Republika ng Pilipinas G3 - 1950 (Repuhie of the Phir pine Kagawaran ng Kat2-ungan (Department ai Juntive) PAMBANSANG KAWANIHAN NG PAGSISIYASAT (NATIONAL RUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) ‘Tangzapan ng Pateugot {Otfiee af the Dreier) IB OF June 2004 Atty. JACINTO G. FAIAR6HO. Jacinto Law Office 7” Flr, Cityland Condominium to, Tower 2, Ayala Ave, Makati City Re: Your complaint against Subject CRISPULO VERNANDEZ, Dem Atty. FAJARDO, On 24 October 2203, our Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division (AFCUD) transmitted its findings to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal, Pasig Cily with the recommendation that Subject CRISPULO FERNANDEZ be prosecuted {in Falsification of Public Document. Very truly yours, — 7 G. wycoco, ctor menfhouiesRepublika ng Pilipinas (Republic of the Philippines) ‘Kagawaran ng Katarungan (Department of Justice) PAMBANSANG KAWANIHAN NG PAGSISIYASAT (NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) ‘Mayall THE’ PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR Pasig City RE: GRISPULO FERNANDEZ JR. (ola Respectfully transmitted herewith are the investigation report and corresponding annexes prepared by Special Investigator WALDO R. PALATTAO JR. of this Bureau's Anti- Fraud and Computer Crimes Division, pursuant to the letter-complaint of JACINTO G. FAJARDO of JACINTO LAW OFFICE with office address at 7* Floor Cityland Condominium 10, Tower 2, Ayala Ave., Makati City with the recommendation for the conduct of PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION against CRISPULO M. FERNANDEZ JR of 317 Mabini St,, Cainta, Rizal for FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code.. Early advice of the action taken hereon direct to our Statistics Di appreciated, Very truly yours, GEN. REYNALDO G, WYCOCO Director Chief, Anti Fraud and Computer Crimes DivisionNBI Form 19 NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DISPOSITION FORM. ‘When answering please refer : SECURITY CLASSIFICATION(IF ANY) to Correspondence Entry No.: FILE NO. : SUBJECT/S: UNKNOWN AFCCD CASE NO: C-01-054-03 : (Alleged LAND FRAUD) NBI-CCN-C-03-00555 2 as FR: DATE: Cc: Chief, AFCCD SIWR PALATTAO 10 Oct. 2003 o1. This pertains to the letter of ATTY. JACINTO G. FAJARDO JR, of FAJARDO LAW OFFICES with address at 7" Floor Cityland Condominium 10, Tower 2, ‘Ayala Ave., Makati City requesting investigative assistance relative to the questionable transfer or conveyances of the titles previously registered in the names of EXEQUIEL AMPIL and PRISCILA MONZON, thereby depriving their direct descendants the enjoyment thereof. There were ‘attempts to recover the said titles; but were hindered by the inaccessibility to pertinent records on file with the Register of Deeds of Pasig, and the Land Registration Authority. (Please see Letter, Ammex A) Per C-2 of the Chief, Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division, aforesaid letter was referred to this Investigator for investigation and report. Investigation disclosed that during: the lifetime of complainant's great grandfather, the late AMPIL, he acquired a vast tract of lands in Taytay, Cainta, Morong, and Antipolo ether by decom or He died however on December 4, 1936 without his family knowing the extent and location of his landholdings. Until in the year 1998 when his direct descendant, EXEQUIEL G. AMPIL, son of VICENTE AMPIL (son of the late EXEQUIEL AMPIL) and uncle of the complainant, came across with a certain Geodetic Engineer named VIRGILIO DUBLOIS who was looking for the beirs of the late EXEQUIEL AMPIL to get permission before he proceeds with his survey of the’ Valley Golf Course, portions of which are still in the name of the late EXEQUIEL AMPIL up td this date. With the information at hand, complainant started to unearth records after records which showed transfers, dispossessions and conveyances under anomalous and questionable circumstances. sce Annex B, Affidavit of JAMES FRANK y AMPIL)04, His quest for the landholdings of his great-grandfather finally paid off as he identified the three titles which were registered in his great grandfather’s name, viz: ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No. 2495, ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No. 2535 and ‘TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No. 8671. 