Ownership since 1919

The lawful authorities should really go after these land-grabbing scammers. The Barque family have obviously forged their title to the land and therefore have forged a public document. And who are Rosendo Manahan and Felicitas Manahan? They should also be investigated for they claim to own the land which they have never set foot upon and therefore have forged land titles too.

http://www.malaya.com.ph/11182009/busicircuit.html

Ownership since 1919

The controversy over the 34-hectare prime property owned and occupied by the heirs of Severino Manotok since 1919 is far from over.

After the heirs of Homer Barque sought reconstitution on the ground that the original title was lost in a fire that hit the register of deeds office in the Quezon City hall, came the Manahans who have a similar claim but for a different reason.

If official records must be the basis for final awarding of ownership, it is clear that the land – formerly friar land and later identified as the Piedad Estate – belongs to the Manotoks.

Records submitted to the courts show that the Manotoks have been in possession of the land since 1919. They have been paying taxes on the property. They have introduced improvements and had been left alone in peace until the records of the register of deeds were burned.

That’s when the heirs of Barque claimed they own the land but they never set foot on the property. Least of all, had it guarded to prevent an invasion by squatters.

The original title of the Manotoks lost to the fire in 1988 was reconstituted in 1991. The title is identified as RT-22481.

Can another reconstituted title sought by the heirs of Homer Barque and the Manahans be issued on the same property? Only the Court of Appeals can answer the question. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the CA for fact-finding although the law is clear that judicial reconstitution is a sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

Weird case

The heirs of Barque first sought reconstitution of title with the Land Registration Administration. The petition was denied but later approved. The LRA claimed that title of the Manotoks as “sham and spurious.”

The Manotoks filed a motion for reconsideration. Denied.

Based on the LRA’s denial of the MR, the Manotoks and the Barques separately went to the Court of Appeals on petitions for review.

The petitions were dismissed separately by the CA.

On motion for reconsideration of the heirs of Homer Barque, the two divisions of the CA rendered identical amended decisions ordering the cancellation of the title of the Manotoks and directing the LRA to reconstitute the title in favor of the Barques.

I had thought that the CA would consolidate the two petitions. It did not. But it rendered identical decisions.

First time I ever heard two divisions of the Court of Appeals making identical rulings. The justices in two separate divisions happened to have the same mind.

The Manahans’ cause

The Manahans filed an intervention in September 2006. They claimed that they are the owners of Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, the same property occupied by the Manotoks since 1919.

They claimed that their successors in interest, Vicente Manahan, bought the property from the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and were issued Sales Certificate 511 covering Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate. They fortified their argument with the claim that the Land Management Bureau issued a Deed of Conveyance based on Assignment of Sales Certificate 511.

The Manotoks told the Court of Appeals that the Deed of Conveyance could not be issued because there is an existing certificate in the name of the Manotoks.

Their lawyer, a respected former member of the Supreme Court and considered a legal scholar, told the Court of Appeals that the title of the Manotoks can be traced – as there are records so proving – from the purchase of Zacarias Modesto, Regina Moreno, and Feliciano Villanueva of the same Lot 823 from the Philippine Government.

Are we now saying there were two buyers of the same lot 823? The Manahans claim their title is based on a Deed of Conveyance issued on April 17, 2000. On the other hand the title of the Manotoks came from a purchase of the same land by Zacarias Modesto, Regina Moreno, and Feliciano Villanueva from the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in 1919.

The Deed of Conveyance was issued 81 years after Modesto, Moreno and Villanueva bought the property from the government. This is mind boggling.

Is conveyance vital?

The Manahans claim that the title of the Manotoks is fictitious and spurious because, unlike them, they were not issued a deed of conveyance.

The lawyer of the Manotoks dispute this claim. He cited a long series of jurisprudence “that in the sale of friar lands, the purchaser, even before payment of the full price and before execution of the final deed of conveyance, is considered by law as the actual owner of the lot purchased under the obligation to pay in full the purchase price, the role or position of the government being that of a mere lien holder of mortgage.”

Following this jurisprudence, it is not the deed of conveyance that entitles one to ownership.

