You are on page 1of 1

15. Ting-Dumali v.

Torres 427 scra 108

The parents of Isidra Ting-Dumali died intestate and they left several properties including two parcels of land Lot
1586 and Lot 1603 both in Malabon. Isidra has 5 other siblings.
In 1986 however, two of her siblings, Felicisima Ting-Torres and Miriam Ting-Saria, executed two Deeds of
Extrajudicial Settlement. They were assisted by Felicisima’s husband, Atty. Rolando Torres – who was also the
administrator of the Ting Estate. In the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement covering Lot 1586, they made it appear that
Felicisima and Miriam were the only heirs of the Tings. Atty. In the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement covering Lot
1603, the signature of Isidra was forged to make it appear that she was a party to the Deed. Torres then presented
the Deeds to the Registry of Deeds of Cavite for the purpose of transferring the titles into the name of Miriam and
Felicisima. Thereafter, Felicisima and Miriam sold the lands to a corporation.
Consequently, Isidra filed several complaints. One of the complaints is this disbarment case against Atty. Torres.
Torres, in his defense, averred that he acted in good faith in allowing his wife and Miriam to execute the Deeds; that
he thought that the Deeds were agreed to by the other siblings pursuant to a toka or verbal will left by Isidra’s
mother and as implemented by their eldest brother, Eliseo Ting; that the exclusion of the other heirs was merely an
Isidra denied the existence of the toka. Eliseo also said there was no such toka.

ISSUE: Whether or not Torres should be disbarred for allowing the exclusion of the other heirs from the Deeds of
Extrajudicial Settlement despite his knowledge of their presence.
Yes. He violated his oath as he engaged in deceitful conduct. He has committed falsehood. By letting his wife and
Miriam declare in a public document that they are the only heirs to the estate when in fact there are other
compulsory heirs and then later presenting these Deeds to the Registry of Deeds, Atty. Torres failed to advise that
the two were doing acts contrary to law. He participated in the making of these Deeds as well as to the subsequent
transactions involving the sale of the properties covered by the Deeds. His acts facilitated a wrong against the other