Facts:

The case involves ASB Realty Corporation (petitioner) and Policarpio L. Espenesin (respondent), who served as the Register of Deeds of Pasig City. The dispute originated from a complex real estate scenario involving a condominium project initially called the ASB Malayan Tower, which became inactive due to the financial troubles of ASB Realty. The firm filed a Petition for Rehabilitation with the Securities and Exchange Commission, leading to a subsequent Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed on April 30, 2002, with Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (MICO). Under the MOA, MICO was to complete the unfinished construction. Despite numerous units initially earmarked for ASB Realty, adjustments were made, reducing the number of units to 39, which included several condominium titles.

On March 11, 2015, the respondent issued 36 Condominium Certificates of Title (subject CCTs) under ASB Realty’s name. However, ASB later discovered that the names on these certificates had been altered to tha

...

Facts:

Background of the Parties and the Condominium Project

• ASB Realty Corporation, the petitioner, is the former developer of a condominium project originally known as the ASB Malayan Tower.
• Owing to financial difficulties, ASB Realty encountered problems that led it to file a Petition for Rehabilitation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
• To address the halted project, on April 30, 2002, ASB Realty entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (MICO).
• Under the MOA, MICO assumed the role of developer to complete the project, which was later renamed the Malayan Plaza.
• ASB Realty was entitled to a share in the net saleable areas contributing to the construction cost and was allocated several units/parking spaces as detailed in various schedules (Schedule I, III, and IV) of the MOA.

Allocation and Reconfiguration of Condominium Units

• Originally, Schedule 4 of the MOA reserved 53 units and 38 parking spaces for ASB Realty; however, due to a consolidation of smaller units into bigger ones, the reserved units were reduced to 39.
• The specific unit numbers reserved for ASB Realty were listed in the MOA, reflecting adjustments made to the project’s configuration.

Issuance of Certificates of Title

• On March 11, 2015, the Register of Deeds of Pasig City issued 36 Condominium Certificates of Title (CCTs) in the name of ASB Realty Corporation, covering the units reserved for it.
• The certificates detailed unit numbers and corresponding CCT numbers, explicitly identifying ASB Realty as the titleholder at the time of issuance.

Discovery of Alteration and Initiation of Administrative Complaint

• ASB Realty later discovered that its name had been erased from the subject CCTs. Instead, the name of MICO replaced that of ASB Realty in the records maintained by the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pasig City.
• Relying on Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, which prohibits the alteration, erasure, or amendment of a certificate of title without a court order, ASB Realty filed a complaint:
• For falsification of documents under Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code.
• For violation of Section 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019.
• The complaint was initially filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Respondent’s Conduct and Justification

• Policarpio L. Espenesin, the respondent and the Register of Deeds of Pasig City, altered the CCTs upon the representation of Atty. Francis Serrano, who acted as the representative for both MICO and, at times, ASB Realty.
• In his counter-affidavit, Espenesin claimed that his actions were a correction of errors made prior to the completion of the entries in the Registration Book.
• He maintained that his conduct was in good faith and performed within the scope of his functions, arguing that altering entries before formal registry recording was permissible.

Judicial and Administrative Proceedings

• In a Joint Decision dated December 20, 2007, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint due to lack of substantial evidence, reasoning that the prohibition under P.D. No. 1529 applied only after the entry of the certificates in the registration book.
• ASB Realty filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Ombudsman, which was denied.
• Subsequently, ASB Realty elevated its grievances by filing a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA).
• The CA, in a Decision dated January 31, 2013, dismissed the petition, siding with the conclusion that:
• The alterations were made before the certificates were entered into the registration book.
• The respondent acted in good faith, merely correcting errors.
• The issue of ownership was premature for adjudication in the administrative forum.

Related Proceedings in the Ampil Case

• Parallel to this case, Ampil, an unsecured creditor of one of ASB Realty’s corporations, filed similar complaints against Espenesin.
• In G.R. Nos. 192685 (criminal aspect) and 199115 (administrative aspect), dated July 31, 2013, the Court ruled that:
• Espenesin’s act of altering the CCTs—by merely relying on Atty. Serrano’s representation—was a disregard of established land registration rules.
• The operative wrong was the signing of the CCTs without proper verification, essentially tampering with the record even if done prior to entry in the registration book.
• A prima facie case of graft was established against him under Sections 3(a) and (e) of R.A. No. 3019.
• Espenesin was found guilty of grave misconduct, resulting in his dismissal from service and the forfeiture of his retirement benefits.
• The finality of the Ampil decision raised the issue of res judicata regarding repeated litigation over the same set of facts.

Issue:

• Whether respondent Policarpio L. Espenesin, in his capacity as Register of Deeds, is administratively liable for altering the subject Condominium Certificates of Title.

Whether the alteration of the CCTs, done before the entry into the registration book and allegedly as a mere correction of errors, constitutes a violation of:

• Presidential Decree No. 1529.
• Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
• Whether the principle of res judicata applies, given the prior rulings in the Ampil case involving substantially similar facts and causes of action.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)