12. ortigas vs navarro

7/21/2019 12. Ortigas vs Navarro

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/12-ortigas-vs-navarro 1/33

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 2033 May 9, 1990

E. CONRAD and VIRGINIA BEWLE GEESLIN, complainants,

vs.

ATT. !ELIPE C. NAVARRO, respondent.

A.C. No. 21"# May 9, 1990

ATT. !RANCISCO ORTIGAS, $R. and ATT. EULOGIO R. RODRIGUE%, complainants,

vs.ATT. !ELIPE C. NAVARRO, respondent.

Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Valmonte, Peña & Marcos for complainants in AC No. 2033.

Felipe C. Naarro for an! in his o"n #ehalf.

PER CURIAM&

We write this finale to the dispiritin chares filed b! complainants "rancisco #rtias, $r. and Euloio

R. Rodriue% in Administrative Case No. &'() 1 and b! spouses E. Conrad and *irinia Bewle! +eeslin

in Administrative Case No. &-- 2 seein the disbarment of respondent Att!. "elipe C. Navarro for

malpractice and ross misconduct.

/n our resolution dated Ma! 0, '1), issued conse2uent to the Report and Recommendation of the

#ffice of the 3olicitor +eneral submitted to this Court on April &', '1), we ordered the suspension

of respondent Navarro from the practice of law durin the pendenc! of these cases. 3

4he investiative phase was conducted b! said office pursuant to our resolutions of "ebruar! '(,

'150 and 3eptember '-, '156 in +.R. Nos.

78 -1-)6 and 78-16&8&1, entitled 9"lorentina Nuuid *da. de :aberer vs. Court of Appeals, et al.9

With commendable thorouhness and attention to detail, two reports were submitted which, in orderto vividl! portra! the scope and manitude of respondent;s operations and how he was able to

perpetrate the anomalous transactions complained of, we 2uote e<tensivel! from said reports which

are sustained b! the evidence of record.

/. 4he antecedent facts on which Administrative Case No. &'() is premised are reported b! then

3olicitor +eneral Estelito P. Mendo%a, as follows=

PREPA4#R> 34A4EMEN4



4his unnumbered administrative case aainst respondent Att!. "elipe C. Navarro

?hereinafter called respondent NA*ARR#, for short@ oriinall! stemmed from the

letter of a certain Anelito B. Ca!anan to the :onorable 3upreme Court dated

$anuar! &0, '150 which reads as follows=

<<< <<< <<<

/ wish to respectfull! inform !our ood office that / bouht a few lots

on installment basis from Att!. "elipe C. Navarro of Rub! :ills

3ubdivision as evidenced b! the attached #R Nos. 0'& and 0'1

and a 9Contract of 3ale9.

Att!. Navarro, some officials and representative of the said compan!

claim that althouh there is a pendin case No. 78-1-)6 under

ecree No. '(&0 on the propert! bein sold, the case is almost won

in their favor and are ust waitin for !our final decision within a

couple of months or even less.

/n this connection, / am respectfull! writin !ou this letter in order to

brin to !our attention this transaction and to protect m! rihts in the

event that an! unfavorable circumstances ma! arise in the future.

<<< <<< <<<

Actin on the aforesaid letter, the 3upreme Court, per Resolution dated "ebruar! '(,

'150, referred the cop! of Mr. Ca!anan;s letter to the 3olicitor +eneral for

9investiation of the e<istence of sufficient round to proceed with the prosecution of

Att!. "elipe C. Navarro ?whose address of record is No. 66 A%ucena, Ro<as istrict,

ue%on Cit!@ for suspension or removal from the office of attorne! and for

appropriate action.9 4he resolution reads as follows=

78-1-)6 and 78-16&8&1 ?"lorentina Nuuid *da. de :aberer vs.

Court of Appeals, et al.@ 4he court N#4E the letter dated $anuar!

&0, '150 of Mr. Anelito B. Ca!anan with its attachments ?cop!

thereof has been furnished Att!. "elipe C. Navarro, counsel for

respondents@ and RE3#7*E to instruct the Cler of Court to inform

him of the status of the cases at bar.

/t appearin from said letter that Att!. "elipe C. Navarro has been

sellin the lots in litiation herein on installment basis to the public

?amon them, Mr. Ca!anan@ as 9absolute owner b! virtue of this

contract of leal services in Civil Case No. )-&', etc. of the Court of

"irst /nstance of Ri%al, Pasi9 ?see Rub! :ills 3ubdivision Contract of

3ale@, which lots are titled in the name of herein petitioner and not in

Att!. Navarro;s name and that the unwarranted claim is made on his

behalf that ;the case is almost won in their favor; ?see Mr. Ca!anan;s

letter@, the Court RE3#7*E "DR4:ER to refer cop! of Mr.

Ca!anan;s said letter with its attachments to the 3olicitor +eneral

under Rule '-1, 3ections ', -, ( and 0 for investiation of the



e<istence of sufficient round to proceed with the prosecution of Att!.

"elipe C. Navarro ?whose address of record is No. 66 A%ucena,

Ro<as istrict, ue%on Cit!@ for suspension or removal from the

office of attorne! and for appropriate action.

Aside from Mr. Ca!anan, the 3olicitor +eneral is directed to

communicate in the premises with Att!. Euloio R. Rodriue% of the

law firm of #rtias #rtias ?with address at 'th "loor, #rtias

Bld. #rtias Ave., Pasi, Ri%al@, who under letter of $une ', '15(

on file in Administrative Case No. ''0( has offered to mae available

documents in their possession showin other sales made b! Att!.

Navarro of properties titled in the name of other persons, involvin a

total sellin price of P50 million and down pa!ments of almost P .6

million.

#n April (, '150, Assistant 3olicitor +eneral ?now $ustice of the Court of Appeals@

:uo E. +utierre%, $r. wrote Mr. Anelito B. Ca!anan asin him to submit his

affidavit embod!in the circumstances surroundin the matters contained in his letter

dated $anuar! &0, '150, especiall! the second pararaph thereof. 4he letter was

sent to Mr. Ca!anan b! reistered mail but the same was returned unserved for the

reason that the addressee had moved to another address.

#n the same date, April (, '150, Assistant 3olicitor +eneral +utierre%, $r. also wrote

to Att!. Euloio R. Rodriue% re2uestin him for copies of the documents evidencin

the sales made b! respondent Navarro.

#n "ebruar! '-, '156, this :onorable Court issued a Resolution in 78-1-)6 and 78

-16&8&1 ?"lorentina Nuuid *da. de :aberer vs. Court of Appeals, et al.@ referrin

the letter of Att!. "rancisco #rtias, $r. dated $anuar! '-, '156 9for investiation of

the e<istence of sufficient rounds for the prosecution of Att!. "elipe C. Navarro forsuspension or removal from office and for appropriate action9 and directin 9Mr.

#rtias, $r., to furnish the #ffice of the 3olicitor +eneral for the purpose with a cop!

of said letter and all its pertinent attachments.9

4he aforementioned letter of Att!. "rancisco #rtias, $r. dated $anuar! '-, '156

reads as follows=

<<< <<< <<<

ear $ustice 4eehanee,

4his is to apprise !our #ffice of the latest activities of Att!. "elipe C.

Navarro who has previousl! been reported to the 3upreme Court as

sellin properties titled in the name of this Compan!.

We have ust secured a new 9subdivision plan9 of Att!. Navarro

showin that the lots he is now sellin to the public include those

titled in the names of the heirs of the late on *icente Madrial and

this Compan! in ue%on Cit!. Att!. Navarro has thus e<panded his



activities despite recent detention b! the Militar!. As could be seen

from the attached 9plan9, Navarro claims to be the owner of that hue

propert! ?actuall! titled in the name of the Madrials and this

Compan!@ bounded b! #rtias Avenue, E. delos 3antos Avenue,

White Plains Road and R. Rodriue% Avenue, comprisin

appro<imatel! of &6 hectares.

As reported in our previous letters to the Court, Navarro claims to be

the owner of some (, hectares of land in the +reater Manila Area

in virtue of his handlin the case of some s2uatters on a '.&8hectare

lot in Mandalu!on, Ri%al owned b! ona "lorentina Nuuid *da. de

:aberer. :e contends that whereas his s2uatters8clients occup! onl!

about a hectare, he has become, in virtue of his contract of leal

services; with them, the owner of thousands of hectares of land as

these are alleedl! covered b! void titles. Navarro thus started to

openl! sell these properties.

Navarro;s Rub! :ills and Bluehills 3ubdivisions, for instance, cover

properties alread! with buildins and other improvements. :e has

nevertheless been 2uite successful in sellin portions thereof, as

when he sold lots within the e 7a 3alle Collee, Wac8Wac +olf

Countr! Club, ABM 3ison :ospital, etc. :is mo!us operan!i is

described in this Compan!;s letter complaint dated April ), '15( to

+en. Prospero #livas, cop! of which is attached hereto for read!

reference.

Navarro continues to def! the authorities, for onl! after a brief lull he

is now aain openl! sellin titled properties of other persons. We

have provided more than sufficient documentar! evidence to the

Court and the 3olicitor +eneral and we hope that formaladministrative chares can now be filed aainst Navarro to prevent

him from further perpetratin a lare scale fraud upon the public.

<<< <<< <<<

4hereafter, hearins were conducted on various dates.

C$MP%ANAN'() *V+*NC*

4he evidence for the complainants consist mainl! of documents, most of which were

presented in Criminal Cases Nos. -'0) and -'01 of the Court of "irst /nstance of

Ri%al and in the various civil cases before the said court involvin "lorentina Nuuid

*da. de :aberer. Complainants; sole witness, Re!naldo Morallos, merel! identified

the various documentar! e<hibits presented b! the complainants.

"rom the evidence adduced b! the complainants, it appears that a certain "lorentina

Nuuid *da. de :aberer ?hereinafter called :ABERER, for short@ filed in the Court of

"irst /nstance of Ri%al twent!8two ?&&@ cases for recover! of possession of her '.&

hectare propert! in Mandalu!on, Ri%al titled in her name, and to eect the twent!8



two ?&&@ families s2uattin thereat. Eleven ?''@ of these cases were raffled to $ude

Emilio 3alas, while the other eleven ?''@ cases were assined to $ude Pedro

Navarro. All the twent!8two ?&&@ defendants8s2uatters were represented b!

respondent NA*ARR#. #n behalf of his clients, respondent NA*ARR# interposed as

principal defense, the alleed nullit! of the :ABERER;3 title, claimin that the mother

title from which it emanated actuall! oriinated from ecree No. '(&0 issued in

+.7.R.#. Record No. 1'5, which he claims to be non8e<istent.

4he two sets of cases were decided differentl!. /n the first set of eleven ?''@ cases,

$ude 3alas rendered a decision on Auust -', '15 sustainin the validit! of the

:ABERER;3 title and orderin the eviction of the defendants8s2uatters clients of

respondent NA*ARR# ?E<hibit W@. /n findin for the plaintiff, $ude 3alas stated as

follows=

After due consideration of the evidence adduced b! both parties, this

Court finds that most of the documentar! evidence submitted b!

defendants are irrelevant to the case since the! pertain to defendants

claim of ownership over ', hectares of land when the area of the

propert! subect matter of the complaint is onl! '&,5 s2uare

meters. 4his Court also believes that the above8mentioned claims of

defendants are untenable.

Plaintiffs ownership over the propert! in 2uestion is evidenced b! the

issuance in her name, since '1&1, of 4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No.

