IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON ATTY. YOLANDA O. ALFONSO, REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALOOCAN CITY
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. Per Senate Committee Report No. 1031, respondent Alfonso issued
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 314535, 314536 and 314537 in
the name of Eleuteria Rivera which bear a wrong date of registration of
OCT No. 994 on September 12, 1996, notwithstanding the following:
a. She had previously issued certificates of title in the name of other individuals derived from OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917.
b. She had in fact questioned the falsity of April 19, 1917 as the date of registration of OCT No. 994.
c. There are perceptible erasures in the said TCTs in the name of
Eleuteria Rivera in the space on which April 19, 1917 was written,
apparently removing the date May 3, 1917.
d. She has knowledge of the report of the LRA Verification Committee
as manifested by her referral on March 20, 1996 of the application of
Ms. Roquieta Dimson for a new certificate of title.
“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. On May 2, 1996, she wrote a letter to the Administrator, thru the
Director of the Legal Affairs Department, expressing her concern on the
request for annotation of lis pendens by Ms. Roquieta Dimson on Mt.
Carmel Farms Inc’s title derived from OCT No. 994, which request is
predicated on the Supreme Court ruling in MWSS vs. Court of Appeals
which stated that there are two OCT No. 994 issued on Maysilo Estate
dated March 3, 1917 and April 19, 1917.
f. On September 15, 1993, she issued TCT Nos. 270921, 270922 and
270923 in the name of Phil-Ville wherein she certified that said land
was originally registered on the 3rd day of May 1917 in the Registration
Book of the Register of Deeds of Rizal as OCT No. 994 pursuant to
Decree No. 36455.
g. On August 12, 1996, she issued TCT No. C-312804 in the name of
her children, namely: Arnold, Rachel, Yvette, Dennis and Cherry wherein
she certified that said land was originally registered on the 19th day
of April 1917. The lot registered in the name of her children came from
Norma Dimson Tirado, daughter of Jose B. Dimson, whose title she already
knew was void ab initio.
h. On September 20, 1996, in her reply to the query of Ms. Cecilia
Que Yabut, Managing Director of Phil-Ville, respondent Alfonso stated
that OCT No. 994 was issued pursuant to Decree No. 36455 dated April 19,
1917; that the date of transcription of said decree at the Office of
the Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal was May 3, 1917; that as far as
their record is concerned, there is only one OCT 994 on file with said
registry and that the same can be verified from the OCT No. 994 on file
at the Caloocan registry.
II. As per letter-complaints of Phil-Ville —
1. Respondent Alfonso issued TCT Nos. 314535, 314536 and 314537 in
the name of Eleuteria Rivera wherein she (Alfonso) certified that OCT
No. 994 was originally registered on April 19, 1917 contrary to her
letter to Phil-Ville dated September 20, 1996 and to then LRA
Administrator Maulit dated March 31, 1996, respectively, which states
that OCT No. 994 was originally registered on May 3, 1917. Furthermore,
Phil-Ville claims that the Eleuteria Rivera titles overlap titled
properties owned by LCM Theatrical Enterprises covered by TCT No. 111236
and Bonifacio Center, Inc. covered by TCT No. 103548;
2. Respondent Alfonso issued TCT No. 314537 in the name of Eleuteria
Rivera for Lot 23, allegedly a portion of Maysilo Estate in the absence
of the following:
a. The presentation of a subdivision plan duly approved by the LRA
or by the Lands Management Bureau prior to the issuance of the subject
title in violation of Sections 50 and 58 of Presidential Decree (PD)
1529 which provide, to wit:
“Sec. 50. Subdivision and consolidation plans. — Any
owner subdividing a tract of registered land into lots which do not
constitute a subdivision project as defined and provided for under P.D.
NO. 957, shall file with the Commissioner of Land Registration or with
the Bureau of Lands subdivision plan of such land on which all
boundaries, street, passageways and waterways, if any, shall be
distinctly and accurately delineated.xxx xxx 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. Procedure where conveyance involves
portion of land. — If a deed of conveyance is for a part only of the
land described in the certificate of title, the Register of Deeds shall
not enter any transfer certificate to the grantee until a plan of such
land showing all the portions or lots into which it has been subdivided
and the corresponding technical descriptions shall have been verified
and approved pursuant to Section 50 of the Decree.Meanwhile, such deed may only be annotated by way of
memorandum upon the grantor’s certificate of title, original and
duplicate, such memorandum to serve as a notice to third persons of the
fact that certain unsegregated portion of the land described therein has
been conveyed, and every certificate with such memorandum shall be
effectual for the purpose of showing the grantee’s title to the portion
conveyed to him, pending the actual issuance of the corresponding
certificate in his name.”
b. The presentation of the owner’s duplicate copy which is in violation of Section 53 of P.D. 1529; and
c. The presentation of tax declaration, real estate tax clearance and estate tax.
3. Respondent Alfonso issued TCT No. C-314537 for Lot 23, allegedly a
portion of Maysilo Estate, as a direct transfer from OCT 994, but OCT
994 does not have a Lot 23. It is claimed that said issuance resulted to
damage to Phil-Ville whose properties covered by TCT Nos. 270921,
270922 and 270923, which are part of Lot 23 of Maysilo Estate, are now
being claimed by Rivera.
4. Respondent Alfonso committed falsification, as the true date of
the registration of OCT 994 — which is May 3, 1917 — was altered to
April 19, 1917.
The principal issues to be resolved in this case are:
1. Whether or not respondents issued conflicting “certifications” in
the date of issuance of OCT No. 994, one for April 19, 1917 and the
other for May 3, 1917;
2. Whether or not respondent had made it appear that there are two
OCT Nos. 994, one registered on April 19, 1917 and the other registered
on Me 3, 1917;
3. Whether or not there was malice, fraud or bad faith in issuing “certifications” for the titles of Eleuteria Rivera; and
4. Whether or not as a result of the conflicting “certifications” complainant suffered damages.
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 Section 43 of
PD 1529 (The Property Registration Decree) which states:
“Sec. 43. Transfer Certificate of Title. — . . . The
certificate shall show the number of the next previous certificate
covering the same land, and also the fact that it was originally
registered giving the record number, the number of the original
certificate of title, and the volume and page of the registration book
in which the latter is found.”
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 Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees) and violation of Section 3(b) of R.A.
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).“Moreover, respondent Alfonso also violated the provisions of
Sections 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,
Sections 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.
Adopted: 29 Nov. 1999
By the President:
(SGD.) RONALDO B. ZAMORA
Executive Secretary