AS I SEE IT
‘Mother of all land titling scandals’ (2)
(Continued from last Wednesday)
MANILA, Philippines — Claimant Jose Dimson was also able to get a favorable but highly questionable decision from the Court of First Instance of Rizal which awarded “whatever remains of Lots 25-A, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Maysilo Estate” to him.
Subsequently, Lot 26 found its way into the hands of CLT Realty Development Corp. But as Lot 26 is owned by the Manotoks through expropriation proceedings, they have questioned the awarding of the lot to Dimson and subsequently to CLT.
Instituting civil cases for recovery of possession of his property against AIA and the Manotoks, Dimson was able to get the Caloocan RTC, in 1993, to order AIA and the Manotoks to vacate the property. The basis of the order was the presentation by Dimson of a copy of OCT 994 with an earlier date than the OCT 994 submitted by AIA. Dimson’s copy of OCT 994 was dated April 19, 1917 while AIA’s was dated May 3, 1917.
Following a decision in MWSS vs CA, in which the Supreme Court said that where there are two TCTs over the same land the earlier date prevails, the Caloocan RTC upheld Dimson’s title.
The Court of Appeals sustained the lower court’s decision, and even the Supreme Court, on a petition for review, upheld the Court of Appeals saying it is bound by the findings of fact of the lower court because it is not a trier of facts. But what if the facts are wrong, as in this case? OCT 994 dated April 19, 1917, which was upheld by the lower court, was found out later to be fake.
The Manotoks have also raised the following arguments:
(1) OCT 994 dated May 3, 1917 is the real OCT as it has been upheld by the LRA, the DOJ, the Senate and the Caloocan Register of Deeds. And now with the Supreme Court itself dismissing the two registrars of deeds who illegally changed the date of registration of Dimson’s title to April 19, 1917, it is clear which claimant really owns the land.
(2) The Manotoks have a superior right of ownership because their title emanates from the Republic of the Philippines itself in whom paramount title to the land has been vested by expropriation. And even if the title by expropriation is discounted, the Manotok title can still be traced to OCT 994 dated May 3, 1917.
(3) The issue of whether or not only one valid OCT 994 was issued is of transcendental importance of which the Supreme Court should take cognizance because it involves a total of 1,660 hectares of prime land in Caloocan, Malabon and Quezon City where now stand various commercial buildings, high-rise condos, residential houses, schools and public buildings.
(4) The MWSS case does not apply to the present case because no pronouncement on the validity of Dimson’s petition before the Caloocan CFI was made by the Court because AIA was not a party in the MWSS case and the issues raised in the MWSS case are different.
(5) Dimson’s title was irregularly issued because it was made without the presentation of the owner’s duplicate TCT of the transferor (Section 55, Land Registration Act) and corresponding subdivision plan approved by the Bureau of Lands or the LRA.
(6) It is highly improbable that Dimson’s title came from OCT 994 because as early as 1920, the Maysilo Estate had already been partitioned and distributed to the different owners as shown in the cases of Bustamante vs Tuazon (47 PR 433), Dizon vs Rivera (48 PR 996), Republic vs Gonzales (94 PR 696) and Garcia vs CA (35 SCRA 380).
(7) In at least three cases pending in different courts, two in the Supreme Court and one in the Court of Appeals, the title of Dimson has been established to be spurious, nonexistent, fraudulent and of impossible origin (Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp. vs CLT Realty Development Corp.-CA-GR CV 52606, Feb. 27, 2003; Alfonso vs Office of the President and Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp.-GR 150091; and Republic of the Philippines vs Lilia Sevilla and Jose Seelin-CA GR CV 68299).
The Supreme Court will decide on the fate of some 300,000 individuals who have been in peaceful possession of their properties within the Maysilo Estate as well as major government institutions that have certain legal rights over the estate. The major institutions affected include government lands (450 hectares) from the Bonifacio Monument to portions of the North Expressway up to Edsa and MacArthur Highway; private institutions like the Manila Central University, De La-Salle Araneta University, and University of the East, private commercial buildings like the Ever Grand Central, Araneta Square, Bonifacio Market, Eternal Gardens Memorial Park and at least 64 barangays in Caloocan alone.
Already, unscrupulous groups have been threatening and harassing legitimate dwellers, property owners and taxpayers within the estate.
But the Supreme Court decision on the registrars of deeds should be enough basis for the tribunal to put an end once and for all to the legal battle and uncertainties over the Maysilo Estate. It is easy to determine which of the two claimants have a better right to the property. Dimson’s claim has no legal standing whatsoever, as the Supreme Court itself has declared that the OCT from which he is basing his claim to ownership is a spurious, falsified document.
It is now obvious that Dimson and those claiming under him have no legal basis to claim ownership of the Maysilo Estate. They should not be allowed to wreak havoc on our land titling system.