The lawyer explained to the Court that “while it is true that the government reserves title to any parcel sold until full payment, this must refer to the bare naked title.

“The equitable and beneficial title is transferred to the purchaser the moment he paid the first installment and was given a certificate of sale. Indeed, it is well-settled a deed of conveyance is not necessary given that ownership over the land vests upon the issuance of a certificate of sale.”

The fatal mistake

What to many lawyers was a fatal mistake in this case is the acceptance by the Court of Appeals of the appeal of the Manotoks and the heirs of Homer Barque.
Such acceptance denied the regional trial court its original and exclusive jurisdiction over judicial reconstitution.

At the risk of being cited for contempt, I dare say that it might have been more prudent for the appellate court to rule that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute to precisely because of a law that provides the RTC the exclusive and original jurisdiction over judicial reconstitution of land titles.

In the end, the Supreme Court en banc remanded the case to the CA, not for a ruling but to determine the facts of the case and submit a recommendation to the Highest Tribunal.

In effect, the case landed in the CA twice. First on appeal from the LRA which was first denied and later affirmed.

Now we have the same CA ordered by the Supreme Court to determine the facts. In effect, the CA took over – in fact, usurped the functions of the regional trial court which, it must be repeated, has exclusive and original jurisdiction.

Dispute over Piedad estate continues

Again, the scammer Teresita Barque-Hernandez is still trying to get away with land-grabbing and not even paying the court for any filing-fees. Only stupid people would believe her outrageous lies that she only knew about a multi-billion peso property when her father died and therefore she has never ever set foot on the property which she claims she owns. Again, it is outrageous that Teresita Barque-Hernandez’s sister burned the tax-receipts which are the only proof that they are paying taxes on the property. What a scam! What is the connection of businessman Cedric Lee to this land scam?

http://www.malaya.com.ph/11162009/metro4.html

<!–

By Peter J.G. Tabingo

–>A DAUGHTER of the late businessman Homer Barque testified over the weekend at the Court of Appeals that the disputed 34-hectare parcel of land in Rizal, known as the Piedad estate, has been with their family since 1975.

Lot 823, nestled in Culiat, Capitol Hills, Old Balara and the posh Ayala Heights in Quezon City, is covered by TCT No. 210177 issued to Barque. The lot’s value is now pegged at P3.4-billion.

Aside from the Barques, the heirs of Severino Manotok are also claiming the land.

The dispute between the two claimants was spawned by a fire in June 1988 that gutted the office of the Register of Deeds in Quezon City, which prompted the Manotoks to apply for the administrative reconstitution of the titles. The heirs of Barque did not oppose the application for administrative reconstitution and a reconstituted title was issued in 1991.

During cross examination last Friday, Teresita Barque-Hernandez told justices that the subject property was purchased by her father from a business associate named Emiliano Setosta out of his retirement funds and proceeds from their bus line business.

Hernandez admitted to Manotok counsel Roberto San Juan that she had no personal knowledge about the details of the property or its existence until 1991 when the Barque patriarch requested her shortly before he died to redeem the title from her grandmother Felicia Ventura.

San Juan who alleged that the certificate of title in Hernandez’s possession was spurious questioned why the Barque children never learned of or cared about the property until that time. He pointed out that Hernandez never visited the place even after her father’s death in 1991.

He also got Hernandez to admit that the Barques had no copies of any tax declaration receipts for the property. Hernandez said her younger sister Estrellita “who is already at the age of reason,” had burned the tax receipts.

The Manotoks, on the other hand, claimed that they have been religiously paying real estate taxes on the property from 1933 until the present.

The Manotoks’ lawyer claimed Hernandez’s failure to provide copies of the tax payments only proved that the Barques’ title is a forgery and that their proof of ownership is a sham.

The CA’s Special 15th Division is hearing the case after the Supreme Court issued a ruling on Dec. 18, 2008 restoring ownership of the parcel of land to the Manotoks.

In its December 2008 ruling, the SC remanded the 20-year-old land cases to the CA for further proceedings and reception of evidence, and turned down the arguments of the Barque heirs that raised factual issues in determining whether the Land Registration Administration had the authority to conduct administrative reconstitution proceedings.