'0(-. /t is a settled rule in this urisdiction that a certificate of title

serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the propert! in favor of

the person whose name appears therein. After the e<piration of the

one8!ear period from the issuance of the decree of reistration upon

which it is based, it becomes incontrovertible ?see case of Pamintuan

vs. 3an Austin, (- Phil. 00)F Re!es Nadres vs. Borbon irectorof 7ands, 0 Phil. 51'F Manuel 3! $uco, et al. vs. 7uis "rancisco, 0-

#.+., p. &')6, April '0,'105F Bri%uela et al. vs. Ciriaco *da. de

*aras, 0- #.+., p. &)&&, Ma! '0, '105@.

efendants; claim that the! became owners of the land in 2uestion b!

adverse possession is without merit considerin that title to land

becomes non8prescriptible 3ec. (& of Act No. (16 provides that no

title to reistered land in deroation to that of the reistered owner

shall be ac2uired b! prescription or adverse possession ?Corporation

de Pp. Austines vs. Crisostomo, (& Phil. (&5@. A title once reistered

cannot be defeated even b! adverse, open and notorious

possession. Reistered title under the 4orrens 3!stem cannot bedefeated b! prescription. 4he title, once reistered, is notice to the

World. All persons must tae notice. No one can plead inorance of

reistration ?7earda vs. 3aleeb!, - Phil. 01, 010@.

"urther, defendants reconi%ed plaintiffs ownership over the propert!

in 2uestion when the! filed a petition with the People;s :omesite

:ousin Corporation wherein the! souht the latter;s intervention for



the ac2uisition of the propert! and for the subdividin thereof into

small lots to be sold to them at nominal cost. /n said petition

defendants not onl! named the plaintiff as the owner of the propert!

in 2uestion but the! also indicated therein her title to the land as

4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No. '0(- of the Reister of eeds of

Pasi, Ri%al. We 2uote hereunder the pertinent facts and data

concernin the propert! in 2uestion in defendants; petition submittedto the +eneral Manaer of the People;s :omesite :ousin

Corporation, as follows=

<<< <<< <<<

'@ 7ocation of land= Barrio Burol, Mandalu!on, Ri%al

&@ Name of reistered owner= "lorentina Nuuid *da. de :aberer

-@ Address of owner= '&)) Buros 3t., Paco, Manila, or cGo Bausa,

Ampil, 3uare% 7aw #ffices, Madrial Bld., Manila

(@ Certificate of 4itle No. ?attach photostatic cop!@= '0(-

0@ Area of land, 7ot Bloc 3urve! Nos. '&,5 s2uare meters?E<h

+@.

As reards defendants; claim that 4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No.

'0(- issued since '1&1 in the name of plaintiff is null and void, this

Court is of the opinion that defendants cannot assail the validit! of

said title in this proceedin, which is for recover! of possession. An!

attac on the decree of reistration of title must be direct and not b!

collateral proceedin. 4he title which ma! be issued in pursuance ofsaid decree cannot be chaned, altered, modified, enlared or

diminished in a collateral proceedin ?7earda, et al. vs. 3aleeb!, -'

Phil. 01@. /n the case of irector of 7and vs. +an 4an, +.R. No. 78

&66(, Ma! -, '10', our 3upreme Court, in reversin the decision of

the trial court where the reistered owner was considered dis2ualified

to ac2uire land under the Constitution and conse2uentl! was denied

the riht to constitute his title, said= 94hat the dis2ualification raised b!

the Court is untenable in the liht of the theor! that a 4orrens title

cannot be collateral! attaced. 4hat issue can onl! be raised in an

action instituted e<pressl! for that purpose9. ?3ee also Ramon Chua

>u 3un vs. 4he :on. Ceferino de los 3antos, et al., +.R. No. (-(5,

November &-,'10'F $ames ?sic @ +.R. No. 78('-, ec. &1,'10'F

3amonte, et al. vs. escallar et al., No. 78'&16(, "eb. &1,'16@.

/n view of the above8mentioned rulin of the 3upreme Court, it is our

opinion that there is no need to discuss the merits of the reasons

claimed b! defendants wh! 4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No. '0(- in

the name of plaintiff is null and void. ?E<h. W@ ecision in Civil Cases



Nos. )-&&, )-&-, )-&5, )-5, )-50, )-5(, )-)&, )61', )61-, )616

)611, at paes 685F 18'@.

/n the second set of eleven ?''@ cases, $ude Pedro Navarro decided in favor of the

defendants8s2uatters clients of respondent NA*ARR#. /n his decision dated Ma! &6,

'15', dismissin the complaints, $ude Navarro stated as follows=

Plaintiff claims to be the reistered owner of a parcel of land

containin an area of '&, s2uare meters situated at the corner of

A. 7una, :arapin An Buas and $.C. Huluete 3treets, Mandalu!on,

Ri%al, which is covered b!, and more particularl! described in,

4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No. '0(- of the Reister of eeds of

Ri%al and indicated in the setch plan attached to the complaint as

Anne< A.

<<< <<< <<<

/t liewise appears that eectment proceedins have been filed in theMunicipal Court of Pasi, Ri%al, and in the Cit! Court of ue%on Cit!

aainst several persons occup!in other parcels b! #rtias and

Compan!, 7imited Partnership, where decisions have been rendered

in favor of said Partnership. /n order to forestall e<ecutions of these

decisions defendants in said eectment cases filed class suit before

this Court b! the occupants of the land which was heard and tried

before Branch I* in which the irector of 7ands was impleaded as a

part!8defendant. 4he decision of Branch I* in said class suit is made

part of the evidence of these defendants in the herein eleven cases

for whatever the same ma! be worth as aid in the determination of

the merits of the issues raised herein.

As ma! be leaned from said decision of Branch I* plaintiff therein

assailed the validit! of ecree No. '(&0 as null and void and or

fictitious and the proceedins in +7R# Rec. No. 1'5 upon which the

decree was based as also null and void. 4he Court sustained the

herein plaintiffs claim and rendered udment declarin ?'@ the

proceedins in +7R# Rec. No. 1'5 null and voidF ?&@ the ecree No.

'(&0 null and voidF ?-@ all oriinal certificates of title issued b! virtue

of and pursuant to the udment in +7R# Rec. No. 1'5 and ecree

No. '(&0 utter nullitiesF ?(@ all transfer certificates of title derived from

the oriinal certificates of title declared void under No. - above,

particularl! but not e<clusivel!, 4ransfer Certificate of 4itle Nos. 5560&

and 5560- of the Reister of eeds of ue%on Cit! and '&6050 andits derivative 4ransfer Certificate of ;title No. '-0)51 of the Reister of

eeds of Ri%al, null and voidF ?0@ that the rihtful owners of the

litiated lands covered b! 4ransfer Certificates of 4itle Nos. 5560&,

5560-, '&6050 ?or '-0)51@ are the herein plaintiffs . . . and so forth.

4he Court has read cop! of this decision of our Branch I* and

observed findins of facts too ponderous to be inored.



4hat case before Branch I* directl! assails the nullit! of the

proceedins leadin to the proceedins in +7R# Record No. 1'5

and, as an inevitable corollar!, the nullit! of ecree No. '(&0 issue b!

virtue of such void proceedins as well as the oriinal certificates of

title issued as conse2uence thereof.

/n said proceedin before Branch I* the Court, amon other thins,

found that while the decision in +7R# 1'5 was supposedl! rendered

on April &0, '10, the surve! of the propert! subect matter of therein

application was not made until $une '6 to Auust '6, '16, or some

one !ear after the decision. /t found no proof of initial hearin of the

application for reistration bein published as re2uired b! law without

which the 7and Reistration Court could not have ac2uired

urisdiction over the case. 3aid decision also made inference that

since the surve! of the propert! was not made until a !ear after the

rendition of the udment the technical descriptions appearin in the

oriinal certificates of title issued under +7R# Rec. No. 1'5 ecree

No. '(&0, could not have been those appearin in the notice of initial

hearin, if an!. Publication of accurate technical description bein an

essential urisdictional re2uirement which cannot be dispensed with

and non8compliance with this re2uirement renders the proceedins

and the decision and decree and titles issued arisin therefrom null

and void.

4he same decision of Branch I* also made its findins that $ames

Ross who was said to have penned the decision in +7R# Rec. No.

1'5, never was a ude of the Court of 7and Reistration at the time

the decision was supposedl! rendered because the +aceta #fficial

for the !ear '10 does not show that $ames Ross was listed as

$ude of the 7and Reistration Court or that he was ever appointedin that capacit!. "urthermore, the Court found that while $.C. Welson

was the Cler of Court on April &6, '10, one A.J. $ones issued the

decree and he sined it as Cler of Court. 4he Court even found the

supposed decision in that proceedins missin and made its

conclusion that since the decree which was supposedl! issued b! a

person who was not the Cler of Court at the time and which decree

did not contain the description of the propert! ordered in the decision

to be rendered because the surve! of the propert! was onl! made

some one !ear later and that said decree cannot now even be found,

the decision rendered therein is void for lac of urisdiction.

Now, as we have said, the foreoin findins of facts are tooponderous to be inored. /t is indeed a truism that a void oriinal

certificate of title cannot be the source of a valid transfer certificate of

title and a void udment is, in the e!es of the law, ine<istent and

cannot ive source to an! leal riht.

4he evidence now shows that the plaintiffs in said Civil Case No. 58

M?'--1@ before Branch I* of this Court are also the defendants in



the herein eleven cases in which their properties are also involved.

3ince the case before Branch I* directl! assails the nullit! of the

proceedins b! virtue of which ecree No. '(&0 and the alleed title

of the plaintiff over the parcels of land occupied b! the herein eleven

defendants is a derivative from such decree, it is the considered

opinion of this Court that until and unless the decision of Branch I*

of this Court is reversed or set aside b! final udment, plaintiffspra!er to order the herein eleven defendants in these eleven cases to

vacate the parcels which the! occup! and on which their respective

houses are built has become premature. /t oes without sa!in that if

said decision of Branch I* will be finall! affirmed, or that the same

becomes final and e<ecutor!, all the claims of rihts to ownership and

possession of properties embraced in the decision in +7R# Rec. No.

1'5 and ecree No. '(&0 shall become absolute nullities.

Possessions b! actual occupants of all these properties had better be

maintained until after final decision in Civil Case No. 58M?'--1@ shall

have been rendered. ?E<h. R, ecision in Civil Cases Nos. )-&,

)-&', )-&6, )-61, )-51, )-)-, )-)0, )-)6, )-)5 and )5, at pp. &,

081@.

#n $une &', '15', $ude Navarro, actin on the motion filed b! respondent

NA*ARR#, issued an order cancellin :ABERER;s title over her propert! in 2uestion

and directin the issuance of a new title in lieu thereof in favor of respondent;s clients

4hus K

W:ERE"#RE, premises considered, udment is hereb! rendered

dismissin the complaints in the above8entitled cases ?Nos. )-&,

)-&', )-&6, )-&1, )-56, )-51, )-)-, )-)6, )6)0, )6)5 and )5@ all

with costs aainst the plaintiff and hereb! orderin the Reister of

eeds of Ri%al to cancel 4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No. '0(- of theReister of eeds of Ri%al issued in favor of the plaintiff "lorentina

Nuuid *da. de :aberer and in view thereof issue new certificates of

title in favor of the defendants subect to the lien for attorne!;s fees in

favor of Attorne! "elipe Navarro in accordance with the terms of the

9Jasunduan :inil sa 3erbis!o n Aboado9 which is 2uoted in

hise-parte motion for clarification andGor modification of the decision.

As so modified the decision stands in all other respects.

3# #RERE.

?E<hibit 3, pp. (80@.

