ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 41 -
DISMISSING ATTY. MOSIB ALI BUBONG, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARAWI CITY,
FROM THE SERVICE FOR CAUSE
This refers to the administrative case No.
88-29 for Grave Misconduct filed by Major Omar P. Ali against Atty.
Mosib Ali Bubong, Register of Deeds of Marawi City.
In his report of September 8, 1992, the Secretary of Justice informed
this Office that:
"Complainant
charges respondent with the following acts constituting grave
misconduct:
a)
b)
c)
"Allegedly, on the first charge,
illegal exaction was committed by respondent in that:
'[W]hen
I [complainant] registered the Deed of Sale between Philippine Amanah
Bank and me with the Register of Deeds, Atty. Bubong demanded P800.00
cash. He issued an official receipt amount to P221.50. I [complainant]
do not know where the rest of [my] payment [went].
'I [complainant] registered the
Deed of Sale between me and Ibrahim Miguel, Atty. Bubong demanded
P1,000.00 cash. I negotiated and [Atty. Bubong] accepted P800.00.
No receipt was issued.
'I [complainant] registered my
lot at Madaya Lilod, Marawi City, thru my brother-in-law, Hadji Ibrahim
Miguel. [Atty. Bubong] demanded P500.00 [from] Hadji Miguel. No receipt
was issued.'
"Relative to the second charge,
complainant avers that despite the existence of TCT No. T-2807 covering
Lot No. 36-A-3 in his name, Atty. Bubong 'indiscriminately' issued
another title (TCT No. 2821) in favor of his first degree cousins,
Matabae Abdullah Datu, et al. Said title was allegedly used by his
relatives as their defense in the anti-squatting case the complainant
filed against them.
"The third charge is based on
the alleged preparation by Atty. Bubong of the appeal of his relatives
in the anti-squatting case. Allegedly, the appeal can only be prepared
by somebody who has access to the records in the Registry of Deeds.
"In addition, in a follow-up
letter dated 22 April 1989, complainant accused respondent of
infidelity in the custody of documents and commission of various
irregularities in connection with the loss of the Primary (Entry) Book
and Entries Nos. 2778, 2728, and 2730 to make it appear that there was
no deed of conveyance which serves as the basis for the issuance of TCT
No. 1582.
"Respondent
submitted his Answer dated 25 November 1988 wherein he expressed his
desire to 'submit the case for appropriate action on the basis of [his]
answer and the supporting papers' at the same time praying that the
complaint be dismissed. Notwithstanding, a formal investigation was
conducted. The investigator recommended the dismissal of the complaint
'for lack of merit and evidence' to which the Administrator agreed.
"Records reveal the following:
"For the registration of the
following documents the respective amounts were paid:
a.
b.
c.
"It
appears that Lot No. 36-A-3 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-231948 was
originally covered by TCT No. T-26-B in the name of Serad Abdullah and
his brothers. Somehow this title (TCT No. T-26-B) was replaced by TCT
No. 1582 in the name solely of Serad Abdullah. The latter allegedly
executed a Deed of Sale in favor of his son, Camar Abdullah, by virtue
of which Deed, TCT No. 1588 was issued in place of TCT No. 1582. On 29
June 1981 Camar Abdullah mortgaged the said title to the Philippine
Amanah Bank which was foreclosed. Complainant Omar Ali, as the highest
bidder acquired the property and TCT No. T-2807 was issued to him by
respondent replacing TCT No. T-1586.
"In November 1987, upon his
return from a military assignment, complainant Omar Ali discovered that
the residential house he built on the land he purchased (covered by TCT
No. 2807) was burned and the lot was occupied by, among others,
respondent's uncle (Serad Abdullah) and daughters, who are his first
degree cousins. Thus, he filed a case for anti-squatting. The case was
resolved in his favor by the fiscal. However, on appeal to this
Department, the case was dismissed on the ground that 'there is no deed
of conveyance which serves as the basis for the issuance of TCT No.
1582 in the name of Serad Abdullah [et al., to Serad Abdullah alone].
TCT No. T-26-B in the name of Serad Abdullah and his brothers did not
show any such transfer/conveyance. In fact, TCT No. T-26-B and T-2821
[in favor of respondent's relatives] appear to be existing and
uncanceled.
"In
a Report dated 8 November 1991, the LRA Inspection and Investigation
Team opined that:
'[W]ithout the assistance of the
respondent, the complaint he [complainant] filed against [respondent's]
relatives would have prospered. In fact, the same was already resolved
by the Marawi City Fiscal's Office but the appeal to the Secretary of
Justice saved the day for them. Of course, complainant was right, the
defense of the respondents in the Anti-Squatting case was actually
thought of by respondent Bubong; that obviously Bubong was actually
acting as counsel and giving advice to his relatives on the side. It is
but natural for him to do so since his relatives were not represented
by counsel.'