The controversy in the Manotok-Barque land dispute is whether judicial reconstitution of title may be made administratively that ignores, if not violates, the law giving the RTC exclusive jurisdiction.

With this new ruling, the SC abandoned its First Division’s own Dec. 12, 2005 decision affirming the two rulings of the CA directing the Quezon City Register of Deeds to cancel the Manotok title, and ordering LRA to reconstitute the Barque title.–Evangeline C. de Vera

Complicating a simple case

http://www.malaya.com.ph/apr03/busi8.htm

Mistakes are costly and somebody must pay. The time to correct a mistake is before it is made. The causes of mistakes are, first, I didin’t know; second, I didin’t think; third, I didn’t care. * * * Complicating a simple case Probably because it is not in the rules of evidence, none of the magistrates in the Supreme Court even wondered why heirs of Homer Barque claimed the 34-hectare property long occupied by the heirs of Severino Manotok only after the records of the register of deeds in Quezon City were burned almost 20 years ago. It is worth repeating that any family which believes that their land was stolen through a “sham and spurious” title would not wait for the original title to be burned before they file a petition for reconstitution. If that land happened to be my family’s, I would not allow any other claimant to occupy and develop it while we practically starved. I would live in comfort by developing the property or selling all or parts of it, knowing that we own it and that nobody would contest our title. How it happened that claimants including the family of the Manahans claimed ownership of that land after the original title on file with the register of deeds was burned to ashes, is circumstantial evidence that they never owned it. More so because my family has the Torrens title to it. More so because we have proof that we paid and continue to pay taxes on the land. Jurisdiction There is no law that prevents anybody from filing a claim against the property of another – proof or no proof. It is the courts that will eventually decide the case with finality. The fundamental mistake in the Manotok vs Barque case is that the law was flagrantly violated by those who are supposed to implement it. There is a presidential decree that provides that judicial reconstitution of title is an original and exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial court. The facts of the case which the Land Registration Administration claimed shows that the title of the Manotoks was “sham and spurious” has no relevance to the case. Worse, the Court of Appeals and eventually the Supreme Court agreed with the findings of facts and interpretation of the law by both the LRA and the Appellate Court. The division decision of the tribunal was reversed in the en banc. But the mistake of not complying with the law on original and exclusive jurisdiction of judicial reconstitution was repeated by the Court itself. It remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, not to the regional trial court. It is not easy to accept the ruling that the remand was made to the Appellate Court because it was the original venue of the case. It is in the sense that the LRA decision was appealed to it. But it is not because the CA did not have the original jurisdiction. It belongs exclusively to the RTC. The en banc decision penned by retiring Associate Justice Dante Tinga states that the remand is “proc hac vice”. A lawyer told me that this means for this case only. That means that the decision cannot be a precedent. Its application is limited to the remand to the Court of Appeals. In the decision, the appellate court will accept evidence from the claimants principally the Manahans and the heirs of Homer Barque. The Supreme Court in turn will adjudicate the case on findings of the CA. The ponencia of Justice Tinga concurred in by seven of his peers is in a way weird because it makes the Manotoks the defendant in the complaint while they should be the plaintiff. A title held by the Manotoks is a presumption of genuine ownership. They do not have to prove it. The claimants have the burden to prove that the title is “sham and spurious,” a finding of fact the Supreme Court did not touch, its duty being an interpreter of the law and not a trier of facts. The interpretation was to remand the case to the CA which earlier upheld the ruling of the LRA that the Manotok title was “sham and spurious.” Will that appellate court now change that finding as a result of the remand? We do not make guesses on cases pending resolution. We only ask questions. Ignoring the RTC The remand of the case to the Court of Appeals, proc hac vice, is suspicious. The ruling simply means that the law giving the RTC original and exclusive jurisdiction in land disputes may be violated, but only in the Manotok-Barque dispute. Never in other future cases although the facts may be reasonably similar. We thought the Supreme Court would correct the violations of the Land Registration Administration, the Court of Appeals and its own division, by complying with the law that clearly states that the original and exclusive jurisdiction belongs to the RTC. In effect the en banc decision sustained the mistake of the CA assuming jurisdiction and even strengthened it by stating that it is pro hac vice. Only in this case. In other words, the Supreme Court made an exception of this case by not remanding the case to the regional trial court as the law requires. The Supreme Court is right even when it is wrong. That is the only defense of Justice Dante Tinga, ponente of the en banc ruling. The Manahans and the Barques will submit evidence contesting the title of the Manotoks. But the CA has already ruled that the Manotoks title is “sham and spurious.” The proc hac vice allows the CA to revisits its own findings which, if the law must be complied, are actually irrelevant because the findings – right or wrong – properly belong to the regional trial court.

