Lawyer faces swindling raps

CEBU, Philippines - For allegedly pretending to be a co-owner of a lot and inducing persons to enter into a contract of lease with him, acting Talisay City prosecutor Aida Sanchez recommended the filing of charges for other forms of swindling against lawyer Raul Sesbreño.

In her two-page resolution, Sanchez reversed and set aside the joint-resolution penned by then acting Talisay City prosecutor Alexander Acosta stating the respondent was a co-owner of the lot in Barangay Lawaan, Talisay City.

“The undersigned agrees with the resolution insofar as to the finding that the case may not fall under the provisions of Article 315 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, but disagrees to the finding Sesbreño is a co-owner of the subject land,” the resolution reads.

Sanchez said under the Civil Code the claim for attorney’s fees can “never ripen” into an ownership or co-ownership over real property.

“Our Civil Code is very clear on the matter of the modes of acquiring ownership over real property and the claim of attorney’s fees is not one of them. Until such time that there is a Supreme Court decision that says otherwise, that would clearly support the respondent’s contention,” the resolution further read.

Earlier, Ma. Rosario Borromeo and Camil Borromeo filed a motion for reconsideration seeking the reversal of the joint-resolution penned by Acosta stating Sesbreño was a co-owner of the subject lot.

They claimed Acosta committed a mistake.

“The first and foremost error cited is the determination of said prosecutor that respondent Sesbreño is a co-owner of the subject land corollary to the writ of execution issued in the respondent’s favor in connection with the award for attorney’s fees,” the motion read.

In his opposition, Sesbreño claimed the actions of the complainants in filing the said motion was “a form of harassment”.

He alleged the complainants “are suspected to be among the masterminds who financed the hiring of a gun-for-hire” in the ambush of his wife Virginia and two others at South Coastal Road on February 1, 2012.

Moreover, Sesbreño claimed co-ownership of the lot owned by the Borromeos by virtue of being a lawyer of more then one child/grandchild of Vito Borromeo --the original owner of the property.

As proof, Sesbreño cited certificates of title and was given a copy of TCT Nos. T-28072 and T-28068.

In her resolution, Sanchez said although she sympathized with Sesbreño over the death of his wife and two others she was not convinced by the latter’s arguments.

Upon evaluation of the resolution penned by Acosta, she said the latter forgot the provisions of Republic Act 386 regarding the modes of acquiring ownership over real property.

She said based on the claims of attorney’s fees it will not apply to the modes of acquiring ownership over real property.

“It is true that he is lawyer of maybe more than one of the co-owners and that he has a lien over the property of his clients, but this does not give him a right as co-owner of the properties in question, and more importantly, his lien does not vest upon him the rights granted to a co-owner under Art. 486 of the Civil Code,” her resolution read. - THE FREEMAN