05, For purposes of expediency, this Investigator would deal first with the ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No. 2495, the other titles to be discussed in a later or subsequent report. Hencetoforth: a. There were two sources where the said OCT No. 2495 emanated, and Complainant was able to trace it, i.e. from the vault and the archives of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Capitol, Pasig. It must be emphasized at this point that OCT No. 2495 from two sources had striking dissimilarities, which ought to have been one Original and the Owner's Duplicate Certificate’(carbon copy) of the same OCT No, 2495. For identification purposes, copy of both OCT No. 2495 which came from the vault and archives of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Capitol, Pasig are hereto attached and their corresponding differences duly highlighted and hereto attached marked as Annexes C-1 and C-2, b. The document appears bogus or counterfeit based on the following considerations, to wit: 1! First, on the upper hand left comer of the title (frontal portion) the line ‘Judicial Form No, 107° should be below the phrase ‘General Land Registration Office Form No. 38’. Second, below the line ‘Case No.’, the letter ‘e’ in the ‘Spanish phrase “El gxpendiente No.” should be in capital ‘E’. Third, on the lower right, below the line of ‘Judge of said Court’, it’s Spanish equivalent below should be like this: ‘Juez del citado- Juzgado’. There must be a wide gap between Juez and del. Per verification with the National Printing Office, there were no available records to confirm if the OCT (Judicial Form No. 107) in the year 1917, 1918 and 1919 were indeed printed by their office. It can be safely deduced therefore that the above-described OCT No. 2495, which is being kept on file by the Register of Deeds of Pasig, is a counterfeit title. (Please see Certification from National ‘Prititing Office, D) 2! The signature of LEONARDO GARDUNO of Registry of Deeds is also suspect when compared with his signature on OCT Nos. 916, 918, 958, 2494 and 2496, copy of which is hereto attached marked as Annexes E, E-i to E-4. * - (Refer this also to OCT No. 2500)3 ‘Questioned Document Division, this Bureau, is conducting document examination on the signature of LEONARDO GARDUNO to determine whether or not signatures appearing thereon were written by one and the same person. 3. Im the same vein, the signatures of EULALIO GARCIA of the Registry of Deeds are also suspect and accordingly were submitted for document examination at Questioned Document Division, this Bureau. 4. Prior encumbrance such as the mortgage executed by Sr. ELIGIO RAYMUNDO dated September 17, 1923 was strangely not annotated at the back of the title. Instead, ‘what appears thereon is the mortgage of ROSARIO CRUZ } DOMINGO as inscribed by EULALIO GARCIA in the ‘same title. Please see Mortgage, Annex F. 5. On page 3 beside Entry No, 1211 is the annotation of “VENTA A RETRO CON ARRENDAMIENTO’ allegedly executed by Sps. EXEQUIEL AMPIL and PRESCILA AMPIL in favor of FELISA_A.DE_AFABLE dated November 18, 1927 involving OCT No. 2500 and TCT No. 8671, Please see VENTA as Annex G. ‘An examination of the said Deed however showed that it was not signed by the alleged mortgagee, and therefore, casting doubts on its authencity and due execution. 6. On page 4 beside Entry No.’ 1784 is the annotation exchange of OCT No. 2500. This is highly anomalous transaction because there was no corresponding amendment to. the deed of mortgage. To further illustrate, a closer look at the notarial book of ATTY. FACUNDO SAN AGUSTIN showed that the names of the parties concemed were written in pencil and the nature of the document was left blank which onl indicates that there was no such transaction. Please see Request for Notarial and Other Records, Certification from National Archives and Notarial Register, hereto marked as ‘Annexes H. < 7._On page 4 beside Entry No. 6113 is the annotation of ‘HIPOTECA' (meaning “MORTGAGE") allegedly executed again by Sps. EXEQUIEL AMPIL and PRESCILA AMPIL in favor of FELISA A. DE AFABLE dated January 30, 1930, copy of which is hereto attached marked as Annex L4 This ploy is apparently intended to cover-up the anomaly committed with respect to the dubious ‘VENTA A RETRO CON ARRENDAMIENTO" and the ‘CANJEE’, both of which were discussed above. Noticeably, the document was notarized by ATTY. FACUNDO SAN AGUSTIN who was figured in questionable transaction. 