CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas dismissed the criminal and administrative case against Badian Municipal Assessor Lourdes Ylaya.
“It is hereby resolved that the instant case against Ylaya be dismissed for being premature, without prejudice to the outcome of the appropriate remedy that complainant may avail of before the civil courts,” Graft investigator Pio Dargantes said in his report.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by one Jellen Osalla.
Osalla said she was the attorney-in-fact of her father, Jesus Longinos, who owns certain properties.
One of the properties was the parcel of land in Badian covered by Transfer of Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 5968.
In January 2002, there was a case filed in relation to the ownership of the said parcel of land but it was dismissed after parties involved settled the matter amicably in May 2007.
However, Osalla later discovered that the lot covered by TCT No. 5968 was transferred to the name of Pablo, her brother.
Osalla alleged that in October 2006, TCT No. 29541 was issued in favor of her brother and Ylaya also approved the issuance of tax declaration No. 07-0004-02648.
“Complainant claims that the transfer to the name of Pablo is anomalous because the purported deed of sale was not notarized and that at the time of the transfer on October 2006, the subject property was still under attachment and therefore under the custody of the court,” the complaint reads.
But Dargantes said the issue over the validity of the issuance of a land title was civil in nature and that the court has the primary jurisdiction over the matter.
“This Office will not dip its fingers into the matter of the rights of the parties under the circumstances that can be better threshed out in a proper civil case,” the evaluation report reads.
Dargantes said the criminal and administrative liability of the respondent can only be determined after the court’s ruling whether or not the issuance of tax declaration in favor of Pablo was legal.
“Unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction rules that the herein respondent acted arbitrarily, it would be premature for this Office to pass upon the complaint at hand on the ground of prejudicial question,” the evaluation report further reads. (FREEMAN)