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. 115 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL ON SAMUEL C. CLEOFE, FORMER REGISTER
OF DEEDS, QUEZON CITY
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by Mr. Crisologo Magaso against Samuel C. Cleofe and Antonio A.
Vasquez, former Register of Deeds and Deputy Register of Deeds of
Quezon City, respectively, for, among others, violation of pertinent
rules and regulations governing land titling by conspiring in extending
extraordinary accommodation to a certain Edgar Timbol thru the hasty,
irregular and illegal issuance/release of Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. N-185088 in the latter's name.
After a formal investigation, Land Registration Authority (LRA)
Administrator Alfredo Enriquez found respondents guilty of grave
misconduct and recommended the penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of
benefits, based on the Report of Hearing Officer Atty. Gener C. Endoma
dated October 8, 1998. However, respondent Vasquez not being a
Presidential appointee, he is removed from the scope of the
disciplining authority of this Office.
Upon review, the Secretary of Justice, recommended that: "respondent
Samuel C. Cleofe, Register of Deeds of Quezon City, be found guilty of
Grave Misconduct and that the penalty of dismissal from the service be
imposed against him", stating in his letter-report dated March 19,
1999, as follows:
"On 24 April 1997, Edgar Timbol presented for registration a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated 10 June 1996 executed by Lucia Zayas in his favor,
covering Lot 5-A of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-63040 with an area
of 4,737 square meters situated at Bahay Toro, Tandang Sora, Quezon
City, accompanied by the following documents:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The said land has been the subject of three (3) separate petitions for
reconstitution of titles filed with the LRA Reconstitution Division, to
wit:
1.
2.
3.
Spouses Casabar and Reyes denied having sold the subject land to either
Zayas or Magaso in two separate Joint Affidavits both dated 16 January
1997.
The Land Registration Authority denied the petitions for reconstitution
of TCT No. 258660 and TCT No. 259059 based on the existence of the two
(2) titles covering the same land until the issue is settled by the
claimants.
On the same date (24 April 1997) at 2:20 p.m., respondents
provisionally registered the Deed of Sale by annotating the same under
Entry No. 4073/T-259050-PR-43569 of TCT No. 259059 with a notation
"title to be issued upon the reconstitution of the original title."
On 21 November 1997, Mr. Timbol personally presented Administrative
Order for Reconstitution of TCT No. 259059, together with the
accomplished but unattested reconstituted original and reconstituted
owner's duplicate of TCT No. 259059. On the basis thereof, respondents
prepared TCT No. 185088, using Judicial Form 109 with Serial No.
5001765.
In the Report Consumption of Judicial Form 109 and 109-D for the month
of November 1997, Serial No. 5001765 was reported as 'Used.' Later,
however, in the Report Consumption for the month of March 1998, the
same form was reported as "Spoiled."
According to respondents, they withheld the issuance of the said title
which was only partially accomplished since 'the hand-carrying of the
reconstitution order and reconstituted titles by the very person in
interest which has never been done before and extremely dangerous for
such sensitive documents, incited some doubts in the minds of the
Registry officers.' Hence, respondents asked Mr. Timbol to get a
certificate of finality for the reconstitution of TCT No. 259059 from
the Reconstitution Division of the LRA. In utter dismay, Mr. Timbol
allegedly withdrew the documents that were presented on the pretext
that he would need the same in securing the required certificate. When
the latter failed to return, respondents marked the partially
accomplished title (TCT No. 185088) as 'Spoiled' which was reflected in
its March 1997 Consumption Report. Allegedly, the same was not reported
earlier since the title had been misfiled by the Records Officer.
On the other hand complainant avers that TCT No. 185088 was in fact
signed, issued and released to Mr. Timbol. According to complainant,
the misfiling of the spoiled form by the Records Officer is unworthy of
belief. As a matter of fact, Mr. Timbol allegedly used the title in
obtaining a tax declaration of the property in his name from the
Assessor's Office of Quezon City and in a pleading he filed with the
Quezon City Regional Trial Court.
The principal issues to be resolved in this case are (1) whether or not
there was an irregularity in the provisional registration made by
respondents; and (2) whether or not TCT No. 185088 was in fact
issued/released to Mr. Timbol.
There is no dispute that the documents presented together with the Deed
of Sale for provisional registration were those enumerated earlier
which did not include proof that an application or petition has been
filed for the reconstitution of the certificate of title subject of the
transaction required under LRA Circular No. 3 dated 6 December 1988. As
correctly observed by the LRA in its recommendation, on that 'ground
alone, provisional registration of the instrument should have been
denied at once.'
