ASB Realty Corporation v. Espenesin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: ASB Realty Corporation (petitioner), former developer of the ASB Malayan Tower condominium project, faced financial difficulties, leading to a Petition for Rehabilitation filed with the SEC and halting construction. On April 30, 2002, petitioner executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (MICO), designating MICO as the new developer to complete the project, now called Malayan Plaza. Under the MOA, particularly Section 4 and Schedules I, 3, and 4, petitioner was entitled to specific pre-sold units, designated units/parking spaces, and 53 units plus 38 parking spaces originally reserved (later reduced to 39 units after consolidations, including Unit Nos. 706, 902, etc., and parking P5). On March 11, 2005, the Register of Deeds of Pasig City (respondent Policarpio L. Espenesin) issued 36 Condominium Certificates of Title (CCTs) in petitioner's name for these reserved units (e.g., CCT PT-40789 for Unit 706 up to PT-41209 for P5). Petitioner later discovered that its name as owner on these CCTs had been erased and replaced with MICO's name in the Register of Deeds' records, prompting complaints citing P.D. 1529's prohibition on alterations without court order. Procedural History: Petitioner filed complaints for falsification under Article 171(6), RPC, and violations of R.A. 3019 Sections 3(a) and (e) against respondent before the Ombudsman. Respondent countered that he corrected errors based on Atty. Francis Serrano's representations (as liaison for both parties), claiming alterations were allowed pre-registration book entry and done in good faith. Ombudsman dismissed via Joint Decision (December 20, 2007) for lack of evidence, ruling alterations pre-book entry were permissible and ownership disputes belonged elsewhere; reconsideration denied. CA affirmed (January 31, 2013 Decision, April 29, 2013 Resolution), citing good faith, prematurity, and no P.D. 1529 violation pre-book entry. The Petition: Petitioner assailed CA via Petition for Review, arguing unauthorized alterations damaged its ownership rights over CCT-covered units, directly violating P.D. 1529's categorical prohibition on CCT amendments without court order, insisting respondent's acts constituted falsification and graft regardless of book entry.
Issue(s)
Is respondent administratively liable for altering the subject CCTs?
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The CA Decision (January 31, 2013) and Resolution (April 29, 2013) are SET ASIDE on grounds of res judicata. Respondent's administrative liability is affirmed per prior final ruling in G.R. No. 199115 (Ampil), but no further penalty imposed as prior sanction (dismissal from service, forfeiture of benefits) already executed.
Ratio Decidendi
On respondent's administrative liability for altering the subject CCTs: The Court ruled respondent liable based on the final Decision in G.R. Nos. 192685/199115 (Ampil v. Ombudsman, July 31, 2013, Entry of Judgment April 1, 2014), which involved identical facts: respondent's erasure of petitioner's name on the same 36 CCTs and substitution with MICO's upon Atty. Serrano's unverified representations. Therein, the Court held respondent's reliance without inquiry violated registration rules under P.D. 1529, as signing CCTs is the operative malfeasance act—prohibiting post-issuance tampering, especially owner names—establishing grave misconduct, prima facie R.A. 3019 Section 3(a) (partiality by persuasion against procedure), and Section 3(e) (negligence giving MICO unwarranted benefit). Res judicata via bar by prior judgment (Rule 39, Sec. 47(b)) applies with identity of: (1) parties/parties-in-interest (substantial identity between ASB and Ampil as creditor, both prejudiced by asset loss under rehabilitation; offense against government/public per Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego); (2) subject matter (altered CCTs); (3) causes (administrative liability for alterations), tested by same evidence supporting both. Public policy bars multiplicity (Riviera Golf v. CCA Holdings); thus, CA/Ombudsman rulings reversed without new penalty, as prior dismissal/forfeiture suffices. This clarifies P.D. 1529 prohibits alterations sans court order post-signing, not merely post-book entry, binding Registrars to document verification.
Main Doctrine
The doctrine of res judicata, specifically bar by prior judgment under Section 47(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, precludes re-litigation where there is identity of parties (or substantial identity of interest), subject matter, and causes of action between the prior and present cases. In administrative proceedings against public officers, the offended parties include the government and public interest, allowing privity between private complainants prejudiced by the same malfeasance, such as alteration of CCTs diminishing corporate assets under rehabilitation. A Registrar of Deeds commits grave misconduct by altering entries in issued CCTs based merely on representations without verifying documents or court order, violating P.D. 1529, as the operative act is signing the titles, not mere entry in the registration book. Such acts establish prima facie violations of R.A. 3019, Section 3(a) (manifest partiality by allowing persuasion against law) and Section 3(e) (gross inexcusable negligence giving unwarranted benefit). Although liability is affirmed via res judicata from prior final ruling, no additional penalty is imposed if prior sanction (e.g., dismissal and forfeiture) has been executed, upholding public policy against multiplicity of suits.