"In respondent's sworn
Counter-Affidavit dated 17 August 1989 which he submitted to the Office
of the Ombudsman in OMB-3-89-0468, he alleged, however, that 'TCT No.
T-2821 covers another parcel of land designated as Lot No. 36-A of the
subdivision plan Psd. 12-002171, situated in Dansalan, Marawi City,
containing an area of 168 sq. m. Based on the documents filed and
registered in our Registry and which documents are our basis for the
issuance of the two titles, (TCT No. T-2087 and TCT No. T-2821), it is
therefore crystal clear that these two titles cover two diametrically
different lots.
"In connection with the last
charge of infidelity in the custody of documents, there appears in the
records Exhibits 25 to 28 relating to the loss of, among others,
Primary Books through a robbery that occurred on 21 December 1986 in
the Registry of Deeds.
-
I -
"Relative to the charge of
illegal exaction, there is nothing in the records which tends to
support the allegation of complainant that respondent demanded and, in
fact, received P800.00 in the first two (2) transactions relative to
the registrations of the Deeds of Sale and P500.00 in the third.
"It has not been refuted that,
in the first transaction, it was not even respondent, but Mr. Moncado
B. Dimaporo, who received the amount and issued the corresponding
receipt (Official Receipt No. 6385390) for the amount of P331.50
reflected therein. Since it was Mr. Dimaporo who attended to the
complainant in this particular transaction, it was remotely possible
for respondent to have demanded at that time the amount of P800.00 from
complainant.
"Furthermore, Official Receipt
Nos. 6385524 and 6305541 in the amounts of P102.00 and P73.20 belie
complainant's allegations that no receipts were issued in the last two
transactions.
- II -
"There is no dispute that
respondent issued both Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-2807
and T-2821. The first certificate was issued on 5 January 1987 while
the second on 3 March 1987.
"It
appears indubitably that Psd 12-002171, one of the documents which
supports the issuance of TCT No. T-2821, covers a lot subject of the
anti-squatting case, located in Midsayap, Cotabato, contrary to
respondent's claim that the same covers a land situated at Dansalan,
Marawi City. Respondent's relatives in the anti-squatting case even
executed a counter-affidavit that the subject land covered by TCT No.
T-2807 is their own as evidenced by TCT No. T-2821. When confronted
with the glaring inconsistency of the location of the same lot but
covered by two (2) titles, respondent claimed that it was not his
responsibility to ascertain the authenticity of documents presented to
him.
"Although he claims that TCT No.
T-2821 was based on Psd-12-002171 while TCT No. T-2807 on Psd-231948
and, therefore, the two titles cover two different parcels of land,
respondent never mentioned this in his letter dated 3 June 1991 to the
LRA Investigation Officer. Instead, he concluded therein that
complainant was a 'purchaser in bad faith.' If this conclusion of
respondent were to be believed, his issuance of TCT No. T-2807 as a
consequence of the alleged issuance of TCT No. T-1582 without any basis
would then be highly questionable.
"Assuming that there were indeed
no documents to support the issuance of TCT No. T-1582 which makes it
spurious title then respondent seriously erred in issuing TCT No.
T-2807.
"Indeed,
respondent's allegations are so confused. There is no conclusion other
than that he has imprudently issued a TCT No. T-2821.
"Moreover, TCT No. T-1586
(issued in lieu of TCT No. T-1582) from which TCT No. 2807) was derived
had been mortgaged with the Philippine Amanah Bank. It is the standard
operating procedure for banks to verify and check the authenticity of
titles being mortgaged to it before entering into a contract of
mortgage.
- III -
"There is no doubt that
respondent, as stated in the report, assisted his relatives who were
the respondents in the anti-squatting case considering that the
defenses raised in the appeal were matters which could only be known to
someone who has access to the records in the Registry. As a matter of
fact, the appeal in the anti-squatting case went as far back as the
mother title verifying in the process all the supporting documents for
every title issued. This only shows that this defense was belatedly
conceived by respondent to help his relatives in the anti-squatting
case.
"As regards the last charge of
infidelity in the custody of documents, complainant would have us
believe that respondent manipulated the loss of the Primary Book
containing Entries 2728, 2729 and 2730. While it is true that this was
lost through the burglary that occurred on 21 December 1986, the
documents represented by the entries mentioned were still available on
file. That the loss was deliberately manipulated by respondent has not
been established. On the other hand, the burglary is supported by
several documents submitted by respondent which have not been refuted."
Hence, the Secretary of Justice recommended as follows:
"ACCORDINGLY,
it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. MOSIB ALI BUBONG
be:
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
"As
a penalty for the above offenses, it is respectfully recommended that
respondent, Atty. Mosib Ali Bubong, be dismissed from the service."
I agree in toto with the Secretary of Justice.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Mosib Ali Bubong, Register of Deeds, of Marawi City, is hereby dismissed from the service for cause, effective fifteen (15) days after receipt by respondent of a copy of this Order.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 26th day of February in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-three.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.