While we agree that Registers of Deed need not go beyond the face of
the instrument in determining its authenticity and therefore,
respondents are not expected to have detected upon presentation that
the Deed of Sale was not notarized by a commissioned Notary Public;
yet, an experienced and careful examiner could have easily detected
that the Authority to Accept Payment and Certificate Authorizing
Registration presented in this case were falsified. Comparison of these
documents with the original of which they should be familiar would show
that —
1.
2.
3.
4.
Records also show that there are actually two sets of xerox copies of
certificates of title on file with the Registry. All the provisional
registrations/annotations on both titles were signed by respondent
Cleofe. TCT Nos. 259059 in the name of Lucia V. Zayas with the
provisional registration of the following transactions:
1.
2.
3.
and TCT No. 258660 in the name of spouses Daniel Casabar and Rufina
Reyes with the following annotations;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The fact that respondent Cleofe signed all the aforementioned
transactions raises doubt as to their lack of knowledge on the
existence of the two TCTs. It is observed that only ten (10) days prior
to the presentation of the subject Deed of Sale for provisional
registration on 24 April 1997, Cleofe signed the Notice of Lis Pendens,
Civil Case No. Q-97-30263, annotated at the back of TCT No. 258660.
Even assuming arguendo that respondents were not furnished and did not
receive a copy of the opposition to the petitions for reconstitution
filed by spouses Casabar - since no copy of the opposition is included
in the records and the only evidence submitted was a certification by
the Postmaster that letters addressed to the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City were delivered and received by the receiving clerk - still
it is highly improbable that they were completely unaware of the
controversy surrounding such a valuable piece of property. Prudence
dictates that they should have at least verified and strictly adhered
to the requirements for provisional registration set forth in LRA
Circular No. 3 dated 6 December 1998.
II
With regard to the second issue, we believe that the derivative title
(TCT No. 185088) was indeed issued/released to Mr. Timbol.
Respondents claim that they already had doubts because Mr. Timbol
handcarried the Order granting reconstitution and the machine typed
reconstituted titles (both the original and the owner's duplicate)
which should have been officially transmitted. Hence, they required Mr.
Timbol to secure a certificate of finality before releasing TCT No.
185088 which allegedly has only been partially accomplished. However,
on the pretext that the documents would be needed in securing the said
certificate, they allowed Mr. Timbol to withdraw the documents without
even asking the latter to sign for the withdrawal. Certainly, we find
this highly improbable. As correctly observed by the LRA, 'what a
prudent Register of Deeds should have done under the circumstances is
to report the matter to the LRA by forwarding all the records submitted
for verification. Likewise, assuming that they demanded for the
production of the certificate of finality, they should have at least
withheld in abeyance the preparation of TCT No. 185088 which cancels
the alleged reconstituted title pending submission of the certificate
of finality.'
Examination of the subject TCT shows that both the owner's duplicate
and original thereof were fully accomplished, contrary to the claim of
respondents. In support that the title had only been partially
accomplished, the bottom portions of the titles where respondent
Cleofe's signature is supposed to appear had been torn although there
was no need to do so since the title had already been marked 'Spoiled.'
It skipped respondents' mind that respondent Cleofe likewise signed at
the back thereof leaving no room for doubt that the titles had really
been fully accomplished.
Likewise, records show that on 26 November 1997 or barely a week after
Mr. Timbol presented the Order together with the reconstituted TCT No.
259059 pursuant to which TCT No. 185088 was prepared by respondents,
Mr. Timbol was able to secure a tax declaration of the said property
under his name using TCT No. 185088.
While it may be true that the subject title had been marked 'spoiled'
and reported as such in the March 1998 Consumption Report of Judicial
Forms, the possibility that the title was released and used in between
21 November 1997 and March 1998 could not be discarded in the face of
the above. The reason adduced by respondent for the delay - that the
Records Officer misplaced the title - is too flimsy to prevail over the
above Tax Declaration. Besides, the said reason, if true, should have
been supported by at least a sworn statement executed by the Records
Office.
With the foregoing, we find the provisional registration of the Deed of
Sale between Lucia V. Zayas and Edgar Timbol as highly irregular; and
that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 185088 was indeed illegally
issued/released to Mr. Timbol."
The recommendation of the then Justice Secretary is well-taken. It is
amply supported by the evidence and facts on record. With respect to
co-respondent Antonio A. Vasquez, however, let copy of this order be
furnished the Civil Service Commission for appropriate action regarding
the complaint against Vasquez.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises and as recommended by the
then Secretary of Justice, respondent SAMUEL C. CLEOFE is hereby found
GUILTY of grave misconduct and ordered DISMISSED from the service.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 14th day of April, in the year of Our Lord, Two
Thousand.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.