#n $ul! &-, '15', :ABERER filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid

order, and on 3eptember '0, '15&, $ude Navarro issued the followin order=

/n the order dated $ul! '5, '15', the Court had occasion to reiterate

that its decision in this case was mainl! predicated on the decision of

Branch I* of this Court that the certificate of title emanatin from the



proceedins in +7R# Record No. 1'5 were null and void and

plaintiffs title happened to be one of them. 4he Court opined that until

said decision is reversed the actual occupants had better be

maintained in their possessions of the land.

Pursuant to the same order the motion for reconsideration and new

trial was set onl! for reception of alleed newl! discovered evidence.

4he Court now understands that the decision of Branch I* is now

under review b! order of our Appellate Court.

/t has also come to the understandin of the Court that the order of

$une &', '15', souht to be reconsidered insofar as it ordered the

cancellation of 4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No. '0(- in favor of the

plaintiff, also adversel! affects the interests of other persons and

entities lie the #rtias Compan!, 7imited Partnership, which is not

a part! herein, because the certificate of title of the plaintiff is also a

derivative of +7R# 1'5 and ecree No. '(&0 from which #rtias andCompan!, 7imited Partnership, derives titles over wide tracts of land.

3ince #rtias Compan!, 7imited Partnership, is not a part! in this

case whatever orders or decisions are made in this case cannot be

made to affect the said compan!. ecisions and orders can onl!

affect parties to the case.

4he Court therefore arrives at the conclusion that the order dated

$une &', '15', must be reconsidered on two rounds ?'@ because

the decision of Branch I* is now bein the subect of further

proceedins and ?&@ because it has the effect of adversel! affectin

the interest of #rtias Compan!, 7imited Partnership, which is not

even a part! herein.

W:ERE"#RE, as pra!ed, the order dated $une &', '15', is set

aside. :owever, the decision dated Ma! &6, '15', insofar as it denies

the eectment of the present occupants of the land as stated in the

decision stands.

3# #RERE.

?E<hibit 4, at pp. &8-@.

:ABERER appealed from the decision of $ude Navarro while the defendants8clients

of respondent NA*ARR# appealed from the decision of $ude 3alas. 4he Navarro

order of $une &', '15' was not appealed b! respondent NA*ARR#;s clients.

After the rendition of the Navarro decision which made reference to the decision

rendered b! $ude *ivencio Rui% of the Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, Branch I*,

respondent NA*ARR# published in the Manila 4imes on $ul! (, '15' the followin=

7E+A7 N#4/CE 4# A77 4:#3E /N*#7*E=



PDR3DAN4 4# 4:E PR#*/3/#N3 #" 7AW A3 /N4ERPRE4E B>

#DR 3DPREME C#DR4 RE3PEC4/N+ A *A34 4RAC4 #" 7AN

7A4/"DN/# C#*ER/N+ MANA7D>#N+, 3AN $DAN, PA3/+,

MAR/J/NA, AN DEH#N C/4>, 4:E EC/3/#N A4E MA> &6,

'15' RE/4ERA4/N+ AN REPEA4/N+ 4:E EC7ARA4/#N AN

#RER 4:A4 A77 #R/+/NA7 AN 4RAN3"ER CER4/"/CA4E3 #"

4/47E ER/*E "R#M ECREE N#. '(&0 ARE ND77 AN*#/ A N'$ RENERE B> 4:E C#DR4 #" "/R34

/N34ANCE #" R/HA7 /N "A*#R #" 4:E M>R/A C7/EN43 #"

4:E DNER3/+NE :A3 AD4#MA4/CA77> B> MERE 7AP3E #"

4:E RE+7EMEN4AR> PER/#@ BEC#ME "/NA7 AN

EIECD4#R>.

But to ever! possessor in ood faith there comes a time when he is

considered a possessor in bad faith. When the owner or possessor

with a better riht comes alon, when he becomes aware that what

he had taen for ranted is at least doubtful, and when he learns the

rounds in support of the adverse contention, ood faith ceases. 4he

possessor ma! still believe that his riht is more secure, because we

resin ourselves with difficult! to the siht of our vanishin hopes, but

when the final udment of the court deprives him of the possession,

all illusion necessaril! disappears. ?4acas vs. Robon, 0- Phil. -06,

-6'8-6& citin Manresa and Articles 0&), 0(0, and ''&- of our

present Civil Code@.

:e who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another,

loses what is built, planted or sown without riht to indemnit! ?Art

((1, Civil Code@

:#WE*ER, /4 /3 N#4 4:E E3/RE #" 4:E DNER3/+NEPRE*A/7/N+ PAR4> AN 3DCCE33#R B> 4/47E ACD/RE

A"4ER 4:E AC4/#N3 WERE BE+DN B> */R4DE #" :/3

C#N4RAC4 #" 7E+A7 3ER*/CE3 4# EMAN "#R 4:E

EM#7/4/#N #R REM#*A7 #" 4:E /MPR#*EMEN43 A4 4:E

EIPEN3E #" 4:E P#33E33#R /N BA "A/4: "#R=

4he Civil Code confirms certain time8honored principles of the law of

propert!. #ne of those is the principle of accession whereb! the

owner of propert! ac2uires not onl! that which it produces but that

which it united to it either naturall! or artificiall!. Whatever is built,

planted or sown on the land of another, and the improvements or

repairs made thereon, belon to the owner of the land. Wherehowever, the planter, builder or sower has acted in ood faith, a

conflict of rihts arises between the owners and it becomes

necessar! to protect the owner of the improvements without causin

inustice to the owner of the land. /n view of the impracticabilit! of

creatin what Manresa calls a state of 9forced co8ownership9 ?*ol. -,

(th ed., p. &'-@, the law has provided a ust and e2uitable solution b!

ivin the owner of the land the option to ac2uire the improvements



after the pa!ment of the proper indemnit! or to oblie the builder or

planter to pa! for the land and the sower to pa! the proper rent. /t is

the owner of the land who is allowed to e<ercise the option because

his riht is older and because, b! the principle of accession, he is

entitled to the ownership of the accessor! thin.9 Bernardo vs.

Bataclan, 66 Phil. 01), 6&F see also "ilipinas Collees, /nc. vs.

+arcia 4imban, et al., '6 Phil. &(5, &0(@.

3o caeat emptor ?bu!ers beware@ of possesors in bad faith as we

are read! to as for the e<ecution of the decision pursuant to law and

avoid a scire facias #rdinar! prudence re2uires that those involved

ma! please mae some ind of arranements with the undersined

before e<ecution b! callin throuh the followin telephones=

<<< <<< <<<

B> 4:E WA>, >#D ARE A77 /N*/4E 4# $#/N 4:EM#4#RCAE

#" #DR PE#P7E;3 */C4#R> W:/C: W/77 PA33 4:R#D+: 4:EPR/NC/PA7 34REE43 #" MANA7D>#N+, 3AN $DAN, PA3/+,

MAR/J/NA, AN DEH#N C/4> "R#M 1 A.M. 4# '& N##N

4#A>, 3DNA>, $D7> (, '15', 4:E M#4#RCAE W/77 BE+/N

"R#M N#. 6' AMA# 4. RE>E3 34REE4, BARR/# BDR#7,

MANA7D>#N+, R/HA7 RE4DRN/N+ 4# 4:E 3AME P7ACE A4

N##N "#R 7DNC: CE7EBRA4/N+ 4/77 M/N/+:4.

?3d.@ "E7/PE C. NA*ARR#

Counsel for the efense

6 A%ucena, Ro<as istrict, ue%on Cit!

?E<hibit , at paes 68)@.

4hereafter, respondent NA*ARR# claimed ownership of properties oriinall! covered

b! ecree '(&0 includin the parcels of land owned b! #rtias Compan!, 7imited

Partnership ?hereinafter called #R4/+A3, for short@, and started sellin them.

/n view of the aforementioned publication, panic ensued amon the lot bu!ers of

#R4/+A3 and amon the propert! owners whose titles were derived from ecree

No. '(&0. As a counter measure to alla! the fears of the panic! lot bu!ers and

owners, #R4/+A3 caused the publication in the Manila 4imes on $ul! '1 and '5,

'15' the followin=

WARN/N+

3# 4:E PDB7/C MA> JN#W

/n repl! to numerous in2uiries received b! #rtias Compan!,

7imited Partnership with reference to an advertisement published in



the Manila 4imes on $ul! (, '15' supposedl! affectin the validit! of

all oriinal certificates of title and transfer certificates of title derived

from ecree No. '(&0, #rtias Compan!, 7imited Partnership

wishes to announce that it is not a part! to AN> case alleedl!

decided on Ma! &6, '15' b! the 3upreme Court or an! other court

and therefore A77 /43 4/47E3 ER/*E "R#M ECREE N#. '(&0

ARE N#4 /N AN> WA> A""EC4E B> 3A/ EC/3/#N.

4he public is hereb! re2uested to be war! of an! person sellin lands

andGor rihts to lands belonin to and in the name of #rtias

Compan!, 7imited Partnership.

4he public is also warned to be war! of M/37EA/N+

adverstisements andGor persons basin their rihts to lands of #rtias

Compan!, 7imited Partnership on such 9decision9 of Ma! &6, '15'

which is claimed to be 9final and e<ecutor!.9

#R4/+A3 C#MPAN>, 7/M/4E PAR4NER3:/P

?E<hibit , at paes (80@.

After the publication of the foreoin notices, respondent NA*ARR# filed with the

Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, Branch *///, two ?&@ complaints for libel aainst the

officers of #R4/+A3 and the officials of the defunct Manila ;times. Respondent

NA*ARR# souht to recover in said cases damaes alleedl! sustained b! him on

account of his failure to consummate thousands of sales b! reason of the publication

of the above notice. /n support of his alleation, respondent NA*ARR# presented

'61 deeds of sale over lots in his various subdivisions, the locations of which overlap

the properties owned b! #R4/+A3 ?mared as E<hibit ", "8' to "8'6) in the instant

proceedins@.

#n ecember '-, '15', $ude Benamin :. A2uino dismissed these two cases for

libel for lac of merit ?E<hibit @.

Apart from the documents pertainin to the :ABERER cases and the libel cases, the

complainants also presented documents relatin to Civil Case No. 58M?'--1@, Court

of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, Branch I*, entitled 9Pedro del Rosario, et al. vs. #rtias

Compan!, 7imited Partnership, et al.9 and Civil Case No. 8'6&60, Court of "irst

/nstance of Ri%al, ue%on Cit!, Branch I*/, entitled 9#rtias Compan!, 7imited

Partnership vs. "elipe C. Navarro.9

/n Civil Case No. 58M ?'--1@, the plaintiffs therein souht to enoin #R4/+A3 from

eectin them. $ude *ivencio M. Rui% decided in favor of the plaintiffs, aruin that

?'@ there was no publication for the Notice of /nitial :earin set in '10F ?&@ there was

no surve! of the propert! souht to be reisteredF ?-@ the ude presidin over the

defunct Court of 7and Reistration was faeF and ?(@ the Cler of Court of the said

Court was also fae. 4he dispositive portion of the Rui% decision reads as follows=



W:ERE"#RE, and in view of all the foreoin, the Court hereb!

declares andGor orders=

'. 4hat the proceedins in +.7.R.#. Rec. No. 1'5 are null and voidF

&. 4hat ecree No. '(&0 is null and void andGor fictitiousF

-. 4hat all the oriinal certificates of title issued b! virtue of and

pursuant to the udments in +.7.R. Rec. No. 1'5 and ecree No.

'(&0 were utter nullitiesF

(. 4hat all transfer certificates of title derived from the oriinal

certificates of title declared void under No. ?-@ above, particularl! but

not e<clusivel!, 4ransfer Certificates of 4itle Nos. 5560& and 5560- of

the Reister of eeds of ue%on Cit! and '&6050 and its derivative

4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No. '-0)51 of the Reister of eeds of

Ri%al, were and are null and voidF

0. 4hat the rihtfull! ?sic @ owners of the litiated lands covered b!

