807 Phil. 258
PER CURIAM:
RESOLUTION NO. XXII-2015-57
CIBD Case No. 13-3707
Ortigas Plaza Dev't Corp. vs.
Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of facts and recommended penalty of 2 years su5pension of Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak by the Investigating Commissioner.
We enumerate respondent lawyer's violation of the following rules/principles when he led the forcible intrusion into OPDC office in Pasig City:
a) Atty. Tumulak knew, or ought to know, that property claims based on Spanish title can no longer be cited as legitimate basis for ownership as of 16 February 1976 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 892; b) Respondent lawyer, as a long-time practitioner (admitted to the Bar in 1971), is presumed to know that the Supreme Court has promulgated a case specifically addressing the fake titles arising from spurious "Deed of Assignment" of the supposed Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez. This is the 2005 case of Evangelista, et al. vs. Santiago [G.R. No. 157447; April 29, 2005] where the same modus as the one adopted by respondent lawyer, was used by an "assignee" in claiming properties located in Paranque, Las Pinas, Muntinlupa, Cavitc, Batangas, Pasay, Taguig, Makati, Pasig, Mandaluyong, Quezon City, Caloocan, Bulacan, and Rizal, allegedly as part of the Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez; c) x x x x; d) While respondent lawyer claims that the "deed of assignment" in his favor has a consideration, unfortunately we did not see any agreed consideration in the document. If there is no monetary consideration, it will be treated as a donation with the corresponding payable taxes. Respondent lawyer's documents don't show that taxes have been paid for the document to be legally binding; e) Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally but can only be questioned in a principal action x x x. If respondent lawyer thinks that OPDC's title on the Pasig property is questionable, he could have tiled an action to annul OPDC's title and not bring in the cavalry, so to speak, in the form of uniformed security guards, to take over the property; and f) We find respondent's actions highly questionable and contrary to legal protocol; (i) the court documents were issued by the RTC-Iriga City, Br. 94; (ii) it "affects" a property located in Pasig City; (iii) respondent lawyer became the "assignee" of a Pasig City property; (iv) no taxes were paid for the "assignment"; (v) assistance of the Sheriff of Pasig was not enlisted by respondent, instead, he enlists the help of the Sheriff of Manila; (vi) all that the Sheriff of Manila did was to deliver the RTC-Iriga, Br. 34 court documents to complainant but with a twist; the Sheriff and respondent lawyer were escorted by a phalanx of security guards; (vii) the uniformed guards, obviously upon instruction, took over and/or controlled the gates of OPDC offices with attendant force and intimidation. Respondent lawyer's claimed innocence cannot prevail over these illegalities of which he, or his agents, had a hand.
With the above highly questionable acts totally irreconcilable with a seasoned practitioner like respondent lawyer, we find Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak liable for violation of Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 and 1.02 thereof. (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
In their Complaint, petitioners claimed title to the Subject Property by virtue of their actual and continuous possession of the same since time immemorial, by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest. Yet, the Deeds of Assignment executed by lsmael Favila in their favor, attached to and an integral part of their Complaint, revealed that petitioners predecessors-in-interest based their right to the Subject Property on the Spanish title awarded to Don Hermogenes Rodriguez.
There existed a contradiction when petitioners based their claim of title to the Subject Property on their possession thereof since time immemorial, and at the same time, on the Spanish title granted to Don Hermogenes Rodriguez. Possession since time immemorial carried the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been private property even before the Spanish conquest. If the Subject Property was already private property before the Spanish conquest, then it would have been beyond the power of the Queen of Spain to award or grant to anyone.
The title to and possession of the Subject Property by petitioners predecessors-in-interest could be traced only as far back as the Spanish title of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez. Petitioners, having acquired portions of the Subject Property by assignment, could acquire no better title to the said portions than their predecessors-in-interest, and hence, their title can only be based on the same Spanish title.
Respondent maintained that P.D. No. 892 prevents petitioners from invoking the Spanish title as basis of their ownership of the Subject Property. P.D. No. 892 strengthens the Torrens system by discontinuing the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law, and by categorically declaring all lands recorded under the latter system, not yet covered by Torrens title, unregistered lands. It further provides that within six months from its effectivity, all holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of their land under what is now P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the Land Registration Decree. Thereafter, Spanish titles can no longer be used as evidence of land ownership in any registration proceedings under the Torrens system. Indubitably, P.D. No. 892 divests the Spanish titles of any legal force and effect in establishing ownership over real property.
P.D. No. 892 became effective on 16 February 1976. The successors of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez had only until 14 August 1976 to apply for a Torrens title in their name covering the Subject Property. In the absence of an allegation in petitioners' Complaint that petitioners predecessors-in-interest complied with P.D. No. 892, then it could be assumed that they failed to do so. Since they failed to comply with P.D. No. 892, then the successors of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez were already enjoined from presenting the Spanish title as proof of their ownership of the Subject Property in registration proceedings.
