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. 99 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON ATTY. YOLANDA O.
ALFONSO, REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALOOCAN CITY
This refers to the administrative complaint
initiated by Administrator Alfredo R. Enriquez, Land Registration
Authority (LRA), against ATTY. YOLANDA O. ALFONSO and MR. NORBERTO
VASQUEZ, JR., Register of Deeds and Deputy Register of Deeds of
Caloocan City, respectively, for, among other changes, grave misconduct
and dishonesty relative to their alleged participation in the land
titling irregularities affecting properties located within the Maysilo
Estate, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994. The
charges stemmed from Senate Committee Report No. 1031 and the
letter-complaints of Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation
(Phil-Ville, for short) dated 7 June 1997 and 2 December 1997.
Respondents were directed to show cause why no administrative action
should be taken against them. Pending investigation, respondents were
relieved of their assignments and were ordered to report to the Clerks
of Court Division of the LRA.
To expedite the proceedings, the parties agreed to submit the case for
resolution after the issues were simplified, facts stipulated and
evidence admitted. The parties also submitted their respective
memoranda.
Inasmuch as Deputy Register of Deeds Norberto Vasquez, Jr. is not a
presidential appointee, only the complaint against respondent Alfonso
shall be resolved.
I.
a.
b.
c.
d.
"The
LRA Verification Committee has previously reported that the issuance of
titles in the name of Jose Dimson was irregular and the titles issued
were void ab initio, since the properties covered by said titles are
already titled properties."
e.
f.
g.
h.
II.
1.
2.
a.
"Sec. 50.
xxx
The Commission may not order or
cause any change, modification, or amendment in the contents of any
certificate of title, or of any decree or plan, including the technical
description therein, covering any real property registered under the
Torrens system, nor order the cancellation of the said certificate of
title and the issuance of a new one which would result in the
enlargement of the area covered by the certificate of title."
"Sec. 58.
b.
c.
3.
4.
The principal issues to be resolved in this case are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
In her comment/answer dated July 20, 1998, respondent Alfonso denies having issued conflicting "certifications" relative to the date of issuance of OCT 994, clarifying that the "certifications" referred to are actually the "entries" contained in the Transfer Certificates of Title pertaining to the historical origin of OCT No. 994. She claims that she did not violate any law despite having issued titles with conflicting entries as she merely performed her ministerial duty to carry over the date of registration of OCT No. 994 as it appears on the derivative title to the title that she is to issue consequent to the transaction involved; and that even if she has knowledge of the true date of registration of OCT No. 994, she does not have the authority to put the correct date in the titles.
The posture assumed above by respondent Alfonso was followed vis-a-vis her "certifications" in the titles registered in the names of her children, Phil-Ville, and Lourdes Gonzaga, et. al. The entries were merely carried over in the subsequent titles pursuant to Sec. 43 of PD 1529 (The Property Registration Decree) which states:
"Sec. 43.
Respondent Alfonso, however, deviated from the above procedure in the issuance of TCT Nos. C-314535, C-314536 and C-314537 in the name of Eleuteria Rivera. Being direct transfers from OCT No. 994, the aforesaid Rivera titles should have contained entries that OCT No. 994 was registered on May 3, 1917 inasmuch as this is the correct date of registration of the said OCT. The date appearing as the date of registration of OCT 994 in the Rivera titles has been changed to April 19, 1917.
Respondent Alfonso maintains that the said alteration of the date of registration of OCT 994 was the sole responsibility of Deputy Register of Deeds Norberto Vasquez, Jr. who ordered the said alteration pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., GR No. 103556, 17 November 1992. She claims that the preparation of transfer certificates of title is essentially a mechanical endeavor with the typist automatically adopting the entries in the titles to be cancelled. To examine the entry, according to her, citing the case of Arias vs. Sandiganbayan (180 SCRA 309), is no different from proof reading which can be best left to subordinates. To further support her claim of innocence in the alteration, respondent Alfonso said that upon discovery thereof, she issued several memoranda requiring her subordinates who have participated in the preparation of the Rivera titles to explain why the alteration was made. It should be noted, however, that the memoranda were issued after she signed the Rivera titles.
In his letter-report dated June 14, 1999, the Secretary of Justice stated:
"It
is true that respondent Alfonso could not be faulted for carrying over
to TCT No. 312804 an erroneous date of registration of OCT 994 inasmuch
as the title from which it was derived from likewise bear the said
erroneous date of registration. However, the mere fact that she
consented to the acquisition of the property and signed and issued on
12 August 1996 TCT 312804 in the name of her children adopting 19 April
1917 as the date of registration of OCT 994 knowing the same to be
erroneous as shown by her 20 March 1996 referral of Ms. Roquieta
Dimson's application for issuance of certificate of title citing
therein the LRA Verification Committee report is a clear case of
dishonesty, malice and bad faith. This is also a clear violation of the
Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees prohibiting
government officials and employees from having any interest in a
transaction requiring their approval."