4ransfer Certificates of 4itle Nos. 5560&, 5560-, '&6050 ?or '-0)51@

are the herein plaintiffs, the portions owned b! them bein as

indicated in E<hibit PF

6. 4hat the defendant Partnership cease and desist from molestin

the plaintiffs in the eno!ment and peaceful possession of their

respective landholdinsF

5. 4hat the :on. Andres 3iochi, as Presidin $ude, Municipal Court,

Pasi, Ri%al, and :on. Ricardo 4ensuan, as Presidin $ude, Branch

//, Cit! Court of ue%on Cit!, and the defendant #rtias andCompan!, 7imited Partnership, their aents, representatives and an!

and all persons actin in their behalves, refrain and desist absolute

?sic @ and perpetuall! from proceedin with or tain an! action on

Civil Cases Nos. ''-(, // '-)60, //8'-)61, //8'-)55, //8'-1'-, and //8

'-1&' filed b! the herein defendant Partnership aainst some of the

herein plaintiffsF

). 4hat the case be dismissed as aainst defendant irector of

7andsF

1. 4hat the defendant Partnership pa! to the plaintiffs the sum of

P0,. as and for attorne!;s feesF

'. 4hat the defendant Partnership pa! to the plaintiffs the costs of

the suitF and

efendant Partnership;s counterclaim is hereb! dismissed for lac of

merit.



3# #RERE.

?E<hibit EE at paes 086@.

#R4/+A3 appealed the Rui% decision to the Court of Appeals. #n November &',

'15', the Court of Appeals rendered a decision settin aside the decision of $ude

Rui% and orderin a new trial to enable the petitioner to introduce newl! discovered

evidence. 4he case was then remanded to the lower Court. #n November -, '15-,

$ude Arsenio A. Alcantara, who too the place of $ude Rui% who was separated

from the service b! the President of the Philippines, rendered a decision the

dispositive portion of which reads as follows=

W:ERE"#RE, udment is hereb! rendered in favor of the defendant, #rtias

Compan!, 7imited Partnership, as aainst the plaintiffs=

'. ismissin the amended complaintF

&. Confirmin the validit! of ecree No. '(&0, issued in E<pediente 1'5 and all titlesemanatin therefromF

-. irectin each of the plaintiffs to individuall! pa! the defendant Compan!=

?a@ P-. per month as rental of the premises occupied b! them from the time of the

filin of the complaint on #ctober &, '165, with leal rate of interest, until the!

surrender the possession thereof to defendant Compan!F

?b@ P0,. as attorne!;s fees.

?(@ #rderin plaintiff and their successors8in8interest, aents or an! person or

persons actin in their behalf, who are found to be in possession of defendant

compan!;s land to vacate the same and remove and demolish their improvements

thereon at plaintiffs e<pensesF

?0@ #rderin Att!. Emilio . Castellanes to return the attorne!;s fees in the amount of

P ',-. he prematurel! collected from defendant compan!, with interestF and

?6@ 4o pa! the costs.

3# #RERE.

?E<hibit at paes ((8(0@.

4he aforesaid decision was appealed. urin the pendenc! of the approval of the

record on appeal, #R4/+A3 filed a motion for immediate e<ecution of udment.

After e<chane of pleadins b! the parties, the trial court presided b! $ude

Alcantara ranted the motion and ordered the issuance of a writ of e<ecution in favor

of #rtias upon filin a bond in the amount of P&0,.. el Rosario, et al. filed a

motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order. espite opposition b! #rtias,

$ude "lorellana Castro8Bartolome, who was appointed to Branch I* vice $ude



Alcantara, ranted the motion for reconsideration and set aside the order of $ude

Alcantara. #rtias contested the order of $ude Bartolome throuh a petition for

certiorari and prohibition with preliminar! inunction, doceted as CA8+.R. No. 3P8

(6.

#n 3eptember ', '150, the Court of Appeals promulated a decision in the aforesaid

case, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows=

W:ERE"#RE, the writ of certiorari is ranted. 4he order of the

respondent $ude dated "ebruar! &0, '150, is hereb! annulled and

set aside and the order of $ude Arsenio Alcantara, rantin

immediate e<ecution, is hereb! revived, with instructions to the

respondent ude to full! implement the latter order, includin the

approval of the petitioner;s bond and the issuance of the necessar!

writ or writs of e<ecution. 4he restrainin order issued at the inception

of this action is hereb! ?sic @ permanent.

No costs.

3# #RERE.

?E<hibit EE at paes 080'@.

4his decision was the subect of a petition for review filed b! respondents el

Rosario, et al., but the same was denied. 3o also with the motion for reconsideration

filed with the 3upreme Court ?Anne< 9A9 of E<hibit ""@

/n order to stop respondent NA*ARR# from sellin its titled properties, #R4/+A3

also filed Civil Case No. 8'6&60, Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, ue%on Cit!

Branch I*/, entitled 9#rtias Compan!, 7imited Partnership vs. "elipe C. Navarro.

#n ecember '6, '15&, $ude 3erio A.". Apostol rendered a decision in favor of

#rtias as follows=

<<< <<< <<<

/t havin been found that defendant was uilt! of bad faith and fraud

in claimin and sellin plaintiff;s land, plaintiff is entitled to attome!;s

fees. 4his court finds the amount of attorne!;s fees in the sum of

P0,. to be fair and reasonable considerin the e<tent and

value of the propert! involved and the nature of the case.

efendant, in his answer and motion to dismiss, alleed that as a

result of the issuance of the restrainin order, he suffered damaes in

the amount of Pl,,. dail!.

"irstl!, the same was not raised as a counterclaim. 4herefore, this

court can onl! treat it as an affirmative defense.



3econdl!, no evidence was submitted to prove this claim of damaes.

Dnder the same authorities cited in support of the denial of plaintiffs

claim for damaes, therefore, he has failed to establish what

damaes he had suffered.

7astl!, the court has found that plaintiff is entitled to the inunction

pra!ed for. /t follows, therefore, that the issuance of the restrainin

order was proper and, hence, can not be the basis for a claim for

damaes.

4his court cannot help but end this decision with a note of admonition

and hope. 4he people who will ultimatel! suffer the most from

defendant;s acts in 2uestion are his bu!ers, who in all probabilit! are

middle class people who themselves wanted to mae mone! out of

the apparent sad predicament that defendant had brouht upon the

plaintiff. /t is the fervent hope of this court, therefore, that with the

advent of the NEW 3#C/E4> defendant will turn a new pae and

mae a fresh start in life.

W:ERE"#RE, udment is hereb! rendered=

'. Dpholdin the validit! and indefeasibilit! of plaintiffs 4ransfer

Certificates of 4itle over the land in 2uestionF

&. As a conse2uence thereof, forever enoinin and barrin the

defendant, his successors8in8interest, assins, aents or an! person

or persons actin for or in his behalf, from sellin and advertisin,

verball!, or in writin, the sale of the lands in 2uestion and from

assertin an! claim or dominion or possession whatsoever on or over

the said propert!, directl! or indirectl!, adverse to the plaintiffF and

-. #rderin the defendant to pa! attorne!;s fees in the sum of

P0,. plus cost of suit.

3# #RERE.

?E<hibit //8/8a, at paes (18('' of E<hibit //@.

4he afore82uoted decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, doceted as CA8

+.R. No. 780-'&08R.

#n ecember '-, '15), the Court of Appeals promulated a decision in the

aforesaid case affirmin the decision of $ude Apostol.

Respondent NA*ARR# elevated the case to this :onorable 4ribunal ?+.R. No. 78

0'06@. Aain, his petition was denied for lac of merit. :is subse2uent motion for

reconsideration was also denied. Conse2uentl!, the issue brouht forth in the sala of

$ude Apostol has now been laid to rest.



E*/ENCE "#R 4:E RE3P#NEN4

Respondent NA*ARR# presented both testimonial and documentar! evidence. :is

testimonial evidence consist of his testimon! and those of Att!. Euloio R. Rodriue%,

one of the complainantsF and Arsenio de +u%man, Chief of 3ection of the Bureau of

7ands. :is documentar! evidence consist of E<hibits ' to '-, inclusive.

#n direct e<amination, respondent NA*ARR# testified that the present chares are

the same as the chares in administrative Case No. ''0(, entitled, 9/n Re= Att!.

"elipe C. Navarro, respondent9, which was referred to the #ffice of the 3olicitor

+eneral for investiation. :e further declared that this :onorable Court deferred

action on the said administrative case until such time that +.R. Nos. 78(&6118(&51,

the heirs of the late "lorentina Nuuid *da. de :aberer vs. Court of Appeals, et al. is

terminated. Respondent;s direct testimon! dwelt onl! on these two matters and on

the identification of his E<hibits ' to 1.

#n cross8e<amination, respondent NA*ARR# testified that he is the counsel for the

defendants in the twent!8two ?&&@ cases before $ude Pedro Navarro and $udeEmilio 3alas of the Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%alF that he became the owner of the

lands not occupied b! his clients b! virtue of his contract of leal services sined b!

them ?pp. 5685), t.s.n., $ul! 5, '155F pp. 58', t.s.n., 3ept. 1, '155@. 3aid contract for

leal services, which appears on paes &&(8&-& of E<hibit 9'9, reads as follows=

JA3DNDAN :/N++/7 3A 3ERB/3># N+ AB#+A# 3A M+A

J/NADDJD7AN NA AN+ M+A BA+A> NA /4# A> MA7AMAN A4

MAJARA4/N+

/ton asulatan na ito a! napapatiba! at nabibia!8bisa hinil sa

serbis!o ni Att!. "elipe C. Navarro tunol sa amin arapatan sa

lupain nasasaop n diumano! Jautusan8Bl. '(&0 ?ecree No.'(&0@ sa diumano! Dsapin Bl. 611, )50, 1'5, aip ?Cases Nos. 611,

)50, 1'5, etc.@ sa datin :uuman n Papapatala n 7upain defunct

Court of 7and Reistration@ na an nasabin diumano;! Jautusan

Bl. '(&0 na si!an pinabata!an n ipinapatalan awaawan

dalawanput anim ?&6@ n ma #riinal Certificates of 4itle n Reister

of eeds n Pasi at nabuna ito n maramin 4ransfer Certificates

of 4itle na sa asaluu!an iiniiit n ma ma!hawa nunit !an a!

wala naman bisa at atuturan ?Vi/ ., Cit! of Manila vs. 7ac, '1 Phil.

-&(, -(@ dahil sa apaltosan n nasabin diumano;! Jautusan Bl.

'(&0 na sa mula;t sapul mapahanan na!on sa asaluu!an a!

iiniiit sa ma naalada sa ibaba n asunduan ito asama na rin

an ma dati at iban ma li!ente ni Att!. "elipe C. Navarro nana!on a! si!an nararapat main alaho sa animnapun usapin

na sa asaluu!an hawa ni Att!. "elipe C. Navarro ?Civil Cases

Nos. )-&&, etc. of the Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, Branches /, //,

and */ contestin the enuineness and due e<ecution of ecree No.

'(&0 of the defunct Court of 7and Reistration@ upan mabi!an an

ma naalada sa ibaba n ma aniani!an atiba!an o un sila

man a! ma!hawa n titulo na saup n diumano;! Jautusan Bl.



