Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > November 2008 Resolutions > [OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2728-RTJ : November 19, 2008] SPOUSES GODOFREDO AND EUNICE BUCSIT V. HON. PHILBERT I. ITURRALDE, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 5%, ANGELES CITY:

Quoted hereunder, for your information,  is a resolution of this Court dated   19 November 2008:

OCA I.P.I. No.  07-2728-RTJ - (Spouses  Godofredo and Eunice  Bucsit v. Hon. Philbert I. Iturralde, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 5%, Angeles City)


Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit;

In a verified Complaint dated. September 7, 2007, the spouses Godofredo and Eunice Bucsit charge Judge Philbert I. Iturralde with Gross Dishonesty and Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to a parcel of lot which had been partitioned into two lots the titles to which are now in the name of the respondent and of his wife.

The complainants claim that sometime in July 1989, they purchased three adjacent lots (Lots 7, 8 and 9) located in Zircon St., Medalva Hills, Phase II, San Isidro, Angono, Rizal by installment through PAG-IBIG. The respondent and his wife, who is the sister of complainant Eunice Bucsit, likewise bought two lots (Lots 5 and 6) on the same block of the said subdivision.

The complainants assert that Lot 7 was initially assigned in the name of Salome Apalisoc and that they bought her rights by paying the amount of five thousand five hundred pesos (P5,500.00) to subdivision broker Vive Eagle Land, Inc. upon learning that she was not interested in buying the property anymore.

When the respondent started constructing his house on Lot 6, the complainants observed that a portion of his house, specifically the septic tank, encroached on Lot 7. The complainants allege that considering the respondent is the husband of complainant Eunice's sister, Marcelia, they offered to jointly buy and equally divide the property between them. Thus, an agreement between Eunice and Marcelia was executed stating that as co-owners, they shall share equally in the payment of She monthly amortization and that in case of default in the payment by any of the parties, all the interests accruing as a result of non-payment shall be shouldered by the defaulting party. The agreement also states that should the defaulting party refuse to comply with the agreement, all payments made by him or her shall be forfeited in favor of the other party.

The complainants assert that they performed their obligations under the agreement although there were times when their payments were delayed. They claim that they had been making regular payments since 1996 until the property was fully paid.

The complainants said that they received information that. Lot 7 was already in the name of the respondent. They proceeded to the Register of Deeds of Rizal in Binangonan and learned that the respondent was indeed, able to have Lot 7 partitioned into two lots with one lot registered in his name and the other lot in his wife's name.

The complainants allege that causing the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Lot in his favor was a blatant violation of the agreement of co-ownership between complainant Eunice and the respondent's wife, Marcelia. The affidavit of partition made by the respondent and his wife declaring Lot 7 as conjugal in nature and causing its subdivision into two (2) lots which were individually assigned in their names excluded the spouses who are entitled to half of Lot 7. The complainants added that when Lot 7 was surveyed, the respondent fraudulently affixed his signature over the name of Salome Apalisoc, making it appear that the latter signed the subdivision plan.

The complainants allege that the respondent even encroached, beyond the portion of the lot that was allotted to him by constructing a toilet, a piggery and a house for his caretaker without prior knowledge and approval of the complainants.

With the foregoing acts of the .respondent, the complain ants charge the respondent with gross dishonesty and gross misconduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

In his Comment dated October 28, 2007, Judge Iturralde categorically and vehemently denies the charges made by the complainants against him, dismissing the allegations as unfounded, malicious, contemptuous and false, designed to malign his character and reputation, not only as an individual, but as a member of the bar and bench as well.

The respondent argues that it was erroneous for the complainant to claim that by paying the broker, Vive Eagle Land, Inc. for the rights of Salome Apalisoc, they were already considered as purchasers of Lot 7. The respondent points out that Vive Eagle Land, Inc. had already sold Lot. 7 to Salome Apalisoc as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 15, 1989. To pay for the said lot, Ms. Apalisoc mortgaged the subject property to PAG-IBIG thru Fortune Saving & Association, Inc.