8 On the same page 4 beside Entry No. 4462 is the annotation LITIS PENDENCIA dated November 11, 1934, Apparently, EXEQUIEL AMPIL filed a case against AFABLE upon discovery of the fraud perpetrated on OCT No, 2500 (see Annex J). At the back of OCT No. 2500, Entry numbers 1211 and 1784 were apparently fraudulent or non-existent transactions because the same entries were made ahead of AMPIL’s VENTA A RETRO, which is Entry No. 1133. Hence, it can be safely deduced that said entries were late insertions of what are obviously spurious transactions. 9. Also, on page 4 beside Entry No. 4618 is the annotation stating the cancellation ordered by the Court of First Instance dated November 3, 1934. It is highly irregular however that the names of the transferees of TCT Nos. 26513 and 26514 were not mentioned. Moreover, how could the Court is 1 orde: canceling OCT No. 2495 on the basis of a mere request when a complaint involving the property and covered by the same title had been filed by AMPIL just six days earlier? (pls. see attached Annex K)° This anomaly was unveiled upon the discovery of-an enlry in the Primary Entry Book, which states that in_favor of AMPIL, true copy of the same in the Primary Entry Book is hereto attached marked as Annex L. Strangely enough, of all the OCT NO.’s issued in the name of EXEQUIEL AMPIL numbering from 2494 up to 2500, only 2495 does not a have a copy of the decree. OCT Nos. 2494, 2496, 2497, 2498, 2499, 2500 have their respective decrees entered in the Book of Decrees. The Certification issued by the Land Registration Authority (see Annex M) to the effect that a decree for the said title was issued on May 18, 1918 without indicating however the decree number is vivid proof of the absence of decree. This missing copy of the decree is what is known as “BUNOT”.ANNEX ‘A-1’ 5 To cover up the scheme, the lot number earlier assigned to OCT No. 2495 was also used in another property. Thus, in the Bureau of Lands’ Cadastral Map, two separate and different properties are identified as Lot Na, 5, Plan 11-9979 (pls. see Annex N). This is highly anomalous since no two lots from a single plan have identical numbers, 5. Tracing back the title from its origin, there were five (5) transfers and consequently new certificate of titles were issued and released. Hence from OCT No. 2495, it was transferred in favor of FELIZE DE / (ICT No. 26746, hereto marked as Aunex 0) by virtue of a highly dubious and questionable court Order allegedly cancelling OCT No. 2495, when a complaint (Litis Pendentia) involving the same property and covered by the same title had been filed by Exequiel Ampil just six (6) days earlier. Thereafter, on account of a Deed of Absolute Sale, TCT No. 26746 was cancelled by TCT No. 27881, hereto attached marked as Annex P, registered in the names of ‘FLAVIANO REYES, married to PELAGIA RAYMUNDO. In 1946, another transfer was made, now issued in favor of RAYMUNDA FERNANDEZ, and was registered as TCT 784, copy of which is hereto marked as Q. In 1957, by virtue of Adjudication in favor of ) FERNANDEZ, TCT No. 54824 was issued i his name, copy of whi hereto marked as ‘Two years thereafter, CRISPULO FERNANDEZ SR. sold Lot No. $ of OCT No. 2495 to W. ICK & SONS INC., and TCT No. 65955 was issued in the latter's name (see ‘Annex 8): Then, some 17 years thereafter, Lot No. 6 of OCT No. 2495 ‘was transferred to his son, CRISPULO FERNANDEZ JR. by virtue of an alleged DEED OF SALE, now the latest land title which was inscribed as ‘Transfer Certificate of Title No. 493838 in the name of ‘CRISPULO M. FERNANDEZ JR. (pis see Annex T) It bears stressing however that it was around this time that CRISPULO FERNANDEZ SR. died. Through subpoena, CRISPULO FERNANDEZ JR. appeared before this command and was informed of the investigation at hand. He however claimed that what transpired between his greatgrandparents and the persons in charge with the Register of Deeds were not his wrongdoing. When asked to furnish this Investigator machine copies of the land transfer in his favor, he acceded but to date he has yet to comply. (Please see3 ‘Questioned Document Division, this Bureau, is conducting document examination on the signature of LEONARDO GARDUNO to determine whether or not signatures appearing thereon were written by one and the same person. 