SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11470. June 7, 2017.]
JOSEFINA AMONELO, petitioner,vs. ATTY. EDGAR D. SANTOS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 June 2017 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11470: JOSEFINA AMONELO v. ATTY. EDGAR D. SANTOS
In administrative proceedings, the complainant must prove his or her allegations with substantial evidence. 1
This resolves the Complaint-Affidavit 2 filed by Josefina Amonelo (Amonelo) against Atty. Edgar D. Santos (Atty. Santos), the Register of Deeds of Cavite. Amonelo alleges that Atty. Santos maliciously certified the loss of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-951382, when it had, in fact, been cancelled due to its subdivision into two (2) lots resulting in the issuance of new titles. 3
The facts as borne by the records are as follows:
On October 8, 2001, Reynaldo Cipriano (Cipriano) mortgaged his lot located along Daang-Hari Highway, Molino, Bacoor, Cavite, to First Lepanto Taisho Insurance Corporation, now FLT Prime Insurance Corporation (FLT Prime). 4 Cipriano's lot had an area of 7,878 square meters and was covered by TCT No. T-951382. 5 The mortgage was annotated as Entry No. 7830-125. 6
On May 28, 2008, after Cipriano paid off his mortgage debt, FLT Prime executed a release of mortgage, which cancelled the mortgage in Cipriano's favor. 7 The release of mortgage was annotated as Entry No. 8057. 8 cTDaEH
On August 15, 2008, Cipriano requested the land covered by TCT No. T-951382 to be subdivided into two (2) lots. Cipriano's request was annotated as Entry No. 8058. 9
On October 20, 2009, the lot was subdivided into two (2). 10 TCT No. T-951382 was then cancelled with TCT Nos. T-1301101 (First Lot) 11 and T-1301102 (Second Lot) 12 issued as its replacements.
On April 3, 2012, Cipriano and Amonelo executed a Deed of Absolute Sale 13 over the First Lot. The First Lot had an area of 5,000 square meters and was sold to Amonelo for P3,000,000.00. 14
On April 18, 2012, TCT No. T-1301101 was cancelled and TCT No. T-057-2012011236 15 was issued as its replacement and was registered in Amonelo's name.
On June 13, 2012, Cipriano and Amonelo entered into another Deed of Absolute Sale, 16 this time for the Second Lot. The Second Lot had an area of 2,878 square meters and was sold to Amonelo for P1,726,800.00. 17
On June 18, 2012, TCT No. T-1301102 was cancelled and TCT No. T-057-2012018554 was issued 18 and registered in Amonelo's name.
Amonelo claimed "actual, complete, and undisputed possession" over the two (2) lots. 19
In 2015, Amonelo learned about a pending case for reconstitution involving her properties. She verified this with the Regional Trial Court and was surprised to find out that an order for reconstitution had been issued as early as 2011. 20
Amonelo averred that sometime in 2010, FLT Prime filed a petition for reconstitution with Branch 89, Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite on behalf of Cipriano. The petition claimed that the original copy of TCT No. T-951382 was missing. 21
Two (2) certifications attesting to the loss of TCT No. T-951382 were presented as evidence in the case for reconstitution. These certifications were issued by Atty. Santos as the Register of Deeds of Cavite. 22
The July 22, 2011 Order, 23 which granted the petition for reconstitution, was issued by Branch 89, Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite in LRC-8843-2010-307. Its dispositive portion read:
ACCORDINGLY, the Register of Deeds of Cavite is ordered to reconstitute the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-951382 in the name of Reynaldo S. Cipriano married to Annebelle Cipriano, using as basis thereof the owner's duplicate copy of the title and the approved technical description, subject to whatever encumbrance/s as may be subsisting and provided that no certificate of title covering the same parcel of land exists in its office, upon payment of the corresponding fees. cSaATC
The lost original copy of the title is declared null and void.
SO ORDERED. 24
On September 23, 2015, Amonelo filed an Opposition 25 to the petition.
The Regional Trial Court recalled its July 22, 2011 Order and allowed Amonelo to oppose the petition. 26
Amonelo accused Atty. Santos of conniving with FLT Prime and Cipriano when he certified that TCT No. T-951382 was lost and could not be found by the Registry of Deeds. 27
Amonelo also held that it was under Atty. Santos' term as Register of Deeds when TCT No. T-951382 was cancelled and replaced by TCT Nos. T-1301101 and T-1301102. Furthermore, Atty. Santos was still the Register of Deeds when TCT Nos. T-057-2012011236 and T-057-2012018554 were issued after the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-1301101 and T-1301102. 28
On August 25, 2016, Amonelo filed a Complaint-Affidavit 29 for disbarment against Atty. Santos.
In his Comment to Petition, 30 Atty. Santos stated the following events:
Sometime in 2012, after an inquiry about the status of TCT No. T-951382, the Registry of Deeds of Cavite searched for the title but could not locate its original copy despite a diligent search in their files. 31 Several employees of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite eventually attested 32 to the loss of TCT No. T-951382.