It is admitted by the respondent that there was initially a verbal agreement between the spouses Bucsit and the spouses Iturralde to purchase Lot 7, divide the lot into two and jointly pay the monthly amortizations due to PAG-IBIG. The respondent asserts that the complainants failed to fulfill their obligation as a result of which the payments made by the respondent and his wife were made to apply to the interest, with the property having been nearly foreclosed.

According to the respondent, in order to protect his rights and that of his wife, they caused the execution of the agreement and waiver of right dated February 7, 1996. Upon the failure of the complainants to pay their share of the monthly amortization, the respondent  argues that they forfeited their rights over the properly.

The respondent contends that it was tie who validly purchased Lot 7 as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage dated February 29, 1996 between him and Salome Apalisoc.

The respondent adds that the complainants were given the opportunity to reclaim their share through a letter dated June 25, 2007 sent by the respondent's lawyer, Atty. Paul P. Sagayo, Jr. In the said letter, the complainants were asked to confer with the respondent's wife, Marcelia, to settle the former's obligations after which the titled to half of Lot 7 (which was already in Marcelia's name) shall be transferred to the complainants.  The respondent claims that the complainants failed to respond, within the period given them.

As to the building of a shanty and small pigpen on Lot 8 (the complainants' property), the respondent asserts that he sought the assent of the complainants to build a small shanty which could house a family that would maintain and oversee the property. The said structures, built in 1996, were tolerated by the complainants. The respondent adds that he even built a fence around the property of the complainants to prevent other people from squatting on the property. In any case, the shanty had already been removed to prevent further misunderstanding.

The respondent declares that the administrative complaint was filed in revenge for that the complainants perceived as his having meddled in the family affairs of his wife. The respondent claims that he had been accused of instigating his wife to file a complaint for judicial partition of the real properties left by his wife''a father.

The respondent also contends that the complaint has no connection with his function and capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC (Branch 58), Angeles City and that the issues raised, are judicial in nature and should be threshed out in the regular courts.

Finally, the respondent prays that the administrative complaint be dismissed for being baseless and unfounded.

In the Reply dated November 26, 2007, the complainants assert that the administrative complaint against the respondent was filed, not as an act of revenge, but to inform the Court of the abuses allegedly committed by the respondent:

The complainants reiterate that there was an agreement that Lot 7 would be co-owned by both the spouses Bucsit and spouses Iturralde They (the complainants) were unaware that the respondent had solely transacted and entered into a Deed of Sale with the owner of Lot 75 Salome Apalisoc. They were not even informed that the title to Lot 7 were already in the names of respondent and his wife.

The respondent, in his 4^th Indorsement dated April 18, 2008, maintains that the instant complaint was filed to harass, humiliate and punish him due to the civil case for partition of estate filed by his wife (at his alleged instigation.). He discloses that the complaints have filed criminal cases against the respondent involving the same property and the same issues.

Considering that the allegations of the complainants lack factual and legal basis, the respondent again prays that the complaint be dismissed and the complainants, together with their counsel, be found guilty of contempt of court and be properly sanctioned.

EVALUATION: After a thorough review of the records of the case, this Office believes that Judge Philbert I. Iturralde cannot be held liable for the acts complained of as the complainants failed to substantiate their charges of gross dishonesty and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct against him.

The documents submitted by both the complaints and the respondent show that the former were purchasers of Lots 8 and 9 while Lots 5 and 6 were bought by The respondent and his wife.

Contrary to the complainants3 claim that they purchased Lot 7 together with Lots 8 and 9 sometime in July 1989, the statement of account made by Vive Bagle Land, inc. which was appended to their complaint shows that Lot 7 was already in the name of Salome Apalisoc. In fact, the title to the said lot had been transferred to Apalisoc as evidenced by Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 569095 dated May 19, 1989 issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal. The title was encumbered by a mortgage to Fortune Savings and Association, Inc. and was financed thru PAG-IBIG.