'(&0 a! babaohin i!an o mapapalitan n ma!bisa alin sa

:uuman upan matahimi at mapa!apa an dahilan paninirahan

anilan mula;t sapul a! anila nan pinamama!anan sa buon

aalaman n samba!anan at walan palilihim n anilan

mapa!apan pamama!8ari n ma lupain na sa mula;t sapul a!

pinaninirahan n ma naalada sa ibaba n asunduan ito at n

anilan ninuno o napamana ?predecessors8in8interest@ na si!anma pan!a!ari a! sapat na upan maiawad an mabisan titulo

sapaat an nasabin lupain ailanma! di nain pamba!an undi

pribado o di a!a;! sarilin pa8aari n naaladan ma!8ari sa ibaba

n asunduan ito, dahil sa ma nabanit n ma pan!a!ari na

;natamo sa pamamaitan n pabibia!8bisa n batas di laman n

arapatan sa pa8aanin n lupain undi main an arapatan

ipinaaloob sa anila n pamahalaan a! nasasaad na an atuwal

na paaaloob sa anila n pamahalaan n titulo a! di na

inaailanan upan an nasabin arapatan a! di ilanlin o

patiba!in n :uuman ?3usi vs. Ra%on and irector of 7ands, ()

Phil. &(&F irector of 7ands vs. Abaldonado CA8+.R. No. '558R, $an.

'&, '1(), (0 #ff. +a% &'))@. Nunit sa dahilan ma!roon huwad na

titulo an ma na8aanin n ma lupain at nararapat iharap sa

:uuman an baa! na ito upan an :uuman mapatiba! at

mabia!8bisa n ma titulo sa ma naalada sa ibaba n

asunduan ito a!on sa 3ection ' n Rule -1 n Rules of Court.

3apaat an pamumusis!on sa isan baa! an bata!an di

mapatatalunan hinil sa alaunan n pamama!8ari nito n

maalipas an mahaban panahon tada n batas, main ito man

a! walan arampatan titulo o mabutin hanarin a! napapahina

at sumisira sa salaw8bisa at halaa n pinaamahusa! na titulo na

maarin nasa baa! na i!on na pinanhahawaan n taon hindi

namama!8ari. Buna nito, an pamumusis!on n mahiit sa

tatlumpun ?-@ taon na tinatamasa n isan tao bilan ma!8ari ahit

na walan arampatan titulo o mabutin hanarin a! umaanap n

sapat na titulo upan mauha an pa8aari n lupain tanan

sapaat an lampas8bisa o an panahon itinada n batas sa

pamamaitan n pamumusis!on n mahiit na tatlumpun ?-@ taon

a! ti!aan hadlan na main an pinaamahusa! na titulo na

iniilala n batas a! hindi maatitina o maapaninibabaw

?Jincaid vs. Cabututan, -0 Phil. -)-@.; :indi maarin sabihin o

ipamaladan n ma nanamam na sa pamamaitan n anilan

huwad na titulo a! naanin na nila an lupain o di a!a! awin

bata!an an anilan huwad na titulo upan masabin sila a!

namama!8ari n lupa. :indi ito maarin maanap sapaat anrimen at panlilinlan a! hindi maarin main bata!an n panimula

n a! isan tuna! at mabisan titulo ahit na ipinabili at nabili sa

isan mabuti an hanarin n bumili n arampatan halaa n

lupain ?7evin vs. Bass, 1' Phil. ('1, (-1@. ahil sa itinurin n batas

na sila a! ;constructive trustees, laman a!a hindi maanap an

lampas8bisa ?+a!ondato vs. 4reasurer of the Philippine /slands, (1

Phil. &((8&(1@. 3ubali;t dahilan sa ilan atiwalian n atotohanan na

di nabatid n ma naalada sa ibaba n asunduan ito na di8



umano;! si!an naanap na pan!a!ari nunit an tuna! na

atotohanan a! di naman ito naanap at naliliaw sa paniniwalan

nararapat silan naba!ad n rentas o alila at an ilan a! binili an

lupain a!on an atotohanan a! sila an nararapat at tuna! na

ma!8ari sa di8umano;! Jautusan Bl. '(&0 ?ecree No. '(&0@ n

defunct Court of 7and Reistration na nabuna n awa8awan

titulo na sumasaop sa buon alawaan n humiit umulan n(, hectares na samaatuwid a! apatnapun ?(@ mil!on metro

uwadrado n lupain na!on a! matatapuan sa buon ba!an n

Mandalu!on, an buon ba!an n 3an $uan sapaat saop ito

noon n ba!an 3an "elipe Neri a!on sa Act No. 1(&, an bahai n

Punta sa Ma!nila sapaat saop ito noon n Mandalu!on na

na!on, alahati n ba!an n Pasi, alahati n ba!an Mari2uina,

at alahati n 7unsod n ue%on sapaa;t pinilas laman ito buhat

sa ba!an n Mari2uina, Pasi, 3an $uan at Mandalu!on sa

pamamaitan n Commonwealth Act No. 0& na pinatiba! noon

#tubre '&, '1-1 at san8a!on sa ma palalarawan n di8umano;!

pasusuat o surve! nasimula sa Ma!tunas cree patunon ilo

n 3an $uan patunon daon ibaba n aos n ilo n 3an $uan

hanan sa bahain matatapuan an ilo n Pasi sa Punta,

Ma!nila at lumilis!a sa patunon itaas n aos n ilo Pasi na

nababanit an sapa n Bua!an Bato sa Nama!an, Mandalu!on

paatapos a! pabali sa ilo Pasi sa daon pataas n aos n

ilo hanan sa ilo n Mari2uina at pasunod sa daon pataas

n aos n ilo n Mari2uina hanan sa sapa n Pinapata!an

Bua!a at lumaladaw hanan sa pinamulan n sapa n iliman

na umaaos n pababa patunon ilo n 3an $uan at pabali sa

sapa n Ma!tunas na an nasabin ba!ba!8suat o surve! sa abot

maaa!a n sino man ma! sapat n aa!ahan arimensor

?surve!or@ a! di maabuo n ni isa man laman maramihan8ilid na

huis o an!o ?pol!on@.

ahilan sa ma nabanit na pan!a!ari, an ma naalada sa

ibaba n Jasunduan ito a! sumasan8a!on na asunduin an

palilinod ni Att!. "elipe C. Navarro n No. 66 A%ucena, Ro<as

istrict, ue%on Cit! upan umawa n arampatan haban sa

:uuman n Dnan ulunan n Ri%al pati ue%on Cit! hanan

sa Corte 3uprema un inaailanan at awin an anuman

paraan isinasaisip ni!an tumpa at nararapat awin san8a!on sa

batas upan matamo n ma maalada sa ibaba n asunduan ito

an ani8ani!an titulo a!on sa paraan minamarapat n batas at

amin ma naalada sa ibaba n asunduan ito a! naaaloobn buon apan!arihan a! Att!. "elipe C. Navarro na ilaa! sa

an!an panalan at un sa anino man ni!a naisin ipaaloob

an iban bahai n lupain na amin minana o pinasundan

?predecessors8in8interest@ nuni;t ipinauba!a na namin a! Att!.

"elipe C. Navarro bilan bahai n buon aba!aran n an!an

serbis!o at arapatan maanin ni!a sana!on sa ma inilalahad

n asunduan ito maliban na laman doon sa bahai n lupain

nais namin mapatituluhan sa ilalim n amin ani8ani!an



panalan at sumasana!on ami sa pababa!ad n arampatan

halaa sa palilinod ni Att!. "elipe C. Navarro nan naa!on sa

isinasaad n asunduan ito. Na sa bawa;t ilos na maaanap sa

papapatitulo n amin ma ariarian an mamamahala sa ma

astos o aba!aran a! si Att!. "elipe C. Navarro na an ibi sabihin

na mula sa papapasuat ?surve!@ n ma ari8arian hanan sa

pabibia! n ma plano n ma suat upan mapatiba! ito nJaawaran n 7upain ?Bureau of 7ands@, pahahanda at

panonotar!o n ma affidavit; n pama!8ari, pauha n ma

atiba!an n paama!ari, ba!ad sa papaso sa husado ?filin

fees@, papapatala ?reistration@, paawa n ma asulatan

?documentation@, pasalin n ma reord ?transcripts@, papapatuna!

?certifications@ at iba pan ma inaailanan ba!aran at

paaastuhan a! nasa ala!aan na ni Att!. "elipe C. Navarro na

papasi!ahan n naaa!on sa ani!an sarilin austuhan na an

nilala!on sa bandan huli at an tuna! na hanarin a! an

mapatituluhan n a!on sa batas an amin ani8ani!an ma lupain

sa amin ani8ani!an panalan na sa pamamaitan n ma

tunulin iniatan namin a! Att!. "elipe C. Navarro sa

pamamaitan n asunduan ito, sumasan8a!on ami at natatalian

o nabibiisan n asunduan ito na maba!ad n halaan

alawampu;t 7iman Piso ?P&0.@ sa bawat metro uwadrado n

lupain matitituluhan sa amin panalan bilan aba!aran sa

serbis!o o palilinod ni Att!. "elipe C. NavarroF an halaan

3ampun Piso ?P'.@ sa bawat metro uwadrado a! amin

maiin paunan8ba!ad upan an pro!eton ito a! mapanimulan

aaad sa lalon madalin panahon at an matitiran dapat

ba!aran halaa na 7abin8liman Piso ?P'0.@ bawa;t metro

uwadrado a! amin baba!aran apa naipaaloob na an titulo n

lupa sa amin sa asunduan apa buhat sa isan taon mula sa

petsan ipinaaloob an titulo n lupa a! hindi ami naababa!ad

n buo sa halaan natitira o balanse na 7abin8liman Piso

?P'0.@ sa bawat metro uwadrado, an titulo n lupain a!

mapupunta sa panalan ni Att!. "elipe C. Navarro nuni;t an

asunduan ito na isan taon pabibia!8paluit ni Att!. "elipe C.

Navarro upan si!a a! mabi!an n abuuan aba!aran sa

an!an ma palilinod sa usapin ito at sumasan8a!on si Att!.

"elipe C. Navarro na ami a! pahintulutan isanla an amin ma

ari8arian ma! arampatan titulo na di huwad at pinatiba! n batas

sa alinman bano upan ito an masilbin ba!ad sa ma

palilinod ni Att!. "elipe C. Navarro sa usapin ito at i!on laman

an natatanin sandali o panahon ami a! mawawalan na noblias!on o tunulin ba!aran an alawampu;t 7iman Piso

?P&0.@ sa bawat metro uwadrado n lupain iinasundo namin

an serbis!o ni Att!. "elipe C. Navarro upan matituluhan nan

naa!on sa batas. 3umasan8a!on din si Att!. "elipe C. Navarro na

an sinuman sa amin naalada sa ibaba n asunduan ito na

hindi a!an maba!ad n paunan8halaa na 3ampun Piso

?P'.@ sa bawa;t metro uwadrado a! bibi!an n arampatan

maba!ad n maahalintulad na halaa sa bawa;t buwan sa loob n



sampu ?'@ o dalawampun ?&@ taon san8a!on sa ma hinihini n

pan!a!ari, an titulo n lupain a! ipaaaloob laman sa

nananais umanin nito un mababa!aran na an abuuan n

palilinod ni Att!. "elipe C. Navarro asama na an 9leal interest9

at an amorti%ation nito nunit inaailanan mabia! sila n

paunan ba!ad na 7imanpun Piso ?P0.@ upan panimulan an

pababa!ad buwan8buwan ?monthl! installment condition@ atmaiin mabisa laman ito un matutupad n buon atapatan

an pababa!ad n huluan buwan8buwan ?monthl! installment@ na

maarin mabuhat sa halaan 7iman Piso ?P0.@ hanan

7imanpun Piso ?P0.@ sa bawat buwan nan naa!on sa lai o

alawaan n lupain nararapat na mapasa8amin a!on sa batas. 3a

dahilan an buha! n tao a! walan ati!aan matataal na

haban panahon a! isinasalin namin an amin ma arapatan at

tunulin sa amin taapamana laman at a!on din si Att!. "elipe

C. Navarro na maarin manahin an an!an arapatan sa

asunduan ito sa ma taapamana laman ni!a upan itau!od

nila an palilinod sa anuman paraan a!on sa batas.

