November 12, 2015
The Government Service Insurance System is arguing with the wrong reason the demand of damages from an aging member for the annotation of the title he pledged for a loan way back 42 years ago.
The reply to his first letter of demand was delayed because the management of the GSIS said it would have the matter studied by its legal department. The reply to the second letter was signed by Apollo M. Escarez, head of the real estate asset distribution and management office. Escarez could very well be a lawyer but his title does not seem to give him authority to approve or deny demands for damages.
His reply admits guilt by negligence. Escarez said: “We regret that we are not in a position to accede to this demand for damages. The transaction ... dates back to back in July 13 or 43 years ago. The GSIS personnel involved in the annotation of adverse claim is no longer connected with GSIS and, thus, except for averments in the Affidavit of Adverse Claim, we are unable to ascertain the circumstances leading to the annotation ... of the title.”
The allegation of inability to ascertain the circumstances “leading to the annotation” is most telling. Escarez was practically saying he or the GSIS does not know how the adverse claim was annotated on the back of the title of the property of the claimant. It could not even produce documents such as a stern warning the borrower an adverse claim would be annotated on title of the property if “overdue” obligation is not paid within the time the GSIS itself is duty bound to specify.
Yet, the records of the GSIS clearly show said annotation was made after the borrower paid the loan in full. He paid more than the value of the loan, suggesting he went into deep arrears and like all borrowers, had to be penalized for it with a bigger obligation. The borrower never argued that point. The record shows full payment was made during a period when the GSIS was implementing a program we might call condonation of penalties and other charges.
The claim for damages arose from what the borrower now claims to be embarrassment and shame the GSIS subjected him to with a buyer of the property. The borrower was never informed of such annotation believing his payment in full settled everything.
Sensibly the buyer of the property went to the register of deeds to verify whether the asset is encumbered or clean. He got the surprise of his life when he was shown by the Register of Deeds the title of the property had an adverse claim by the GSIS. How can a lender like the GSIS annotate the title of a borrower with an adverse claim when the records show the loan has been paid in full?
The buyer went to the GSIS and was told that indeed, there was an adverse claim on title of the property he was buying. He backed out. In fairness, the GSIS lifted the annotation but not before the word went around the property owner was trying to sell a piece of land that had an encumbrance.
Beyond admitting the title was indeed annotated and full payment was accepted, the GSIS cannot recall the circumstances that led to the annotation. Such inability is now being used by the GSIS as its defense for denying the claim for damages.
There must be other reasons acceptable to a common mind. The borrower claims there could be no valid reason for the adverse claim. His argument is simple. He paid the obligations in full many years before the annotation was made.
Strangely, the GSIS put the cart before the horse when it caused the annotation after full payment.
The GSIS said it does not know what was inscribed on the back of the title. Its lame argument is the person who caused the annotation has long resigned. The GSIS now makes it appear the person was or is the only one who knew the circumstances. He must have left some documents. If he did, GSIS cannot find them.
Escarez now says “....there is nothing in the records that would explain the circumstances leading to the annotation of the adverse claim itself, signed and executed by Mr. Dela Vega on Jan. 12, 1981.” For 34 long years, the borrower having fully paid his obligation, continued to believe he could do whatever he wanted including selling the asset.
Manolo A. Dela Vega was the GSIS personnel involved in the annotation. He retired on Dec. 29, 1985. His retirement does not free the GSIS from the responsibility of knowing the circumstances that led to the annotation. Dela Vega caused the annotation long after the loan was fully paid. The GSIS does not seem to have a paper trail of Dela Vega’s decisions but acted swiftly to correct his mistake by telling the Register of Deeds to remove the adverse claim.
If the borrower had not decided to sell the property knowing his title was “quieted” by full payment, the annotation would have stayed on the back of the title forever. Or, as it happened, if he sold the land used to secure the loan. In which case, as repeatedly explained, the buyer would verify the status of the title before he parts with his money in payment of the sale.
The annotation was lifted not because the GSIS realized it committed a shameful mistake that embarrassed the borrower with a prospective buyer. The annotation would have stayed on the title if the borrower did not find a buyer who instinctively verified the title. The discovery of the annotation was made not by the ower but by the GSIS itself when a complaint was filed.
The GSIS aborted the sale when the buyer learned the title has an adverse claim. The action of the GSIS in removing the annotation is admission of an unnecessary, in fact willful error the owner now claims he is paying for with the unnecessary tainting of his reputation.
If the GSIS had a valid reason to cause the annotation it would argue its case to kingdom come. Its defense that it does not know the circumstances that led to the annotation is admission of guilt. The GSIS does not find any obligation to restore the integrity and reputation of a borrower whose name is said to be known name in the world of business and among powerful politicians maybe including President Aquino, although he is not a businessman.