On May 9, 2012, Jeannette A. Olayvar, an administrative aide of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite, received a copy of the Regional Trial Court's Order dated July 22, 2011. However, when she was about to encode the Regional Trial Court's order of reconstitution, she discovered that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-951382 was missing. She stopped encoding and when FLT Prime gave her a copy of the owner's duplicate copy, she observed that it was of dubious authenticity. 33 She then reported the matter to Atty. Santos. 34
The vault keepers observed that Atty. Santos' signatures on TCT Nos. T-1301101 and T-1301102 were different from his usual signatures and suspected that his signature might have been forged. 35
On December 3, 2012, Atty. Santos wrote the Land Registration Authority to ask its opinion on the registrability of the order of reconstitution of TCT No. T-951382, considering that the owner's copy presented appeared to be fake. Atty. Santos likewise brought up the contradictory actions of FLT Prime in 2008 when it cancelled the mortgage over TCT No. T-951382, which was entered under Entry No. 8057. It was after that TCT No. T-951382 was subdivided and cancelled. But then in 2011, FLT Prime filed a petition for reconstitution of TCT No. T-951382. Atty. Santos asked for the matter to be verified and investigated by the Land Registration Authority. 36 cHDAIS
On February 18, 2013, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas found that the owner's copy of TCT No. T-951382 was spurious. 37 Part of the report stated:
Document contains print not conforming to BSP standard particularly:
1. Digits "6258082"
2. Red texts "SN No." and "OWNER'S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE"
3. Red Seal
4. Black text "Page ____-B"
5. All black texts on Front Page and Page A 38
On June 14, 2013, the National Bureau of Investigation concluded that after examining Atty. Santos' signatures on other land titles, his signatures on TCT Nos. T-1301101 and T-1301102 "were not written by one and the same person." 39
On October 14, 2014, Atty. Santos, as authorized by the Land Registration Authority, filed a petition for the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-1301101 and T-1301102. These titles were registered in Cipriano's name. TCT Nos. T-057-2012011236 and T-057-2012018554, registered in Amonelo's name, were also included in the petition for cancellation. The case was docketed as LRC No. 8843-2014-396 before Branch 19, Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite. 40
The only issue for this Court's resolution is whether Atty. Santos violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rules 1.01, 6.02, and 10.01.
The complaint must fail.
Complainant alleges that Atty. Santos violated 41 the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following rules:
Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxx xxx xxx
Canon 6 — These canons shall apply to lawyers in government services in the discharge of their tasks.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 6.02 — A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. ISHCcT
xxx xxx xxx
Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
However, complainant failed to present substantial evidence to prove her allegations of Atty. Santos' supposed unlawful or deceitful conduct, abuse of his public position, or attempts to mislead the court.
Complainant claims that Atty. Santos deliberately attempted to mislead the court by issuing false certifications and attesting that the original copy of TCT No. T-951382 had been lost, when in fact it had been cancelled and subdivided, with new titles issued in its stead. 42
Complainant fails to persuade.
The Affidavit 43 executed by Records Officer Editha Bawalan-Santos and by other employees of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Cavite supports Atty. Santos' certification that the original copy of TCT No. T-951382 could not be found in their records.
Furthermore, the records are replete with evidence to show that Atty. Santos acted with the diligence required of him as the Register of Deeds when he was confronted with the possibility of a fraudulent land title.
Atty. Santos sought the advice of the Land Registration Authority regarding the registrability of the order of reconstitution since TCT No. T-951382 appeared to be fake. He likewise asked for authority to file the appropriate court action if the Land Registration Authority would later on find that TCT No. T-951382 was erroneously cancelled. 44
When it was established that the owner's copy of TCT No. T-951382 was fake and that the signatures on TCT Nos. T-1301101 and T-1301102 were not his, Atty. Santos filed an action for the cancellation of the new titles. This action affected TCT No. T-057-2012011236, derived from TCT No. T-1301101, and TCT No. T-057-2012018554, derived from TCT No. T-1301102. The action for cancellation was docketed as LRC No. 8843-2014396 before Branch 19, Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite. 45
Atty. Santos' performance of his mandate as the Register of Deeds should not be seen as an attempt to defraud complainant, more so when the Deeds of Absolute Sale 46 between Cipriano and complainant are themselves the subjects of a separate case. A suit for reconveyance, cancellation of titles, or recovery of possession docketed as Civil Case No. BCV-2013-201 47 is pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite. CAacTH
Considering the foregoing, complainant clearly failed to substantiate her complaint for disbarment against Atty. Santos.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Edgar D. Santos is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.(Mendoza, J., on official leave. Martires, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Biado v. Brawner-Cualing, A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891, February 15, 2017 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/february2017/MTJ-17-1891.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
2.Rollo, pp. 1-10.
3.Id. at 5.
4.Id. at 2.
5.Id. at 23-25.
6.Id. at 24.
7.Id. at 2.
8.Id. at 25.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 26.
12.Id. at 27.
13.Id. at 28-30.
14.Id. at 29.
15.Id. at 31-33.
16.Id. at 34-36.
17.Id. at 34.
18.Id. at 37-39.
19.Id. at 4.
20.Id. at 7.
21.Id. at 4.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 40-42.
24.Id. at 41-42.
25.Id. at 46-51.
26.Id. at 7.
27.Id. at 4-5.
28.Id. at 6.
29.Id. at 1-10.
30.Id. at 63-71.
31.Id. at 64.
32.Id. at 72-73.
33.Id. at 74.
34.Id. at 75.
35.Id. at 65, Comment to Petition.
36.Id. at 76.
37.Id. at 80-82.
38.Id. at 82.
39.Id. at 44-45.
40.Id. at 66. Comment to Petition.
41.Id. at 1.
42.Id. at 4-5.
43.Id. at 72-73.
44.Id. at 76.
45.Id. at 66.
46.Id. at 28-30 and 34-36.
47.Id. at 111-121, Complaint (Reconveyance/Cancellation of Titles/Possession).