Twice reversed

http://www.malaya.com.ph/feb26/busi8.htm

‘No cause is hopeless if it is just. Errors, no matter how popular, carry the seeds of their own destruction.’ – John W. Scoville

*  *  *

Twice reversed

Maybe it is a not-too-sudden twist of fate. Maybe, it is the law taking its course.

Whatever it is, the records show that Supreme Court Associate Justice Consuelo Y. Santiago of the Fifth Division had three of her peers agreeing with her earlier ponencia that heirs of Homer Barque are the real owners of a 34-hectare property occupied for many decades by the heirs of Severino Manotok. The reverse is now true.

The learned lady justice stood pat on her interpretation of the law. She denied two motions for reconsideration filed by the Manotoks. The ruling was about to become final. In fact there was an entry of judgment.

In her ruling Justice Santiago ordered the register of deeds of Quezon City to transfer the title of the multi-billion property in the name of the heirs of Homer Barque. The heirs of Severino Manotok were to lose the property said to be covered by a Torrens title.

But like they say, “it ain’t over until the fat lady sings.” Up to the time, the second motion for reconsideration was denied by the 5th Division, the fat lady had not sung.

In time, rather unexpectedly, she finally sang. In the end, it was over and the heirs of Homer Barque were not to set foot on the property. It did not belong to them, after all.

The fat lady sings

The “fat lady” in this case came in the person of respected and retired Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano, who at this time, must be in his eighties, if not older.

It was he who sought an en banc hearing about the decision of Justice Consuelo Santiago.

There was an open debate, exchange of interpretation of what law is applicable on the case and how the facts were to be appreciated.

Procedurally, the court en banc had Justice Santiago defending her ruling. She would have been the ponente if majority of the en banc agreed with her. But the court overruled her ponencia, voting 8-6.

The ponente became the dissenter. She could have been two-time ponente in the same case had she been supported by her peers in her original ponencia in the Fifth Division.

In my interpretation, it was a simple case of illustrating the old Latin legal maxim “dura lex, sed lex.” The law is hard but it is the law.

Majority of the justices in the fifth division ruled in favor of the heirs of Homer Barque. The lone dissenter was Justice Antonio T. Carpio.

But in he en banc, eight minds are better than six.

Final ponencia

After the Court en banc voted against the original ponencia of Justice Santiago, Justice Dante Tinga was assigned to pen the decision of the majority in the en banc vote.

That left Justice Santiago a dissenter. A ponente in a division decision becoming a dissenter in the en banc ruling does not happen that often in the Supreme Court.

When it does, we get the feeling that the law, wrongly interpreted in the division decision, is set aright in the en banc.

The law takes its course in the right direction. The division ponencia was wrong. The denial by the First Division of two motions for reconsideration did not bring the ruling of Justice Santiago remotely close to what the majority believed was right.

One way of looking or interpreting this situation is that the en banc or collective minds of majority of the 15 magistrates are more correct than the mind of one justice in a division supported by three peers.

The rule of the majority becomes more significant and credible when the number increases from five to 15. In the en banc vote, it is not incorrect to say that eight minds against six including the four in the First Division, are better.

Denied with finality

The law allows the losing litigant to file a motion for reconsideration. The lawyers of the heirs of Homer Barque did just that.

