Ortigas Plaza Development Corporation vs. Tumulak

A lawyer who facilitates the forcible taking of property covered by a valid Torrens title, relying on a deed of assignment derived from a Spanish title already divested of legal force by statute and jurisprudence, commits misconduct violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and merits suspension from the practice of law.

Complainant Ortigas Plaza Development Corporation (OPDC) owned a parcel of land in Ortigas Avenue Extension, Pasig City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. PT-126797. Respondent Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak, a lawyer admitted to the Bar in 1971, claimed an interest in the property through a deed of assignment executed by Henry F. Rodriguez as administrator of the Estate of the late Don Hermogenes Rodriguez, pursuant to an amended decision in intestate proceedings docketed as S.P. No. IR-1110 before the RTC of Iriga City, Branch 34. The Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez had for decades pressed claims over numerous parcels of land throughout the country based on a Spanish title, the Titulo de Propriedad de Torrenos of 1891. The Supreme Court had already ruled, in cases tracing back to 2005, that such Spanish titles were divested of all legal force and effect by Presidential Decree No. 892, which discontinued the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law and required holders of Spanish titles to apply for Torrens registration within six months of its effectivity on February 16, 1976.

Complainant Ortigas Plaza Development Corporation (OPDC) owned a parcel of land located along Ortigas Avenue Extension, Pasig City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. PT-126797 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Rizal. On March 22, 2010, Henry F. Rodriguez, acting as court-appointed administrator of the Intestate Estate of the late Hermogenes R. Rodriguez and Antonio R. Rodriguez, executed a Deed of Assignment designating Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak as assignee of a parcel of land situated at Ortigas Avenue corner Raymundo Avenue, Barangay Rosario, Pasig City, measuring approximately 35,891 square meters. The deed recited that Rodriguez's authority derived from an Amended Decision dated August 13, 1999 of the RTC, Branch 34, Iriga City in Special Proceedings No. IR-1110, and that petitions for certiorari assailing that amended decision had been denied and declared final and executory in several G.R. numbers. Under the deed, the assignee was tasked with securing the property, initiating steps for its recovery, shouldering all related expenses, and performing acts of possession including fencing, guarding, surveying, selling, leasing, developing, segregating, and mortgaging.

Prior to the incident, Atty. Tumulak furnished several documents to OPDC, including the deed of assignment and records of the intestate proceedings in S.P. No. IR-1110, which involved claims of the heirs of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez to parcels of land situated across the country. At around 11:00 a.m. on November 29, 2012, uniformed guards of the Nationwide Security Agency, Inc., entered and took control of the entrance and exit of OPDC's property. The Sheriff of Manila, accompanied by Atty. Tumulak and a phalanx of security guards, delivered the RTC-Iriga, Branch 34 court documents to the complainant, after which the uniformed guards took over and controlled the gates of OPDC's offices with attendant force and intimidation. Atty. Tumulak denied being physically present when the security guards entered the property and claimed the entry was effected by the sheriff pursuant to a writ of execution.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that the deed of assignment bore no monetary consideration and showed no evidence of taxes paid, rendering it doubtful on its face. The court documents were issued by the RTC-Iriga City, Branch 34, yet purported to affect property located in Pasig City. The Sheriff of Pasig was not enlisted; instead, the Sheriff of Manila was used. The IBP also noted that the Supreme Court had already ruled in Evangelista vs. Santiago (2005) that the Spanish title of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez had been divested of all evidentiary value by Presidential Decree No. 892, and that the 2011 ruling in Pascual vs. Robles had affirmed the CA's setting aside of the amended decision in S.P. No. IR-1110 from which Atty. Tumulak derived his rights.

• Deceit and Dishonesty: Complainant charged Atty. Tumulak with deceit, dishonesty, and fraud for claiming to have coordinated with proper government agencies prior to the illegal and forcible intrusion.
• Res Judicata and Torrens Title: Complainant maintained that as a lawyer, Atty. Tumulak ought to know that his principal's claim was barred by res judicata due to the valid issuance of a Torrens title in OPDC's name, and that his conduct constituted conduct unbecoming of a lawyer deserving of sanction.