It would appear that Apalisoc was no longer interested in Lot 7 and. offered it to the owners of the adjoining lots, the complainants who own Lots 8 and 9 and the respondent who owns Lots 5 and 6. Since complainant Eunice is the sister of respondent's wife, Marcelia, there was a verbal agreement to co-own the lot and share in the payment of the monthly amortization. The mortgage, however, was assumed by the respondent as it was his name which appeared in the records of PAG-IBIG and it was him whom PAG-TBJG informed about the unpaid amortizations from January 1992 to November 1995.

Apparently, there were difficulties in effecting the payment of the monthly amortization on the part of the complainants. Complainant Eunice admitted in her complaint that there were times that their share of the payment was delayed due to the work of her husband who was oftentimes assigned by the military to different posts. And it was because of this that a written agreement between the two sisters was entered into on February 7, 1996. The agreement states their duties and responsibilities as co-owners and the conditions should there be default in the performance thereof. On February 29, 1996, a Deed of Absolute Sale of Lot 7 between Apalisoc and the respondent was executed. The amount of fifteen thousand (P15,000.00) was paid presumably to cover the initial payments made by Apalisoc.

As gleaned from the records of PAG-IBIG, the total amount owed to PAG-JBIG, including the arrears, as of January 19, 1996 was P114,582.07; P34,891.08 of which was paid by the complainants on February 6, 1996, leaving an unpaid am omit of P79,690.99. Again, contrary to the complainants' claim that they had been paying their share regularly since 1996, no regular payments were made since almost the same amount was charged the respondent three years later when he decided to fully pay the remaining balance of (P78,175.01) on January 20, 1999.

As to the complainants' assertion that partitioning Lot 7 into two lots and transferring the certificates of title thereto in the name of the respondent and his wife constitute blatant violation of the agreement dated February 7, 1996 between complainant Eunice and the respondent's wife, Marcelia, it must be noted that it was the complainants who violated the terms of the said agreement which states that in case of default in the payment by any of the parties, all the interest accruing as a result of non�payment shall be shouldered by the defaulting party and that should the defaulting party refuse to comply with the agreement, all payments made by him or her shall be forfeited in favor of the other party.

The respondent and his wife were merely carrying out the terms of the agreement when they proceeded to act as absolute owners of Lot 7 and had the said lot partitioned into two parcels with the titles registered in their respective names. We deem that the actions being complained of were steps made by the respondent in order to protect his proprietary interests, and that several opportunities were given to the complainants to settle their obligations and fulfill their part of the agreement, opportunities which the fatter merely disregarded.

As to the complainants' allegation that the respondent fraudulently affixed his signature over the name of Salome Apalisoc and made it appear that the latter signed the subdivision plan, a criminal case raising the same issue was filed by the complainants with the Provincial Prosecution Office of Rizal. In its Resolution dated December 7, 2007, the prosecutor ruled that the respondent never imitated the signature of Apalisoc nor signed a fictitious signature above the typewritten name of Apalisoc in the subdivision plan, as the respondent affixed his own  signature. The prosecutor declared that the respondent did not act with deceit or fraud as he signed not only as the owner of the subject property but also as an attoney-in-fact of Apalisoc as evidenced by: (1) the Deed of Sale dated January 8, 1990 between Apalisoc and the respondent; and (2) the Special Power of Attorney dated January 8, 1990 executed by Apalisoc in favor of respondent. The said criminal case was dismissed for lack of probable cause.

RECOMMENDATION: In  view of the foregoing, we respectfully submit for the consideration of the Honorable Court (he recommendation that the instant administrative complaint against Judge Philbert I. Iturralde, Regional Trial Court (Branch 58), Angeles City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the  the administrative complaint against  Judge  Philbert I. Iturralde is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.