But again, the Barques could not change the ruling of the eight magistrates in the en banc. To write finis to the case, the en banc denied the motion for reconsideration with finality. The ruling is now part of the law of the land after some procedural matters are complied with.

The decision is to remand the case to the Court of Appeals.

It might be said that Justice Santiago lost again. My presumption is that, being a dissenter in the en banc, she had wished to grant the motion for reconsideration. The minority she led was out-voted.

Maybe there is a lesson to learn from this case. Maybe the Court should draw up guidelines on what to accept for orals by the en banc or what to support at the division level.

The grant of en banc orals depend on the weakness or errors of the questioned decision and the strength of the new arguments.

En banc orals are on exclusive authority of the Chief Justice but the final decision belongs to the majority in the Court.

In other words, a ponencia made at the division level, can be reversed by the en banc if the division refused, as in the case of Manotok vs Barque, to reverse itself.

Third case

A lawyer friend told me that a division ruling as in case of Manotok being reversed by the en banc is only the third such case in the history of the Supreme Court.

The ultimate meaning and interpretation of the final ruling by the en banc is that justice prevailed in the end.

Let it not be said that the en banc shamed Justice Santiago. Let it be said that her peers by a vote of 8-6 loudly told her that she was wrong although she insisted four times that she was right.

The first was her ponencia.

Then Justice Santiago and her division denied two motions for reconsideration by the heirs of Severino Manotok. That was the second.

The third was the reversal by the en banc of her ponencia.

The final blow or we might say death knell was the resolution denying the Barque motion for reconsideration with finality.

It is said that the Court is powerful because it is right even when it is wrong. In the Manotok case, the Court set aright what the en banc had seen was wrong.

The final decision is a triumph of justice. Justice Santiago herself should be happy about it.

The Ponente becomes the dissenter

http://www.malaya.com.ph/dec27/busi8.htm

The ponente becomes dissenter

It was not a sudden twist of fate that Supreme Court Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago became a dissenter in the aftermath of a land title case where she was the ponente.

It was just that the Court en banc found her earlier decision so peppered with holes that it had to be reversed.

The reversal, promulgated on Dec. 18, forced Justice Santiago to stick by her guns and even improve a defense of her decision, this time as a dissenter. The Court junked her ruling 8-6.

The unkind way of looking at the reversal is that Justice Santiago and three of her colleagues in the First Division, did not know the facts and the laws applicable in the land dispute between the heirs of Severino Manotok and the heirs of Homer Barque. They felt comfortable in their decision such that two motions for reconsideration were denied by Justice Santiago.

In fact, Justice Santiago had insisted that her ruling had become final and executory. It was not to be since the en banc took over the case.

A dizzying land case

The land dispute between the heirs of Severino Manotok and the heirs of Homer Barque is dizzying.

In the first stage, the Land Registration Administration sustained the position of the Manotoks. On appeal by the heirs of Homer Barque, the LRA reversed its decision.

The Manotoks elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. Again, as in the LRA, they won the appeal.

The CA, for reasons which are very difficult to understand, reversed itself and declared that the 34-hectare disputed land in Quezon City should be titled in the name of the heirs of Homer Barque.

Naturally, the Manotoks appealed to the Supreme Court. The case landed in the First Division.

Justice Santiago ruled that the register of deeds should reconstitute the title for the Barques.

We all thought that was the end of the case although we have maintained that the lone dissent of Justice Antonio Carpio was the correct interpretation of the laws and appreciation of the facts. It turned out in the en banc that his dissent was right and the ponencia or ruling of Justice Santiago was wrong.

Unorthodox

Associate Justice Dante Tinga, the en banc ponente, acknowledged the petition of the Manotoks “are attended by a few procedural unorthodoxies, such as, for example, the Court en banc’s move on the Special First Division’s referral to these petitions when an entry of judgment had already been made in favor of the Barques.”

“Yet,” Justice Tinga opined, “the prevailing consensus within the Court en banc was to proceed with the reevaluation of these cases pro hac vice (“for this time only”).

“There are good reasons for the Court to act in such rare manner in these cases. Most urgently, the Court had felt that the previous rulings by the First Division and the special First Division warranted either affirmation or modification by the Court acting en banc.”