3A JA4DNA>AN A4 JA4/BA>AN N+ 7A:A4 N+ NABAN++/4 NA

JA3DNDAN+ /4#

a! lumalada ami sa asunduan ito na amin tutuparin an lahat

n isinasaad sa asunduan ito na sinasan8a!unan din ni Att!.

"elipe C. Navarro na an!an tuparin an an!an tunulin bilan

manananol na tutulon sa amin upan ami a! mapaalooban n

:uuman n titulo sa amin ani8ani!an lupain n naa!on sa batas

at si!an isinasaad din n asunduan ito at asama n palada n

amin ma panalan na si!an nais namin panalan lumitaw sa

titulo, an amin ani8ani!an tirahan, alawaan n lupain,paraan pababa!ad at petsa na ami;! lumada sa asunduan ito

bilan papapatuna! sa amin taos8puson pasan8a!on at

hanarin tumupad sa lahat n napapaloob sa JA3D7A4AN+ /4#.

/n the course of the proceedins, respondent NA*ARR# admitted that he has sold,

and is still sellin, properties covered b! 4orrens titles in the names of #R4/+A3

C#., Madrial, and others, but he claims that the titles of said parties are null and

void because the! emanated from ecree No. '(&0F that he has no title over the

properties sold b! him e<cept the contract of leal services which his clients alleedl!

sinedF that he has no approved plans for the various subdivisions alleedl! owned

b! himF that he has not obtained an! certificate of reistration or license to sell from

the National :ousin Authorit!F that he has not declared for ta<ation purposes thethousands of hectares of prime lands in Mandalu!on, 3an $uan, Pasi, ue%on Cit!

and Mariina, alleedl! owned b! himF and that he has not filed an! case directl!

attacin the title of #R4/+A3 and others ?pp. 58--, t.s.n., 3ept. 1, '155F E<hibit $@.

Respondent NA*ARR# also admits that he is the defendant in the 9&08Billion8peso8

case9 before $ude 3erio Apostol, doceted as Civil Case No. 8'6&60, entitled

9#rtias Compan! 7imited Partnership vs. "elipe C. Navarro;s Court of "irst



/nstance of Ri%al, Branch I*/, ue%on Cit!9F that said case covers lands in

Mandalu!on, 3an $uan, Pasi, Mariina and ue%on Cit! includin those involved

in the present case ?pp. )8&', t.s.n., $ul! 5, '155F E<hibits ", "8/ to "8'6)@.

espite the decision of $ude Apostol upholdin the validit! of the #rtias 4ransfer

Certificate of 4itle and enoinin respondent NA*ARR# from sellin lots covered b!

said title, NA*ARR# still continued sellin properties covered b! the inunction

claimin that the said decision is ineffectual because the same has been appealed.

?pp. --8-(, t.s.n., 3ept. 1, '155@. "

#n the basis of the foreoin report, the 3olicitor +eneral filed a complaint with "rancisco #rtias,

$r. as complainant, pra!in that respondent Navarro be disbarred, that his name be stricen from the

roll of attorne!s, and that his certificate of admission to the bar be recalled.

#n Ma! &-, '1), respondent Navarro filed his answer with pra!er to lift the order of

suspension. ' Complainant #rtias, $r. filed an opposition to said motion to lift suspension . ( Respondent

Navarro reiterated his plea in his manifestation dated Auust ), '1). ) /n a resolution dated 3eptember

&, '1), this Court denied the motion to lift the order of suspension. #

#n #ctober &1, '1), respondent Navarro filed an urent e parte motion pra!in for the liftin of

the order of suspension 9 which was denied b! this Court on November '-, '1). 10 :e reiterated his

pra!er in another motion filed on $anuar! 0, '1)' 11 but the same was liewise denied in our resolution of

$anuar! &&, '1)'. 12

//. Administrative Case No. &-- arose from a letter8complaint, dated March '-, '151, filed b! the

spouses E. Conrad and *irinia +eeslin with the /nterated Bar of the Philippines, charin

respondent Navarro with deceit, malpractice and ross misconduct in office, and blatant violation of

the Attorne!;s #ath. 3aid letter was thereafter referred to this Court b! /nterated Bar of the

Philippines President ?now Chief $ustice@ Marcelo B. "ernan for appropriate action. 13

Pursuant to our resolution of $une (, '151, 1" respondent Navarro filed his answer with motion to

dismiss on $une &1, '151. 1' 4he correspondin

repl! 1( and reoinder 1) were subse2uentl! filed. /n a resolution of this Court dated #ctober ', '1)0, the

case was referred to the #ffice of the 3olicitor +eneral for investiation, report and recommendation. 1#

#n Auust &), '1)1, the #ffice of the 3olicitor +eneral submitted its report, with the followin

findins and recommendation=

CA1*(

/n their Complaint dated March '-, '151, complainants chared respondent with

deceit, malpractice and ross conduct in office, and blatant violation of the Attorne!;s#ath, for havin deliberatel! misrepresented the facts and the law while actin as

counsel for the defendants in the followin civil cases=

a. :is insistence that our clients are no loner owners of the land subect of the

cases mentioned aboveF he falsel! alleed that to his personal nowlede the title to

the land is in the name of one 7eopoldo Couanco. 4his false alleation was made

despite the final decision of the Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, Branch I*//, in Civil



Case No. 8')&&' entitled 9E Conrad and *irinia B. +eeslin vs. 7eopoldo

Couanco, et al.9 ?'@ declarin the transfer of the lot to 7eopoldo Couanco was

fraudulent and had been effected thru falsificationF and, ?&@ orderin the cancellation

of the title issued to Couanco and the reversion of the title to our clients. Copies of

the Complaint and the ecision in said case are hereto attached as Anne<es 9B9 and

9C9, respectivel!.

b. Mr. Navarro persisted and still persists in representin that our clients; title was

rendered null and void b! virtue of the e<piration of the Parit! Amendment and the

decision of the 3upreme Court in the case of uasha vs. Republic, (6 3CRA '6.

#ur clients; title to the aforesaid propert! was ac2uired b! hereditar! succession from

the late r. 7uther Bewle! who ac2uired said land in '1&0. 4he ownership therefore

of our clients is protected both under the '1-0 and '15& Constitutions. An! law!er,

even a law student, nows that the Parit! Amendment and the decision in the

uasha case,supra, covers cases where propert! was ac2uired b! virtue of the

Parit! Amendment. Mr. Navarro is either uilt! of ab!smal inorance of the law or of

complete and unabashed contempt for facts, the law of the land and for the Courts.

c. Mr. Navarro persists in misrepresentin to the Court that the title coverin the land

subect of the above cases had been declared null and void in the final an!

eecutor4 decision of the Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, Branch //. :e deliberatel!

omits to ive the title of the case and its docet number for the obvious and malicious

reason that the case he relies upon ?:eirs of Nuuid vs. Court of Appeals, +.R. No.

(&6118(&51@ is still pendin resolution before the 3upreme Court and hence cannot

be 9final and e<ecutor!.9

d. :e misrepresents to the Court that the land subect of the cases heretofore

enumerated is not within the territorial urisdiction of the ue%on Cit! Court and

hence the court has no urisdiction. "urther, that title thereto havin described the

land to be part of the Municipalit! of 3an $uan del Monte, is void. :e cannot disclaimnowlede however of the fact that the area in the vicinit! of 3antolan Road in

ue%on Cit! was oriinall! part of the Municipalit! of 3an $uan del Monte territor! of

ue%on Cit! when the latter was created on '( $une '10. /n the liht of this fact, Mr.

Navarro;s representation is false and malicious.

e. Mr. Navarro has shown a complete and total disreard for basic norms of honest!

and decenc! in that havin preudiced the interest of his clients because of his ross

nelect to appeal in a timel! manner from the decision of the court and havin

adopted the wron remed!, in complete inorance of the law, he had influenced his

clients into commencin a case before the 4anod Ba!an aainst the Presidin $ude

of the Cit! Court of ue%on Cit!, Branch ', and :on. Minerva +enovea 4he case is

obviousl! calculated to harrass and coerce the :onorable Presidin $ude. Mr.Navarro;s conduct speas ill of his respect for the law and the courts.

f. 4he penchant of Mr. Navarro to misrepresent and deceive did not stop before the

Cit! Court of ue%on Cit!. :e continues to do so in the petition he filed before the

:onorable Court of Appeals doceted as CA8+.R. No. 3.P. )1&) entitled 9Adolfo

Corpus, et al. ;vs. :on. Minerva +enovea et al.9 Copies of the Petition and the



undersined attorne!;s Comments thereto are hereto attached as Anne<es 99 and

9E9, respectivel!. ?pp. &8(, Record@

1*(P$N+*N'( AN(5*1

/n his Answer dated $une &1, '151, respondent averred=

'. "rom the face of the Resolution itself showin that the undersined respondent

was never furnished with a cop! of the complaint, it can be athered therefrom that

the complaint is clearl! intended to prevent the undersined respondent to proceed

in defendin his clients; cause in CA8+.R. No. 3P8)1&) ?Adolfo M. Corpu%, et al. vs.

:on. Minerva C. +enovea, the 3pouses Conrad E. +eeslin and *irinia Bewle!

+eeslin, et al.@ still pendin at this writin before the Court of Appeals. 4o allow

complainants to harass respondent while the case ?is@ still pendin in our courts of

ustice is an act in contempt of court for which complainants and their counsel is ?sic @

liable.

&. Dndersined respondent as counsel for the defendants Adolfo Corpu%, et al. avehis entire devotion to the interest of his clients, warm %eal in the maintenance and

defense of their rihts and the e<ertion of his utmost learnin and abilit! to the end

that nothin be taen or be withheld from his clients, save b! the rules of law, leall!

appliedF for his clients are entitled to the benefit of an! and ever! remed! and

defense that is authori%ed b! law as was done b! the undersined respondent in the

eectment case filed b! the complainants Conrad E. +eeslin and *irinia B. +eeslin

aainst the several clients of the undersined. ?pp. (&8(-, Record@

After complainants filed a Repl! dated $ul! '5, '151 pointin out that respondent;s

Answer does not den! an! of the si< ?6@ counts of chares specified in the

Complaint, respondent filed a Reoinder dated 3eptember 5, '151, wherein he

averred=

'. 4he complainants alien spouses Conrad E. +eeslin and *irinia B. +eeslin who

are citi%ens of the Dnited 3tates of America held 4C4 No. '0-605 which was

cancelled on ecember -', '15 b! 4C4 No. ')&-' issued in the name of

7eopoldo A. Couanco both of which 4C4s are described to be located at 3antolan

Road, Municipalit! of 3an $uan, Province of Ri%al, ?now part of Metro8Manila@ filed

eectment proceedins before the Cit! Court of ue%on Cit! aainst m! clients

*ictorino Manaois and Adolfo Corpu% and twent! others in Civil Case Nos. /8&1)5& to

/8&11-' which later were elevated to the Court of Appeals in CA8+.R. No. 3P8)1&)

entitled A!olfo M. Corpu/, et al . s. on.Minera C . enoea the (pouses Conra!

* . eeslin an! Vir6inia e"le4 eeslin, et al .