3. In the same vein, the signatures of EULALIO GARCIA Of the Registry of Deeds are also suspect and accordingly were submitted for document examination at Questioned Document Division, this Bureau. 4. Prior encumbrance such as the mortgage executed by Sr. ELIGIO RAYMUNDO dated September 17, 1923 was strangely not annotated at the back of the title. Instead, ‘what appears thereon is the mortgage of ROSARIO CRUZ } DOMINGO as inscribed by EULALIO GARCIA in the ‘same title. Please see Mortgage, Annex F. 5S. On page 3 beside Entry No. 1211 is the annotation of “VENTA A RETRO CON ARRENDAMIENTO’ allegedly executed by Sps. EXEQUIEL AMPIL and PRESCILA AMPIL in favor of FELISA A. DE AFABLE dated November 18, 1927 involving OCT No. 2500 and TCT No. 8671, Please see VENTA as Annex G, ‘An examination of the said Deed however showed that it was not signed by the alleged mortgagee, and therefore, casting doubts on its authencity and due execution. 6. On page 4 beside Entry No.’ 1784 is the annotation exchange of OCT No. 2500. This is highly anomalous transaction because there was corresponding amendment to. the deed of mortgage. further illustrate, a closer look at the notarial book ATTY. FACUNDO SAN AGUSTIN showed that names of the parties concemed were written in pencil and the nature of the document was left blank which onl indicates that there was no such transaction. Please see Request for Notarial and Other Records, Certification from National Archives and Notarial Register, hereto marked as ‘Annexes H. < 7._On page 4 beside Entry No. 6113 is the annotation of ‘HIPOTECA’ (meaning “MORTGAGE") allegedly executed again by Sps, EXEQUIEL AMPIL and PRESCILA AMPIL in favor of FELISA A. DE AFABLE dated January 30, 1930, copy of which is hereto attached marked as Aunex L4 This ploy is apparently intended to cover-up the anomaly committed with respect to the dubious ‘VENTA A RETRO CON ARRENDAMIENTO” and the ‘CANJEE", both of which were discussed above. Noticeably, the document was, notarized by ATTY. FACUNDO SAN AGUSTIN who was figured in questionable transaction. 8 On the same page 4 beside Entry No. 4462 is the annotation LITIS PENDENCIA dated November 11, 1934, Apparently, EXEQUIEL AMPIL filed a case against AFABLE upon discovery of the fraud perpetrated on OCT No, 2500 (see Annex J). At the back of OCT No. 2500, Entry numbers 1211 and 1784 were apparently fraudulent or non-existent transactions because the same entries were made ahead of AMPIL’s VENTA A RETRO, which is Entry No. 1133. Hence, it can be safely deduced that said entries were late insertions of what are obviously spurious transactions. 9. Also, on page 4 beside Entry No. 4618 is the annotation stating the cancellation ordered by the Court of First Instance dated November 3, 1934. It is highly irregular however that the names of the transferees of TCT Nos. 26513 and 26514 were not mentioned, Moreover, how could the 1 OF canceling OCT No. 2495 on the basis of a mere request when a complaint involving the property and covered by the same title had been filed by AMPIL just six days earlier? (pls. see attached Annex K)* This anomaly was unveiled upon the discovery of-an entry in the Primary Entry Book, which states that in favor of AMPIL, true copy of the same in the Primary Entry Book is hereto attached marked as Annex L. Strangely enough, of all the OCT NO.’s issued in the name of EXEQUIEL AMPIL numbering from 2494 up to 2500, only 2495 does not a have a copy of the decree. OCT Nos. 2494, 2496, 2497, 2498, 2499, 2500 have their respective decrees entered in the Book of Decrees. The Certification issued by the Land Registration Authority (see Annex M) to the effect that a decree for the said title was issued on May 18, 1918 without indicating however the decree number is vivid proof of the absence of decree. This missing copy of the decree is what is known as “BUNOT”.5 To cover up the scheme, the lot number earlier assigned to OCT No. 2495 was also used in another property. Thus, in the Bureau of Lands’ Cadastral Map, two separate and different properties are identified as Lot No, 5, Plan 11-9979 (pls. sce Annex N). This is highly anomalous since no two lots from a single plan have identical numbers, 6. Tracing back the title from its origin, there were five (5) transfers and consequently new certificate of titles were issued and released. Hence from OCT No. 