This case is the only one I know where an entry of judgment had been made but the decision was reversed in the en banc.

The act of re-evaluation alone is a clear suggestion that Justice Santiago erred in affirming the findings of the LRA and Court of Appeals.

The ruling on this case maybe considered a landmark in the sense that the Supreme Court made it clear that judicial reconstitution is a sole and exclusive function of the regional trial court. Therefore, neither the LRA, the Court of Appeals nor even the Supreme Court may tinker with the law.

Justice is done when majority of the jurists overturn a division which was supposed to be final and executory.

The Torrens system

In this ponencia, Justice Tinga observed:

“The office of the Solicitor General correctly pointed out that this Court has sanctioned the recall entries of judgment. The power to suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final.

“The militating concern for the Court en banc in accepting these cases is not so much the particular fate of the parties, but the stability of the Torrens system of registration by ensuring clarity of jurisprudence on the field.”

Of utmost significance and importance is the en banc decision that raised the question of whether or not the Court of Appeals was empowered to direct the annulment of the Manotok title through petitions…by the Barques and the Manotoks. It could not. The lesson to be learned by those who will try claiming other people’s land without proof of ownership is that the law provides that “a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in direct proceeding in according with law.”

The direct proceeding referred to was the original and exclusive jurisdiction of judicial reconstitution by the Regional Trial Court.

Justice Santiago trivialized it and declared in her overturned decision that allowing the RTC to exercise jurisdiction is a waste of time since the facts had already been established by the LRA and the Court of Appeals.

The controversy

The controversy in the Manotok-Barque land dispute is whether judicial reconstitution of title may be made administratively that ignores, if not violates the law giving the RTC exclusive jurisdiction.

Justice Tinga ruled:

“Reconstitution of Torrens title is intended for non-controversial cases, or especially where the subject property is not covered by an existing title in favor of a person other than the applicant.

“Such an implication is consonant with the rule that the reconstitution proceedings are not the venue for confirmation or adjudication of title, but merely a means by which a previously adjudicated title whose original has been lost or destroyed may be re-issued to its owner.”

The problem with this case is that it seems to be both administrative and judicial. The claim of the Barques was first denied by the LRA but later sustained. The same with the Court of Appeals.

The point is it hardly matters whether the findings of facts by the LRA may be upheld. The LRA has no authority to determine facts in judicial reconstitution. Justice Santiago and the three members of the First Division never saw it that way.

Manotok case remanded to appellate court

There is justice indeed. The land-grabbing scam of the “Heirs of Homer Barque” has lost this round. It is really hard to believe that the “Heirs of Homer Barque” found titles to a property that is worth a huge amount of money bu their deceased father Homer Barque never ever mentioned about.

LINK

Manotok case remanded to appellate court

By Rey E. Requejo

The Supreme Court has remanded to the Court of Appeals for reception of further evidence the land dispute case involving the Manotok clan and heirs of Homer Barque, who both claimed ownership over the Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate situated in Quezon City, covering 342,945 square meters of prime property.

Voting 8-6, the SC en banc through Associate Justice Dante Tinga set aside the Dec. 12, 2005 decision of the Court’s First Division, which affirmed the two CA rulings both directing the QC Register of Deeds to cancel the Manotok title, while ordering Land Registration Authority (LRA) to reconstitute the Barque title.

“The Court recognizes that there is not yet any sufficient evidence for us to warrant the annulment of the Manotok title. All that the record indicates thus far is evidence not yet refuted by clear and convincing proof that the Manotoks’ claim to title is flawed. To arrive at an ultimate determination, the formal reception of evidence is in order,” the SC said in its resolution noting that the tribunal was not a trier of facts.

“The primary focus for the Court of Appeals, as an agent of this Court, in receiving and evaluating evidence should be whether the Manotoks can trace their claim of title to a valid alienation by the government of Lot no. 823 of the Piedad Estate, which was a Friar Land. On that evidence, this Court may ultimately decide whether annulment of the Manotok title is warranted…”

The SC said the CA should hear and receive evidence, conclude the proceedings and submit to the Court a report on its findings and recommended conclusions within three months from notice of the resolution.