• Denial of Physical Presence: Atty. Tumulak denied having been present when the security guards entered the complainant's property, insisting the allegations against him were pure hearsay because OPDC's representative, Ms. Montero, had no personal knowledge of the incident.
• Source of Documents: He maintained that the documents he furnished to the complainant were records of the intestate proceedings involving the Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez, that he had no hand in procuring them, and that he did not himself enter the property.
• Sheriff's Authority: He argued that the entry into the property was effected by the sheriff pursuant to a writ of execution.

• Professional Responsibility: Did Atty. Tumulak violate Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he facilitated the implementation of the writ of execution and the entry into the complainant's property?

• Professional Responsibility: Yes. Atty. Tumulak was found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for circumventing existing laws and disregarding settled rulings to commit injustice against the complainant, and was suspended from the practice of law for two years.

• Professional Responsibility: The Court adopted the IBP Commissioner's findings, which enumerated multiple violations. First, as a lawyer admitted to the Bar in 1971, Atty. Tumulak was presumed to know that property claims based on Spanish titles could no longer be cited as legitimate basis for ownership after February 16, 1976, by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 892, which discontinued the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law and divested Spanish titles of legal force and effect. Second, the Court had already ruled in Evangelista vs. Santiago (2005) that the Spanish title of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez—the Titulo de Propriedad de Torrenos of 1891—had been divested of any evidentiary value, and in Santiago vs. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (2006), the Court applied the principle of stare decisis to deny the successors' claims. Third, the 2011 ruling in Pascual vs. Robles affirmed the CA's setting aside of the amended decision in S.P. No. IR-1110, from which Atty. Tumulak derived his rights. Fourth, the deed of assignment was doubtful on its face: it bore no monetary consideration, showed no evidence of taxes paid, and was issued by a court in Iriga City purporting to affect property in Pasig City. Fifth, a Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally but only in a principal action; the proper remedy was to file an action to annul OPDC's title, not to forcibly enter the property with armed security guards. Sixth, Atty. Tumulak could not shield himself from personal responsibility behind the deed of assignment, as his duties thereunder expressly included securing, possessing, fencing, and guarding the property, and he had been discharging this role since March 22, 2010—more than two years before the November 29, 2012 intrusion—making it reasonably presumed that he coordinated all actions leading to it. Even assuming the amended decision was valid and enforceable, he could not legitimately resort to forcible intrusion; the appropriate action was to cause the annulment of the complainant's title through proper judicial channels.

• Torrens System and Spanish Titles — Presidential Decree No. 892 discontinued the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law and declared all lands recorded under that system, not yet covered by Torrens title, as unregistered lands. Holders of Spanish titles had six months from effectivity (February 16, 1976) to apply for Torrens registration; thereafter, Spanish titles could no longer be used as evidence of land ownership in any registration proceeding. The Court applied this to find that Atty. Tumulak's claim, derived from the Spanish title of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez, had no legal basis.

• Stare Decisis — When the applicable laws, issues, and testimonial and documentary evidence are identical to those in a prior ruling, the principle of stare decisis bars any attempt to relitigate the same issue. The Court applied this doctrine as established in Santiago vs. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, where the claims of the successors of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez were denied because they were identical to those already rejected in Evangelista vs. Santiago.

• Torrens Title Cannot Be Collaterally Attacked — A Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally but can only be questioned in a principal action. The Court held that if Atty. Tumulak believed OPDC's title was questionable, he should have filed an action to annul the title rather than resorting to self-help with armed security guards.

• Lawyer's Duty to Respect Law and Legal Processes — Under the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer must uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, promote respect for law and legal processes, and must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, nor counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law. A lawyer's personal deference to the law is a continuing condition for retaining membership in the Legal Profession.

