In an alleged attempt to cover up the
1978 Deed of Sale
forgery, Mario Alipayo and Silverio Gonzaga
create a second Deed of Absolute Sale in 1981.
In 2000 Silverio Gonzaga's
attorney submits his Answer to the Philippines
Civil Service Commission claiming that the 1978
Deed of Sale is a Forgery and the 1981 Deed of
Sale is the true instrument of transfer.
n the case
against Welia Alipayo for allegedly stealing Lot
2943-B, the Philippines Civil Service Commission
conducted an investigation into the actions of
Silverio Gonzaga, the buyer of Lot 2943-B from a
dead man who then sold it to Pelagio Alipayo.
According to the
court documents, the defendants submitted not
one but two fraudulent Deeds of Absolute Sale.
The first Deed
of Sale was fraudulent because the seller was a
man dead for more than 30 years and there was
not even a signature on it.
alleges that in an effort to cover up the fraud,
the defendants altered a second document which
they submitted to the court as proof that Mario
Alipayo legally sold Lot 2943-B to Silverio
Both the report
of the CSC and the Register of Deeds office
confirms that were were indeed two Deeds of
"While it is the contention of respondent Gonzaga that the real document in that entered by him as vendee and Mario Alipayo as vendor, and not that between him as vendee and Pablo Alipayo as vendor, this runs counter to the certification issued by Robert Rocha, Register of Deeds, that the latter is a true xerox copy of the original retained in the vault of the Register of Deeds. This leads us to the conclusion that the document marked as Exhibit "B" is the authentic copy while the one marked as Annex "3" is a mere scrap of paper without any
also went to state that until the conclusion of
their investigation they were not sure if it was
Silverio Gonzaga or the other "involved
parties" that committed the forgery.
In the end they
charged Silverio Gonzaga with a one year
suspension for his involvement in the forgery of
the first Deed of Absolute Sale. The charge was
later reduced to a shorter period on appeal.
So not only did
the defendants first use an alleged forged
document, but they then used a second forged
document to try to hide their first crime.
Civil Service Commission Resolution