The law punishes such negligence especially when it puts in doubt the reputation of a person.
* * * * *
email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
The reply to his first letter of demand was delayed because the management of the GSIS said it would have the matter studied by its legal department. The reply to the second letter was signed by Apollo M. Escarez, head of the real estate asset distribution and management office. Escarez could very well be a lawyer but his title does not seem to give him authority to approve or deny demands for damages.
His reply admits guilt by negligence. Escarez said: “We regret that we are not in a position to accede to this demand for damages. The transaction ... dates back to back in July 13 or 43 years ago. The GSIS personnel involved in the annotation of adverse claim is no longer connected with GSIS and, thus, except for averments in the Affidavit of Adverse Claim, we are unable to ascertain the circumstances leading to the annotation ... of the title.”
The allegation of inability to ascertain the circumstances “leading to the annotation” is most telling. Escarez was practically saying he or the GSIS does not know how the adverse claim was annotated on the back of the title of the property of the claimant. It could not even produce documents such as a stern warning the borrower an adverse claim would be annotated on title of the property if “overdue” obligation is not paid within the time the GSIS itself is duty bound to specify.
Yet, the records of the GSIS clearly show said annotation was made after the borrower paid the loan in full. He paid more than the value of the loan, suggesting he went into deep arrears and like all borrowers, had to be penalized for it with a bigger obligation. The borrower never argued that point. The record shows full payment was made during a period when the GSIS was implementing a program we might call condonation of penalties and other charges.
The claim for damages arose from what the borrower now claims to be embarrassment and shame the GSIS subjected him to with a buyer of the property. The borrower was never informed of such annotation believing his payment in full settled everything.
Sensibly the buyer of the property went to the register of deeds to verify whether the asset is encumbered or clean. He got the surprise of his life when he was shown by the Register of Deeds the title of the property had an adverse claim by the GSIS. How can a lender like the GSIS annotate the title of a borrower with an adverse claim when the records show the loan has been paid in full?
The buyer went to the GSIS and was told that indeed, there was an adverse claim on title of the property he was buying. He backed out. In fairness, the GSIS lifted the annotation but not before the word went around the property owner was trying to sell a piece of land that had an encumbrance.
Beyond admitting the title was indeed annotated and full payment was accepted, the GSIS cannot recall the circumstances that led to the annotation. Such inability is now being used by the GSIS as its defense for denying the claim for damages.
There must be other reasons acceptable to a common mind. The borrower claims there could be no valid reason for the adverse claim. His argument is simple. He paid the obligations in full many years before the annotation was made.
Strangely, the GSIS put the cart before the horse when it caused the annotation after full payment.
The GSIS said it does not know what was inscribed on the back of the title. Its lame argument is the person who caused the annotation has long resigned. The GSIS now makes it appear the person was or is the only one who knew the circumstances. He must have left some documents. If he did, GSIS cannot find them.
Escarez now says “....there is nothing in the records that would explain the circumstances leading to the annotation of the adverse claim itself, signed and executed by Mr. Dela Vega on Jan. 12, 1981.” For 34 long years, the borrower having fully paid his obligation, continued to believe he could do whatever he wanted including selling the asset.
Manolo A. Dela Vega was the GSIS personnel involved in the annotation. He retired on Dec. 29, 1985. His retirement does not free the GSIS from the responsibility of knowing the circumstances that led to the annotation. Dela Vega caused the annotation long after the loan was fully paid. The GSIS does not seem to have a paper trail of Dela Vega’s decisions but acted swiftly to correct his mistake by telling the Register of Deeds to remove the adverse claim.
If the borrower had not decided to sell the property knowing his title was “quieted” by full payment, the annotation would have stayed on the back of the title forever. Or, as it happened, if he sold the land used to secure the loan. In which case, as repeatedly explained, the buyer would verify the status of the title before he parts with his money in payment of the sale.
The annotation was lifted not because the GSIS realized it committed a shameful mistake that embarrassed the borrower with a prospective buyer. The annotation would have stayed on the title if the borrower did not find a buyer who instinctively verified the title. The discovery of the annotation was made not by the ower but by the GSIS itself when a complaint was filed.
The GSIS aborted the sale when the buyer learned the title has an adverse claim. The action of the GSIS in removing the annotation is admission of an unnecessary, in fact willful error the owner now claims he is paying for with the unnecessary tainting of his reputation.
If the GSIS had a valid reason to cause the annotation it would argue its case to kingdom come. Its defense that it does not know the circumstances that led to the annotation is admission of guilt. The GSIS does not find any obligation to restore the integrity and reputation of a borrower whose name is said to be known name in the world of business and among powerful politicians maybe including President Aquino, although he is not a businessman.
The law punishes such negligence especially when it puts in doubt the reputation of a person.
* * * * *
email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
source: Malaya
No comments:
Post a Comment