&. Dndersined respondent bein retained as counsel for the defendants *ictorino

Manaois and Adolfo Corpu% and the twent! ?&@ other defendants did his bounden

dut! in defense of their rihts and e<erted his utmost learnin and abilit! within what

the law allows that at this stae, the controvers! is still under litiation before the

courts as stated above.



-. Dnder the foreoin circumstances, the administrative action must have been

resorted to b! the complainants at the instiation of their counsel who failed in

wantin to defeat the defendants of their +od8iven rihts to the land in litiation that

there can be no other conclusion left but that the administrative complaint aainst the

respondent is ;pure; harassment. ?pp. 0-80(, Record@

FN+N(

When the case was set for hearin b! the #ffice of the 3olicitor +eneral, the parties

areed that there is no dispute as to the fact of the case. :ence, the! were ranted a

period of thirt! ?-@ da!s within which to file their respective memoranda, if the! so

desire, after which the case will be considered submitted for resolution.

3ince respondent did not den! the alleations of the Complaint, and in fact admitted

durin the hearin of the case set b! the #ffice of the 3olicitor +eneral that there is

no dispute as to the facts of this case, it follows that the specifications of the chares

aainst him, which are dul! supported b! documents, are deemed sufficientl!

proven.

4he onl! ustification invoed b! respondent is that he 9ave his entire devotion to

the interest of his clients9 and that he 9did his bounden dut! in defense of their rihts

and e<erted his utmost learnin and abilit!.

Conse2uentl!, respondent is deemed to have committed the misrepresentations

specified b! complainants, as 2uoted above.

1*C$MM*N+A'$N

Respondent was also chared in Administrative Case No. &'() entitled $rti6as s.

Naarro and has been suspended from the practice of law since Ma! 0, '1). :issuspension is still in effect.

4he acts complained of in the present case also warrant the suspension of

respondent from the practice of law.

W:ERE"#RE, it is respectfull! recommended that respondent Att!. "elipe C.

Navarro be liewise suspended from the practice of law.

Maati, for Manila, Auust '5, '1)1. 19

No usticiable issue was raised in Administrative Case No. &-- as respondent Navarro failed toden! the material alleations in the complaint of the spouses E. Conrad and *irinia B. +eeslin.

4he two main issues raised b! the 3olicitor +eneral in Administrative Case No. &'() are=

'. Whether or not respondent Navarro sold properties titled in the names of other persons without

the consent of the latterF and



&. /f in the affirmative, whether or not such acts constitute sufficient rounds for suspension or

disbarment.

Respondent reiterated in his answer that the transfer certificates of title of #rtias Compan!,

7imited Partnership and "lorentina Nuuid *da. de :aberer were declared null and void in the

decision dated March -', '15 of the Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, Branch I*, in Civil Case No. 58

M ?'--1@ entitled 9Pedro del Rosario, et al. vs. #rtias Co., 7td. Partnership, et al.,9 and in the

order dated $une &', '15' of the Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, Branch //, in Civil Cases Nos. )-&,

)-&', )-&6, )-61, )-56, )-51, )-)-, )6)0, )6)6 and )5 entitled 9"lorentina Nuuid *da. de

:aberer vs. "ederico Martine%, et al.9 Respondent liewise reiterated his claim of ownership over all

parcels of land ?includin those of #rtias Compan!, 7imited Partnership and "lorentina Nuuid

*da. de :aberer@ covered b! ecree No. '(&0, +.7.R.#. Record No. 1'5, which was declared null

and void in the decision dated March -', '15 of Branch I* of the Court of "irst /nstance of

Ri%al. 20 "urthermore, he asserts ownership over the subect properties as pa!ment for his leal services

rendered in the eectment cases filed aainst his clients in Branches / and // of the former Court of "irst

/nstance of Ri%al.

'. 4o clarif!, Civil Case No. 58M?'--1@filed before Branch I* of the then Court of "irst /nstance of

Ri%al directl! assailed the nullit! of the proceedins in +.7.R.#. Record No. 1'5 b! virtue of which

ecree No. '(&0 was issued, as well as the oriinal certificates of title issued as a conse2uence

thereof. 4hese oriinal certificates of title include the properties belonin to #rtias Compan!,

7imited Partnership and "lorentina Nuuid *da. de :aberer. #n March -', '15, $ude *ivencio M.

Rui% then presidin over said Branch I* rendered a decision declarin ecree No. '(&0, as well as

the oriinal certificates of title issued pursuant thereto, null and void. #rtias appealed the Rui%

decision to the Court of Appeals which set the same aside and remanded the case to Branch I* for

new trial. #n November -, '15-, $ude Arsenio A. Alcantara, who replaced $ude Rui%, rendered a

decision confirmin the validit! of ecree No. '(&0 and all titles emanatin therefrom. 4he said

decision was pendin appeal with the Court of Appeals when the investiation of respondent b! the

3olicitor +eneral was conducted.

We tae udicial notice of the fact that on ecember &1, '1)-, the Court of Appeals rendered a

decision affirminin toto the November -, '15- decision of $ude Alcantara, which became final and

e<ecutor! on Ma! &0, '1)( insofar as plaintiffs8appellants Pascual 3antos, et al. are concerned. 4he

plaintiffs8appellants Pedro del Rosario, et al. appealed to the 3upreme Court in a petition for review

on certiorari which was, however, denied on "ebruar! '), '1)0. 4he denial became final and

e<ecutor! on April ', '1)0. 4hereafter, the records of the case were remanded to Branch I* of the

Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al for e<ecution.

4he records further show that the March -', '15 decision of Branch I* in Civil Case No. 58M

?'--1@ became the basis of the decision rendered b! $ude Pedro Navarro of Branch // on Ma! &',

'15' which dismissed the complaint for eectment filed b! :aberer aainst the clients of respondent

Navarro. :owever, $ude Navarro in his decision cateoricall! stated that 9it is the consideredopinion of this court that until and unless the decision of Branch I* of this court is reversed or set

aside b! final udment, plaintiffs pra!er to order the herein eleven defendants in these eleven cases

to vacate the parcels which the! occup! and on which their respective houses are built has become

premature.9 4his condition was reiterated in $ude Navarro;s order of 3eptember '0, '15& wherein

he stated that=



/n the order dated $ul! '5, '15', the Court had occasion to reiterate that its decision

in this case was mainl! predicated on the decision of Branch I* of this Court that the

certificate of title emanatin from the proceedins in +7R# Record No. 1'5 were null

and void and plaintiffs title happened to be one of them. 4he Court opined that until

said decision is reversed the actual occupants had better be maintained in their

possessions of the land. 21

:owever, to repeat, the March -', '15 decision of Branch I* was set aside b! the Court of

Appeals which remanded the case for new trial and another one was rendered, this time b! a

different ude on November -, '15- upholdin the validit! of ecree No. '(&0 and all titles issued

as a conse2uence thereof. Respondent cannot fein inorance of the November -, '15- decision,

which superseded the March -', '15 decision, for the simple reason that it was his clients who

appealed the former decision to the Court of Appeals. /n spite thereof and indicative of his bad faith,

he stubbornl! continues to invoe the decision of March -', '15 as the source of his alleed

ownership rihts over the #rtias properties.

&. /n the order of $une &', '15', $ude Pedro Navarro of Branch // ordered the cancellation of

4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No. '0(- issued in the name of :aberer and the issuance of new titles

in the name of the defendants, subect to the lien for attorne!;s fees in favor of respondent pursuant

to the terms of the contract for his leal services. :owever, the same ude issued an amendator!

order dated 3eptember '0, '15&, which provides in part that=

/t has also come to the understandin of the Court that the order of $une &', '15',

souht to be reconsidered insofar as it ordered the cancellation of 4ransfer

Certificate of 4itle No. '0(- in favor of the plaintiff, also adversel! affects the

interests of other persons and entities lie the #rtias and Compan!, 7imited

Partnership, which is not a part! herein, because the certificate of title of the plaintiff

is also a derivative of +7R# 1'5 and ecree No. '(&0 from which #rtias

Compan!, 7imited Partnership, derives titles over wide tracts of land. 3ince #rtias

Compan!, 7imited Partnership, is not a part! in this case whatever orders ofdecisions are made in this case cannot be made to affect the said compan!.

ecisions and orders can onl! affect parties to the case.

4he Court therefore arrives at the conclusion that the order dated $une &', '15',

must be reconsidered on two rounds ?'@ because the decision of Branch I* is now

bein the subect of further proceedins and ?&@ because it has the effect of

adversel! affectin the interest of #rtias Compan!, 7imited Partnership, which is

not even a part! herein.

W:ERE"#RE, as pra!ed, the order dated $une &', '15', is set asi!e. :owever, the

decision dated Ma! &6, '15', insofar as it denies the eectment of the present

occupants of the land as stated in the decision stands. ?Emphasis supplied@ 22

/t is apparent, therefore, that since the order of $une &', '15', was set aside, the inescapable

conclusion is that 4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No. '0(- stands and remains in the name of

"lorentina Nuuid *da. de :aberer. Conse2uentl!, the defendants therein never ac2uired title to the

propert! covered b! the title of :aberer. And, since respondent Navarro merel! derives his supposed

title to the properties as a mere transferee, with more reason can he not validl! become the owner of

the above properties.



-. Respondent intransientl! relies on his contract for leal services e<ecuted with his clients, the

defendants in the :aberer case, as another basis of his claim of ownership over the entire propert!

covered b! ecree No. '(&0. /t must be noted that the said contract was e<ecuted pursuant to the

eectment cases filed aainst respondent Navarro;s clients which involve onl! the propert! covered

b! 4ransfer Certificate of 4itle No. '0(- containin an areate area of '&,5 s2uare meters,

more or less. /t appears that the defendants assined rihts to respondent Navarro over properties

which the! did not actuall! occup! and which virtuall! e<tended to all the properties covered b! titlesissued under ecree No. '(&0. As correctl! observed b! the 3olicitor +eneral, said defendants have

not presented an! document evidencin their ownership of the parcels of land the! assined to their

law!er.

"rom the foreoin considerations, it is incontrovertible that respondent;s pretended ownership rihts

over the parcels of land covered b! ecree No. '(&0 have no bases whatsoever, either in fact or in

law, and it is an assault on credulit! to assume that he was not aware of the vacuit! of his

pretensions and misrepresentations.

/n resolvin this disbarment case, we must perforce initiall! focus on the deree of interit! and

respectabilit! re2uired and e<pected of the law profession. 4here is no den!in that membership in

the leal profession is achieved onl! after a lon and laborious stud!. B! !ears of patience, %eal and

abilit! the attorne! ac2uires a fi<ed means of support for himself and his famil!. 4his is not to sa!,

however, that the emphasis is on the pecuniar! value of this profession but rather on the social

prestie and intellectual standin necessaril! arisin from and attached to the same b! reason of the

fact that ever!one is deemed an officer of the court. 23

4he importance of the dual aspects of the leal profession has been udiciousl! stated b! Chief

$ustice Marshall of the Dnited 3tates 3upreme Court in this wise=

#n one hand, the profession of an Att!. is of reat importance to an individual and

the prosperit! of his life ma! depend on its e<ercise. 4he riht to e<ercise it ouht not

to be lihtl! or capriciousl! taen from him. #n the other hand, it is e<tremel!desirable that the respectabilit! of the Bar should be maintained and that its harmon!

with the bench should be preserved. "or these obects, some controllin power,

some discretion, ouht to be e<ercised with reat moderation and udment, but it

must be e<ercised. 2"

/n a number of cases, we have repeatedl! e<plained and stressed that the purpose of disbarment is

not meant as a punishment to deprive an attorne! of a means of livelihood but is rather intended to

protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of the officers of the court and to ensure the

proper administration of ustice b! re2uirin that those who e<ercise this important function shall be

competent, honorable and trustworth! men in whom courts and clients ma! repose confidence. 2' /ts

obectives are to compel the law!er to deal fairl! and honestl! with his client and to remove from the

profession a person whose misconduct has proven him unfit for the duties and responsibilities beloninto the office of an attorne!. 2(

As a rule, an attorne! eno!s the leal presumption that he is innocent of the chares until the

contrar! is proved, and that, as an officer of the court, he has performed his dut! in accordance with

his oath. 2) 4herefore, in disbarment proceedins, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant 2#, and

for the court to e<ercise its disciplinar! powers, the case aainst the respondent must be established b!

clear, convincin and satisfactor! proof. 29



We have painstainl! scrutini%ed and evaluated the records of these two administrative cases and

we cannot but find that stron and unassailable evidence e<ist to render it our irremissible dut! to

impose the ultimate sanction of disbarment on respondent.