Registration proceedings under the Torrens system do not create or vest title, but only confirm and record title already created and vested. By virtue of P.D. No. 892, the courts, in registration proceedings under the Torrens system, are precluded from accepting, confirming and recording a Spanish title. Reason therefore dictates that courts, likewise, are prevented from accepting and indirectly confirming such Spanish title in some other form of action brought before them (i.e., removal of cloud on or quieting of title), only short of ordering its recording or registration. To rule otherwise would open the doors to the circumvention of P.D. No. 892, and give rise to the existence of land titles, recognized and affirmed by the courts, but would never be recorded under the Torrens system of registration. This would definitely undermine the Torrens system and cause confusion and instability in property ownership that P.D. No. 892 intended to eliminate.[9]
The present petition is substantially infirm as this Court had already expressed in the case of Nemencio C. Evangelista, et al. v. Carmelino M. Santiago, that the Spanish title of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez, the Titulo de Propriedad de Torrenos of 1891, has been divested of any evidentiary value to establish ownership over real property.
Victoria M. Rodriguez, Armando G. Mateo and petitioner Pedro R. Santiago anchor their right to recover possession of the subject real property on claim of ownership by Victoria M. Rodriguez being the sole heir of the named grantee, Hermogenes Rodriguez, in the Spanish title Titulo de Propriedad de Torrenos.
x x x x
Prescinding from the foregoing, the instant petition must be denied by virtue of the principle of stare decisis. Not only are the legal rights and relations of herein parties substantially the same as those passed upon in the aforementioned 2005 Evangelista Case, but the facts, the applicable laws, the issues, and the testimonial and documentary evidence are identical such that a ruling in one case, under the principle of stare decisis, is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.[11]
DEED OF ASSIGNMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
This Deed of Assignment is made and executed by and between
The INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE HERMOGENES R. RODRIGUEZ AND ANTONIO R. RODRIGUEZ, represented by HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, of legal age, widower, Filipino, x xx Judicial Heir and Court-Appointed Administrator by virtue of AMENDED DECISION dated August 13, 19999 of Fifth Judicial Region, RTC Branch 34, lriga City in SPECS. PROCS. No. IR-1110 which settled the issue of Heirship, Administratorship and Settled [sic] of the Estate of Hem1ogenes and Antonio Rodriguez y Reyes Estate, hereinafter referred to as the ASSIGNOR;-and-
EUGENIO S. TUMULAK, of legal age, widower x x x hereinafter referred to as the ASSIGNEE:WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the ASSIGNOR is the Court-Appointed Administrator and one of the Judicial heirs of the Intestate Estate of the late HERMOGENES and ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ y REYES Estate by virtue of AMENDED DECISION dated Augsut 13, 1999 of Fifth Judicial Region, RTC Branch 34, Iriga City in SPECS. PROCS. No. IR-1110 which settled the issue of Heirship, Administratorship and Settlement of the Estate of Hermogenes and Antonio Rodriguez y Reyes Estate, thereafter, petitions for certiorari tiled with the SUPREME COURT assailing the aforesaid Amended Decision were DENIED and declared FINAL & EXECUTORY in G.R. Nos. 140271, 140915, 168648, 142477 and 182645, affirming the same Amended Decision;
Whereas, the ASSIGNEE has secured the property and actual occupant/s over the same property they arc presently occupying and initiating steps for recovery of the same parcel and has shown exemplary loyalty and faithfulness to the ASSIGNOR and also consistently protected the rights and interest of the Estate against intruder, impostor, usurpers and false claimant with spurious title/s over the same property;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, the ASSIGNOR has agreed to execute this DEED OF ASSIGNMENT and the ASSIGNEE, has accepted and both parties have mutually agreed to the following terms and conditions herein stipulated;
A parcel of land situated in Ortigas Avenue corner Raymundo Avenue, Barangay Rosario, Pasig City, Metro Manila, Island of Luzon, with containing an area of THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND EIGTH [sic] HUNDRED AND NINE[TY] ONE SQUARE METERS (35,891) more or less technical description described below, to
x x x x
1. That the ASSIGNEE shall shoulder all the expenses in the performance of the task as indicated x x x above such as payment for the real taxes, titling, researching, liaising with government agencies, paying lawyers involved in the litigation, and other incidental expenses relevant in the consummation of the said transaction;
2. That the ASSIGNEE shall secure and facilities (sic] all documents from Land Registration Authority, DENR-LMB, DENR-LMS, Register of Deeds and such other government agencies concerned for the completion of titling process subject to the existing laws, rules and regulation in accordance to Land Registration Act;
3. That the ASSIGNEE shall perform the task of relocation and verification[,] land survey, possessing, fencing, guarding, surveying and or reviving plans, paying taxes, titling, selling, leasing, developing, segregating and mortgaging;
4. That the ASSIGNEE shall be the AD-LITEM representative of the ASSIGNOR, before of [sic] any Court[,] Administrative and Quasi-Judicial body and to bring suit, defend, in connection with the actions brought for or against the ASSIGNOR of whatever nature and kind; and
5. That the ASSIGNEE shall report regularly to the ASSIGNOR per the above tasks and accomplishment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their respective signatures on the date 22 March 2010 and place QUEZON CITY above written.[14] (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 -A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 -A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.