2495, it was transferred in favor of FELIZE DE AFABLE (TCT No. 26746, hereto marked as Amnex Q) by virtue of a highly dubious and questionable court Order allegedly cancelling OCT No. 2495, when a complaint (Litis Pendentia) involving the same property and covered by the same title had been fited by Exequiel Ampil just six (6) days earlier. Thereafter, on account of a Deed of Absolute Sale, TCT No. 26746 was cancelled by TCT No, 27881, hereto attached marked registered in the names of FLAVIANO married to PELAGIA RAYMUNDO. In 1946, another transfer was made, now issued in favor of RAYMUNDA FERNANDEZ, and was registered'as TCT 784, copy of which is hereto marked as Fe 1957, by virtue of Adjudication in favor ) FERNANDEZ, TCT No. 54824 was is his name, copy of which is hereto marked as ‘Two years thereafter, CRISPULO FERNANDEZ SR. sold Lot No. 5 of OCT No. 2495 to W. ICK & SONS INC., and TCT No. 65955 was issued in the latter's name (see Annex S): Then, some 17 years thereafter, Lot No. 6 of OCT No. 2495 was transferred to his son, CRISPULO FERNANDEZ JR. by virtue of an alleged DEED OF SALE, now the latest land title which was inscribed as Transfer Certificate of Title No. 493838 in the name of CRISPULO M. FERNANDEZ JR. (pls see Annex T) It bears stressing however that it was around this time that CRISPULO FERNANDEZ SR. died. 7. ‘Through subpoena, CRISPULO FERNANDEZ JR. appeared before this command and was informed of the investigation at hand. He however claimed that what transpired between his greatgrandparents and the persons in charge with the Register of Deeds were not his wrongdoing. When asked to furnish this Investigator machine copies of the land transfer in his favor, he acceded but to date he has yet to comply. (Please see ‘Subpoena, Annex U).8. In view of considerable time without FERNANDEZ giving support of his claim over the questioned lot, verification was made and Certification dated 13 August 2003, was issued by the Register of Deeds of Pasig City. It disclosed that the document which is the basis for the issuance of TCT 493838 cannot be located among the available records of the registry despite diligent efforts. (Please see certification of RD-Pasig, Annex V) 9. Not contented with ihe certification so issued relative to the absence of documents as basis for transfer, verification was also made with the Records Management and Archives Office. Similar Certification was issued stating that there is no copy on file of a DEED OF SALE allegedly executed by CRISPULO FERNANDEZ SR. in favor of CRISPULO FERNANDEZ JR. and ratified on 25 June 1976 before CEFERINO M. CARPIO JR. a notary public for and within the City of Manila, acknowledged as Doc. No. 233, Page No. 48, Book No. 2, Series of 1976. (see Certification of Pambansang Sinupan, Annex W), OBSERVATION: 10. Viewed in the light of the foregoing circumstances, there exists a probable cause $0 warrant the filing of criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Document against CRISPULO FERNANDEZ, JR. Being in possession of a certificate of title, he is presumed to be the author of the falsification that made possible the transfer of title notwithstanding the absence of any direct evidence of his authorship (People vs. Domingo, 49 Phil. 28; Recebido vs, People, 346 SCRA 881). As the only person who stands to be benefited by the falsification of the document in his possession, the presumption works against him. On the matter of prescription, Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code explicitly states that the period of prescription “shall commence to run from the day on which the crime 7 be their agents, x x x” (underscoring supplied). Considering that the falsifitation was discovered just recently in the course of the. investigation, the ten-year prescriptive period has not yet lapsed. Hence, the timeliness of instant complaint,RECOMMENDATION: 11. A complaint for Falsification of Public Document as defined and penalized under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code be filed against CRIPULO FERNANDEZ, JR. before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal. Respectfully submitted: SA PALMER U. MALLARI SA MAMERTO CORTEZ SRA MARTINI CRUZ SI ROEL JOVENIR SLMARVIN VILLENA SI ROSAURO DANTIS SI GEORGE GABINETE SI WALDO R. PALATTAO JR. BY: w. .TTAO JR. SS \nth-Fraud and Comput NBI Crimes Division, Annexes: AS STATED