"In this connection, the NBI
Report dated 22 April 1997 regarding its investigation of the complaint
of one Danilo Bonifacio against respondent for violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Code of Ethical Standards for
Government Employees, Direct Bribery, Grave Misconduct and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in relation to the
issuance of the Transfer Certificates of Title to Eleuteria Rivera,
subject matter of this case, could not be ignored. Complainant therein
alleged that respondent Alfonso demanded from them P6 Million to
expedite release of the TCTs; that they gave a total of P3 Million,
P500,000.00 of which was in Security Bank Check No. 0155105 (Caloocan
Branch) payable to Cash which was personally handed to respondent;
[That] said check was encashed on 22 January 1997 by an unidentified
person with address at 34 Assets St., GSIS Village, Quezon City with
Telephone No. 927897. The address compounds to the address of
respondent Alfonso. Based on this, among others, the Bureau recommended
the prosecution of respondent for direct bribery, violation of Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees) and violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
"Moreover, respondent Alfonso
also violated the provisions of Section s 50, 58 and 92 of P.D. 1529 for
failure to require the presentation of (1) the subdivision plan duly
approved by the Land Registration Authority or by the Land Management
Bureau; and (2) proof of payment of estate or inheritance tax.
"The non-presentation of the
owner's duplicate copy of OCT 994 has been satisfactorily explained by
respondent Alfonso as the said presentation was dispensed with by an
order of the court."
"For her failure to require the
presentation of a subdivision plan for the three titles of Eleuteria
Rivera, respondent Alfonso claims that inasmuch as the issuance of the
titles is pursuant to a court order, Section s 50 and 58 of P.D. 1529 do
not apply. Said contention of respondent Alfonso is without merit as
said sections apply as long as the title to be issued covers only a
portion of a bigger tract of land. The presentation of a duly approved
subdivision plan is necessary in order to delineate the particular
portion of the lot being covered by the new title. Had respondent
Alfonso required the presentation of an approved subdivision plan, she
could have discovered the defects in the titling of the Rivera property
and could have manifested the same in court.
"As to the question regarding
the presentation of proof of payment of inheritance tax, respondent
Alfonso claims that no inheritance tax is due on the estate simply
because there is no inheritance involved as the titles were issued
pursuant to a court order in a judicial partition and the adjudicatee
Eleuteria Rivera is very much alive at the time of issuance. Again,
this deserves scant consideration. It does not matter whether Eleuteria
Rivera is alive or not because the subject matter of the inheritance
tax is not the estate of Eleuteria Rivera but the transfer of property
covered by the subject titles by way of inheritance from the
predecessor and alleged parent Maria Concepcion Vidal to the heir who
is Eleuteria Rivera.
"As to the issue of whether
complainant suffered damages as a result of the actions of the
respondents, Phil-Ville claims that it suffered damage as a result of
the issuance of the Rivera titles particularly TCT No. 314537 allegedly
for Lot 23 of OCT 994 as the said title is now being used by the heirs
of Rivera in claiming the properties of Phil-Ville covered by TCT Nos.
270921, 270922 and 270923.
"According to LRA, the mere fact
that Phil-Ville was compelled to file Civil Case No. C-507 entitled
'Phil-Ville Development vs. Maximo R. Bonifacio et al.' in order to
protect its property from the claims of the heirs of Rivera clearly
indicates that it has suffered damage. The greater damage of course is
the doubt that has been cast upon the integrity of the Torrens system."
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Secretary of Justice recommend the dismissal of respondent Alfonso from the service.
The findings and recommendation of the Secretary of Justice are well taken.
It cannot be overemphasized that to officials like respondent Alfonso, belong at the first instant the task of protecting the integrity of a Torrens Title and the Torrens System itself. But far from safeguarding the integrity of the Torrens System, respondent Alfonso undermined the same by disregarding certain provisions of law envisaged to preserve the effectivity of the system. In the process, she virtually compelled certain individuals holding separate Torrens title to litigate at great expense and inconvenience to protect their right represented by their certificates of title. And to think that a title issued under the Torrens system enjoys the conclusive presumption of validity (Ramos vs. Rodriguez, 244 SCRA 418).
Not to be overlooked is the fact that respondent Alfonso prima facie appears to have exacted a substantial sum from one Danilo Bonifacio to expedite the release a certificate of title. While respondent has yet to be convicted of the crime of bribery and/or corrupt practice, the very fact that the check issued by Bonifacio, — the smoking pistol, so to speak, — was encashed by someone residing at the home address of respondent Alfonso, speaks much of her culpability. If only for this hard reality, respondent Alfonso should be separated from the government service.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, respondent Yolanda O. Alfonso, Register of Deeds, Caloocan City is hereby DISMISSED from the service with all necessary accessory penalties, effective upon her receipt hereof.
Done in the City of Manila, this 29th day of November, in the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-nine.
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.