Respondent;s defense is anchored primaril! on the contract for leal services, e<ecuted b! his

clients whom he represented in the twent!8two eectment cases filed before Branches / and // of the

former Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, and 2uoted in full in the earlier part of this discussion.

/t is e<tremel! relevant to note that both of the aforesaid two branches of the trial court made no

findin as to the validit! of the claim of ownership favorable to the defendants therein. #n the

contrar!, $ude 3alas of Branch / found for the plaintiff and ordered the defendants, clients of

respondent, to vacate the premises.

/n the case before $ude Navarro of Branch //, the complaint was dismissed merel! on the round

that 9since the evidence is uncontroverted that the defendants in all these eleven cases have been in

open, continuous, and adverse possession of their respective parcels datin bac since their

predecessors in interest, their possession must be maintained and respected. 30

4hereafter, on $une &', '15', the aforesaid udment of dismissal dated Ma! &6, '15' was

modified, and the Reister of eeds was thereafter ordered to cancel the transfer certificate of title

issued in favor of plaintiff and to issue new titles in the name of defendants subect to the lien for

attorne!;s fees in favor of herein respondent in accordance with the contract for leal services

hereinbefore discussed.

Eventuall!, however, this subse2uent order was reconsidered and set aside in the order of

3eptember '0, '15&, 9because it has the effect of adversel! affectin the interest of #rtias Co.,

7td. Partnership, which is not even a part! herein,9 but it reinstated the decision of Ma! &6, '15'

insofar as it denied the eectment of the present occupants.

As earlier noted, there is nothin in the records to show that the defendants in the eectment caseswere declared the true owners of the land subect of said cases. #nl! the fact of possession was

ruled upon, and what the courts reconi%ed was merel! the defendants; riht of possession. 4he!,

therefore, never become the owners of the subect lots in an! sense of the word in the absence of

an! declaration to that effect, b! reason of which the! could not have leall! transmitted an!

ownership rihts or interests to herein respondent. "urthermore, we have seen that an! further claim

of ownership on their part was finall! settled b! the order of 3eptember '0, '15&, settin aside the

order of $une &', '15', wherein the trial court correctl! held that the earlier order unustifiedl!

affected adversel! the rihts of #rtias Compan!, 7imited Partnership. /n addition, said court

specificall! e<cluded the title of said partnership from the effects of its decision.

Pursuant to the provisions of the contract of leal services, the defendants8clients areed to conve!

to respondent whatever properties ma! be adudicated in their favor in the event of their failure to

pa! the attorne!;s fees areed upon. As hereinbefore stated, there was nothin awarded to the said

defendants e<cept the riht to possess for the nonce the lots the! were occup!in, nothin more.

4hat respondent ac2uired no better riht than the defendants from whom he supposedl! derived his

claim is further confirmed in the order of $ude Navarro, dated $une &', '15', den!in the issuance

of new certificates of title to herein respondent who, to further stress the obvious, was not even a

part! but onl! a law!er of the defendants therein. /t follows that his act of sellin the #rtias

properties is patentl! and indisputabl! illeal.



Respondent admits that he has no 4orrens title but insists on the puerile theor! that his title is his

contract of leal services. 31 Considerin that the effectivit! of the provisions of that contract is s2uarel!

premised on the award of said properties to the therein defendants, and since there was no such

adudication, respondent;s pretense is unmased as an unmitiated deception. "urthermore, it will be

recalled that the land involved in the two eectment cases consists of onl! '.& hectares whereas

respondent is claimin ownership over thousands of hectares of land, the sheer absurdit! of which he

could not be unaware.

Respondent further admits that he has been and is continuousl! sellin, up to the present, the

entiret! of the land covered b! ecree No. '(&0 32 pursuant to the decision of Branch I* of the then

Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al, dated March -', '15, declarin the said decree null and void as well as

the titles derived therefrom.

/t must nonetheless be remembered that the decision of $ude Navarro reconi%in the defendants;

riht of possession is subect to the final outcome of the March -', '15 decision of Branch I*

which nullified ecree No. '(&0. 4he latter decision, at the time the decision of $ude Navarro was

rendered, was pendin appeal. 4his is precisel! the reason wh! $ude Navarro had to amend his

decision a third time b! settin aside the order of reistration of the land in the name of the

defendants. :e could not properl! rule on the ownership rihts of defendants therein pendin a finaldetermination of the validit! of said decree, which thus prompted him to find merel! on the fact of

possession. Besides, a mere declaration of nullit! cannot, per se ustif! the performance of an! act

of ownership over lands titled in the name of other persons pursuant to said decree. 4o cap it all, as

earlier discussed, that decision dated March -', '15 has been reversed and set aside, and a new

one entered confirmin the validit! of ecree No. '(&0, which latter decision has lon become final

and e<ecutor!.

/n Civil Case No. 8'6&60, entitled 9#rtias and Co., 7td. Partnership vs. Navarro,9 herein

respondent was enoined from sellin, offerin for sale and advertisin properties of the plaintiff

therein. We have seen that a decision was subse2uentl! rendered therein on ecember '6, '15& b!

Branch I*/ of the Court of "irst /nstance of Ri%al upholdin the validit! of the transfer certificates of

title issued in the name of #rtias and Co., 7imited Partnership which became final and e<ecutor!

after respondent;s petition for review was denied b! this Court. :owever, respondent continued to

sell properties belonin to #rtias in blatant disreard of said decision. 4his was cateoricall!

admitted b! respondent himself durin the investiation conducted b! the 3olicitor

+eneral. 33

Respondent avers that the said decision cannot be enforced durin the pendenc! of the appeal

therefrom. Even if this were true, the fact that respondent was enoined b! the court from sellin

portions of the #rtias properties is compellin reason enouh for him to desist from continuin with

his illeal transactions.

As correctl! observed b! the 3olicitor +eneral=

Respondent Navarro new that the decision of $ude *ivencio Rui% declarin as null

and void certificates of titles emanatin from ecree No. '(&0 was reversed and set

aside. :e new that $ude Pedro Navarro of the Ri%al Court of "irst /nstance

e<empted #rtias Compan! from the effects of his decision. :e also new that

$ude 3erio Apostol of the Ri%al Court of "irst /nstance in ue%on Cit! had upheld

the validit! of the certificates of title of #rtias Compan!. espite all these



pronouncements and his awareness thereof, respondent NA*ARR# still continued to

sell properties titled in the name of #rtias Compan! and the Madrials. 3"

7astl!, the motion to dismiss filed b! respondent should be, as it is hereb!, denied for lac of merit.

Respondent ine<plicabl! posits that the chares aainst him should be dismissed on the round that

his suspension was automaticall! lifted b! virtue of our resolution, dated $une -, '1), which

merel! reads=

4he manifestation of counsel for respondent statin amon other thins that the

complaint aainst respondent could not prosper if respondent;s manifestation dated

March -, '1) in +.R. No. 78(&6118(&51 and his re2uest for certification b! the

Chief $ustice to the effect that the petition in +.R. Nos. 78(&6118(&51 is deemed

dismissed pursuant to 3ec. ''?&@ of Art. I of the Constitution are ranted, are

N#4E.

4here is absolutel! nothin in the resolution to support respondent;s t!pical distortion of facts. #n the

contrar!, our resolutions dated 3eptember &, '1), November ), '1), and $anuar! &&, '1)'

repeatedl! denied respondent;s motions for the liftin of his suspension.

/t further bears mention at this uncture that despite the suspension of respondent Navarro from the

practice of law, he continues to do so in clear violation and open defiance of the oriinal resolution of

suspension and the aforestated resolutions reiteratin and maintainin the same. 4hus, the records

of this Court disclose that in +.R. No. 785)'-, entitled 9$ose de 7eon, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et

al.,9 a 3econd ivision case filed on April &0, '1)5, counsel for private respondents therein

2uestioned herein respondent Navarro;s personalit! to intervene in the case since he was under

suspension, to which respondent Navarro reoined b! insistin that his suspension had alleedl!

been lifted alread!. /n +.R. No. )015-, entitled 9:ilario Abalos vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,9 the

petition wherein was filed on ecember &, '1)) and assined to the "irst ivision, respondent

Navarro also appeared as counsel for therein petitioner. 3aid petition was denied since the same

was prepared, sined and verified b! respondent Navarro, a suspended member of the PhilippineBar. #ver his e<postulation that his suspension had alread! been lifted, the Court directed the Bar

Confidant to tae appropriate action to enforce the same. Aain, in +.R. No. 1)5-, entitled 9Matilde

Cabuwan et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,9 the 3econd ivision, in a resolution dated $anuar! -',

'11, imposed a fine of P',. upon said respondent for appearin therein as counsel for

petitioner which fine he paid on "ebruar! 0, '11.

/n at least three ?-@ other cases in the 3econd ivision, respondent Navarro appeared before the

Court as counsel for petitioners therein, i/ = ?'@ +.R. No. 785(51& ?7oren%o *alde%, et al., vs

/ntermediate Appellate Court, et al.@, filed on $une '', '1)6 and decided on ecember 5, '1)6F ?&@

+.R. No.

78560)1 ?Att!. "elipe C. Navarro, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.@, filed on November &), '1)6 and

decided on Ma! (,'1)5F and ?-@ +.R. No. )'()& ?Ricardo Rasalan vs. "laviano Pascua, et al.@, filedon $anuar! -, '1)) and decided on "ebruar! '0, '1)). 4he rollos in said cases show that he also

appeared as counsel for the petitioners in the Court of Appeals, but since the lower courts; oriinal

records were not forwarded to this Court, said rollos do not reflect whether he also appeared before

the different courts a 7uo.

3uch acts of respondent are evidential of floutin resistance to lawful orders of constituted authorit!

and illustrate his incorriible despicienc! for an attorne!;s dut! to societ!. *eril!, respondent has



proven himself unworth! of the trust and confidence reposed in him b! law and b! this Court,

throuh his deliberate reection of his oath as an officer of the court.

W:ERE"#RE, respondent "elipe C. Navarro is hereb! /3BARRE and his name is ordered

34R/CJEN from the Roll of Attorne!s. 7et a cop! of this resolution be furnished to the Bar Confidant

and the /nterated Bar of the Philippines and spread on the personal records of respondent. 4his

resolution is immediatel! e<ecutor!.

Narasa, Melencio-errera, Cru/, Paras, Feliciano, i!in, (armiento, Cortes, riño-A7uino,

Me!ial!ea an! 1e6ala!o, 88., concur.

Fernan, C.8., too9 no part.

utierre/, 8r., 8., too9 no part.

Pa!illa, 8., too9 no part.

anca4co, 8., is on leae.

12. ortigas vs navarro

Documents