• Presumption of Legal Knowledge — A lawyer, especially a long-time practitioner, is presumed to know developments in jurisprudence and statutes relevant to his or her dealings. Atty. Tumulak, admitted to the Bar in 1971, was presumed to know the rulings in Evangelista vs. Santiago, Santiago vs. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, and Pascual vs. Robles, as well as the effect of P.D. No. 892 on Spanish titles.

• "A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act that warrants disciplinary action against him or her." — This passage articulates the principle that a lawyer's professional duty extends beyond personal compliance to include refusal to facilitate or abet a client's unlawful objectives, forming part of the ratio for imposing disciplinary sanctions.

• "Members of the Bar are reminded, therefore, that their FIRST Duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather than to seek exceptions as loopholes." — This statement encapsulates the Court's emphasis on a lawyer's primary obligation to adhere to established legal processes rather than exploit procedural gaps, directly relevant to the finding that Atty. Tumulak should have filed an annulment action instead of resorting to forcible entry.

• "The sworn obligation of every lawyer under the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility to respect the law and the legal processes is a continuing condition for retaining membership in the Legal Profession." — This passage defines the standard by which a lawyer's fitness to practice is measured, underscoring that compliance with the Lawyer's Oath is not a one-time act but an ongoing duty.

• Evangelista vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 744 — Controlling precedent. The Court ruled that the Spanish title of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez had been divested of all evidentiary value by P.D. No. 892, and enjoined the successors from presenting the Spanish title as proof of ownership in registration proceedings. The same modus—using a deed of assignment from the Estate—was identified as spurious.

• Santiago vs. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, G.R. No. 156888, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 283 — Followed. The Court denied the petition of the successors of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez by applying the principle of stare decisis, as the facts, applicable laws, issues, and evidence were identical to those in Evangelista vs. Santiago.

• Pascual vs. Robles, G.R. No. 182645, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 573 — Followed. The Court affirmed the CA's decision setting aside the amended decision in S.P. No. IR-1110, the very proceedings from which Atty. Tumulak derived his rights via the deed of assignment.

• Jimenez vs. Francisco, A.C. No. 10548, December 10, 2014, 744 SCRA 215 — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer's personal deference to the law inspires public respect and obedience to the law.

• Chu vs. Guico, Jr., A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015, 745 SCRA 257 — Cited for the principle that a lawyer must act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the Legal Profession.

• Guarin vs. Limpin, A.C. No. 10576, January 14, 2015, 745 SCRA 459 — Cited both for the proposition that a lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme warrants disciplinary action, and as a reference point for the standard penalty of six months' suspension for violations of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, which the Court departed from in favor of the IBP's recommended two-year suspension.

• Presidential Decree No. 892 — Discontinued the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law and declared all lands recorded under that system, not yet covered by Torrens title, as unregistered lands. Holders of Spanish titles had six months from effectivity (February 16, 1976) to apply for Torrens registration under P.D. No. 1529; thereafter, Spanish titles could no longer be used as evidence of land ownership. Applied to establish that the Spanish title underlying Atty. Tumulak's deed of assignment had no legal force.

• Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Land Registration Decree) — The governing law for Torrens registration of land. Referenced as the proper procedure under which holders of Spanish titles should have applied for registration, and as the framework confirming that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes." Applied as the primary provision violated by Atty. Tumulak's conduct.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Applied to Atty. Tumulak's facilitation of the forcible intrusion and reliance on a spurious deed of assignment.

• Rule 1.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Applied to Atty. Tumulak's circumvention of settled jurisprudence and resort to self-help instead of judicial remedies.

• Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility — Referenced for the principle that a lawyer has the constant responsibility of keeping abreast of legal developments, supporting the presumption that Atty. Tumulak knew of the rulings adverse to his claimed rights.

• Lawyer's Oath — The sworn obligation to "support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein." Found to have been breached by Atty. Tumulak's misconduct.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Francis H. Jardeleza, Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Samuel R. Martires, Noel G. Tijam.