Facts:

The case involves a complaint for gross misconduct filed in 1978 by Pedro Aggalut against Mariano T. Bagasao, a lawyer admitted to the bar in 1952. The subject of the dispute stems from ownership of Lot No. 636, situated in Barrio Tuao, North District No. 6, Bagabag, Nueva Ecija. The lot, covering an area of 2,357 square meters, was originally owned by spouses Apolinario Aggalut and Juliana Lodovico and was sold in 1938 to Jeremias Dulay, who occupied the land until his death, after which his son Jesus took over. On October 10, 1972, Pedro, along with his sister Juanita, petitioned the court for the issuance of owner's duplicates for titles they claimed had been destroyed during wartime, specifically Original Certificate of Title No. 4564 for the aforementioned lot, through lawyer Bagasao. Instead of presenting Pedro as a witness, Bagasao determined that Pedro's testimony would be redundant, leading to the court approving the petition. Subsequently, Pedro worked as a car

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Pedro Aggalut filed a complaint for gross misconduct in 1978 against lawyer Mariano T. Bagasao.
• Bagasao, admitted to the bar in 1952, was accused of unethical manipulation in connection with property transactions.

Description of the Property

• The property in question is Lot No. 636, located at Barrio Tuao, North District No. 6, Bagabag, Nueva Ecija.
• The lot covers an area of 2,357 square meters as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4564 issued in 1937.
• Initially owned by Apolinario Aggalut and Juliana Lodovico, the lot was sold in 1938 in a private instrument to Jeremias Dulay, who later had his son Jesus succeed him.

Early Transactions and Legal Proceedings

• On October 10, 1972, Juanita (sister of Apolinario) and Pedro Aggalut filed a petition for the issuance of the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 4564, which had allegedly been destroyed during the war.
• Lawyer Bagasao, who was instrumental in the filing, did not present Pedro as a witness—citing the redundancy of his testimony—and the petition was granted.
• Concurrently, Pedro became the caretaker of Bagasao’s cattle ranch, establishing a complex relationship between the parties.

The Deed of Confirmation and Its Irregularities

• On August 31, 1976, Bagasao, in his capacity as provincial assessor, required Pedro and his wife to sign a document in English purportedly for transferring the title of Lot No. 636 to Pedro.
• The document, however, turned out to be a “Deed of Confirmation of Sale with Absolute Quitclaim” in favor of Juanita Gonong, Bagasao’s wife.
• Key discrepancies included:
• Pedro’s assertion that only a tax receipt and fifty pesos were given for registration, with no admission of handing over the owner's duplicate of the title.
• Pedro’s denial of having appeared before Municipal Judge Floramante G. Tupasi, whose face he did not recognize or see during notarization.
• The deed omitted Bagasao’s relationship as husband to Juanita Gonong; despite the deed registration, the new title noted Gonong as “married” without specifying her husband’s name.

Subsequent Mortgage and Reconveyance Actions

• Bagasao and his wife mortgaged Lot No. 636 (and another lot) to the Development Bank of the Philippines on February 22, 1977, to secure a loan of P18,000.
• Prior to or on December 6, 1976—about three months after the deed of confirmation—Juanita Gonong executed a “Deed of Reconveyance & Resale Over Registered Land” in favor of Aggalut.
• In this deed, Gonong contended that the sale transfer should be rescinded due to an adverse claim by Dulay, with the rescission being conditioned on the return of the P500 paid by her to Aggalut, subject to clearing a pending mortgage obligation with the DBP.
• Fiscal Justino A. R. Vigilia observed that this deed of reconveyance was “unknown” to Aggalut and was not delivered to him, and its timing did not coincide with the annotations on Gonong’s title regarding the mortgage and adverse claim.

Bagasao’s Defense and Supporting Evidence

• In his answer to the complaint dated October 10, 1978, Bagasao argued that:
• Even though ownership had been lawfully conveyed to his wife, the adverse claims against the sale implied that the lot rightfully remained with Aggalut.
• Juanita Gonong had, therefore, rescinded the sale by way of reconveyance, which Bagasao substantiated by attaching a deed of resale and reconveyance as Annex A—a document he contended revealed Aggalut’s alleged malice in filing the complaint.
• Bagasao supported his defense with the affidavits of:
• Bruno Organista, who claimed that he was tasked by Aggalut to find a buyer for Lot No. 636, identifying Juanita Gonong as the interested party.
• Saturnino Galapon, who stated that he prepared the deed of confirmation wherein Aggalut appeared before the Municipal Judge.

Resolution in Related Litigation and Final Developments

• In Civil Case No. 2585 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, Dulay filed suit against the Bagasao spouses for the cancellation of their title to Lot No. 636.
• The dispute was settled amicably in favor of Dulay:
• The title in the name of Juanita Gonong was canceled.
• A new title was issued in favor of Dulay.
• Aggalut executed a quitclaim of his purported rights to the lot and, assisted by Dulay’s counsel, withdrew his complaint against Bagasao.
• Fiscal Vigilia remarked that Aggalut did not come to court with clean hands, having no valid rights to Lot No. 636.
• Despite Aggalut’s withdrawal, Bagasao’s maneuvers and unethical conduct in attempting to manipulate the property’s title could not be overlooked, leading to severe reprimand and further disciplinary action.

Issue:

• Whether lawyer Mariano T. Bagasao committed gross misconduct through unethical and manipulative practices in connection with the transfer and registration of Lot No. 636.
• Whether the execution and notarization of the Deed of Confirmation of Sale with Absolute Quitclaim, which contained significant discrepancies and irregularities, amounted to fraud or misrepresentation.
• Whether the subsequent mortgage and the deed of reconveyance/resale, with its conflicting timelines and undisclosed details, undermined the validity of the property transactions.
• Whether Aggalut’s conduct, including his failure to present crucial evidence and his lack of clean hands, contributed to or mitigated the wrongdoings attributed to Bagasao.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)