreme Court found that the property in question was inherited by Paladin from his parents and was transferred to his name solely for the purpose of obtaining a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines. The Court further found that Paladin had already waived his right to redeem the property in favor of his brother, who then sold it to Miralles. Hence, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, as Miralles had taken possession of the property in accordance with law.
- Which court decided Santiago Paladin vs. Arturo V. Miralles?
- Santiago Paladin vs. Arturo V. Miralles was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- When was Santiago Paladin vs. Arturo V. Miralles decided?
- Santiago Paladin vs. Arturo V. Miralles (A.M. No. 222-MJ) was decided on Jun 30, 1975.
- What is the citation for Santiago Paladin vs. Arturo V. Miralles?
- Santiago Paladin vs. Arturo V. Miralles, A.M. No. 222-MJ, Jun 30, 1975 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Case Information
- Case Number
- A.M. No. 222-MJ
- Decision Date
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Jurisdiction
- Philippines
Full Decision Text
Cite This Case
Santiago Paladin vs. Arturo V. Miralles, A.M. No. 222-MJ, Jun 30, 1975 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1975). Santiago Paladin vs. Arturo V. Miralles (A.M. No. 222-MJ). Retrieved from https://legaldex.com/jurisprudence/santiago-paladin-vs-arturo-v-miralles
Related Cases
- Paladin v. MirallesA.M. No. 222-MJ (Resolution) • Jun 30, 1975
- People v. Miralles y GileraG.R. No. 208717 (Notice) • Feb 24, 2014
- Arturo Q. Pelgone vs. Rodolfo M. EspartinezA.M. No. P-94-1019 • Dec 13, 1994
- Miralles v. Commission on AuditG.R. No. 210571 • Sep 19, 2017
- Kaimo v. MirallesA.C. No. 12413 (Notice) • Nov 4, 2020
- Miralles v. GariandoG.R. No. L-16584 • May 23, 1961
Need Help Understanding This Case?
Ask our AI assistant to explain the key points, implications, or related cases.
Ask AI About This Case