ALFONSO VS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT separate titles to litigate to protect their rights.

In
addition, it was noted that petitioner "prima facie
BY: JUSTICE CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES appears to have exacted a substantial sum from one
Danilo Bonifacio to expedite the release [of] a
certificate of title
FACTS  Its own examination of the records, the CA added, did
 Petitioner Yolanda O. Alfonso (petitioner), then the not justify a departure from the rule that factual
register of deeds of Caloocan City, was found findings of lower courts and quasi-judicial bodies
administratively liable for allegedly "acquiescing" to command great respect on appeal. Thus, with a lone
the change of the date of the registration of OCT No. dissent, that of CA Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, it
994 from May 3, 1917 to April 19, 1917, and for affirmed A.O. No.
making it appear that there were two OCT Nos. 994.
Consequently, she was dismissed from government
service for grave misconduct and dishonesty. HELD
 Alfonso issued OCT with May 3, 1917 as date of
 The facts on record, moreover, show that petitioner
registration to Phil-Ville.
had knowledge of circumstances that suggested the
 Consequently, upon command of Norberto Vasquez existence of an irregularity.
(former Deputy Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan City)
 First. On March 20, 1996, petitioner had, by letter,
and order of Judge Discaya, she issued OCT in favor
referred to the LRA Legal Department the application
or Rivera with April 19, 1917 as date of registration
of Ms. Roqueta Dimson for the issuance of the
 Phil-Ville’s letter-complaint led to the conduct of an certificate of title on Lot 23-A of the Maysilo estate,
inquiry by the Senate Committees on Justice and in which Dimson had contended that all previously-
Human Rights, and on Urban Planning, Housing and issued titles which were derived from OCT No. 994
Resettlement. dated May 3, 1917 were void ab initio.
 On May 25, 1998, the joint committees submitted  Second. Petitioner wrote Phil-Ville a letter dated
Senate Committee Report No. 103120 which found, September 20, 199641 in which she categorically
among other things, that (1) "there is only one stated that OCT No. 994 was issued pursuant to
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 and this Decree No. 36455 dated April 19, 1917, and the date
was issued or registered on May 3, 1917," (2) OCT of transcription of said decree at the Office of the
No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 is "non-existent" for Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal was May 3, 1917.
being "a fabrication perpetrated by Mr. Norberto
 Third. As CA Justice Agcaoili had correctly observed
Vasquez, Jr. [(Vasquez, Jr.)], former Deputy
in his dissent, "petitioner had previously issued
Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan City," and (3)
certificates of title in the names of other individuals
petitioner "acted maliciously, fraudulently and in bad
reflecting the true date of issue of OCT No. 994, the
faith, when she signed the TCTs issued in the name
mother title, i.e., May 3, 1917
of Rivera which bear a wrong date of registration x x
 Petitioner is liable too for dishonesty defined in Civil
x." The Senate committees recommended that
Service Commission v. Cayobit58 as ". . . the
administrative cases be filed against petitioner,
concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact
Vasquez, Jr. and "all those involved in illegal and
relevant to one’s office or connected with the
irregular land titling."
performance of his duty."
 On the basis of Senate Committee Report No. 1031
 It goes without saying that by failing to prevent the
and Phil-Ville’s complaint, the LRA initiated
irregularity that she had reason to suspect all along or
Administrative Case No. 98-07 for grave misconduct
to take immediate steps to rectify it, petitioner had
and dishonesty against petitioner and Vasquez, Jr.
tolerated the same and allowed it to wreak havoc on
who, as directed, filed separate
our land-titling system. Sadly, that confusion
explanations/comments to the charges against them.
continues to rear its ugly head to this day.
 On November 29, 1999, the OP issued
Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 99,24 ordering
the dismissal of petitioner. It found that petitioner
had undermined the integrity of the Torrens system
by disregarding certain provisions of the law and had
virtually compelled certain individuals holding