In its ruling, the SC admitted the Court’s First Division erred in its 2005 decision, affirming the CA ruling that cancelled the land title of the Manotok clan over the prime lot, which is part of the Piedad Estate in then Caloocan town of Rizal province at the same time declaring the Barque heirs as real owners.

According to the SC, neither the LRA nor the CA has jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title over the property valued at more than P5 billion.

Under the law, the CA’s jurisdiction covers only special civil actions and actions for annulment of judgments of the regional trial court, the high court said, sustaining the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in its position that the LRA had no jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title nor rule on the validity of a certificate of title.

It cited paragraph 2, Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which mandated the regional trial court the exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions involving the title or possession of real property.

Based on the provisions of the Presidential Decree 1529 or the Property Registration Decree, the LRA had no power to cancel titles, the SC noted.

“The 2005 decision accepted the findings of the LRA and the Court of Appeals that the Manotok title was spurious and accordingly sanctioned its cancellation, even though no direct attack on the title had been initiated before a trial court,” the SC said.

“That the 2005 decision erred in that regard is a necessary consequence following our earlier explanation of why the mere existence of the Manotok title necessarily barred the LRA from inquiring into the validity of that title.”

The row over the Piedad Estate came after a fire struck Quezon City Hall, destroying, among others, numerous certificates of land title at the Register of Deeds office.

Records showed that Barque title actually involved two parcels as part of Piedad Estate Lot 823, measuring 342,945 square meters, while the Manotok title referred to a parcel, but with a similar area.

The Barques filed a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of the original transfer certificate of title 210177 issued in the name of Homer Barque, claiming their title was among the records destroyed by the 1988 fire.

They submitted copies of the alleged owner’s duplicate of the Barque title, real estate tax receipts, tax declarations and a plan covering the said property.

The Manotoks, led by Severino Manotok IV, filed an opposition, claiming that the lot covered by the Barque title formed part of the land covered by their reconstituted title TCT RT-22481 (372302) in the name of Severino, et al.

The LRA denied Barques’ petition but later reversed its ruling and declared that Manotoks’ title was fraudulently reconstituted.

But the LRA noted that only the regional trial court could cancel the Manotoks’ title as a Torrens title.

The LRA later denied the Manotoks motion for reconsideration as well as the motion of Barques prayer for the immediate reconstitution of their title.

This prompted the two parties to separately elevate the case before the CA through a petition for review.

During the pendency of their petitions, a certain Felicitas Manahan filed a motion for leave to intervene, claiming ownership over the subject property.

The CA Second Division issued an amended decision on Nov.7, 2003 granting Barques’ immediate reconstitution of their title being valid and genuine.

The CA Third Division, where the Manotoks’ appeal was raffled off, also upheld the right of the Barques over the Piedad Estate.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the SC’s First Division issued a decision penned by Associate Justice Consuelo-Ynares Santiago and concurred in by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., and Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing and Adolfo Azcuna affirming the CA ruling.

The ruling became final after it denied the motion for reconsideration of the Manotoks on June 19, 2006.

The Barques filed multiple motions with the First Division seeking the execution of the judgment, including the issuance of a writ of possession or for execution.

The Manotoks filed an urgent motion to refer motion for possession to the SC en banc and to set the issue for oral argument.

On July 26, the court en banc promulgated a resolution accepting the cases.

In ordering that the case returned to the CA, the SC admitted that it had before sanctioned the recall of entries of judgment due to compelling reason—to provide “clarity of jurisprudence on the field” in connection with the Torrens system of registration.

The SC also observed that on its review of the records, the Barques’ claim was also weak—if the property was bought from a certain Setosta, the title should have been registered under the name of Setosta.

It said the title was registered under the name of Manotok Realty, Inc., which contradicted Barques’ claim that the Manotoks had no title to the property.

“These discrepancies highlight the error of the LRA and the Court of Appeals in acknowledging the right of the Barques to seek reconstitution of their purported Barque title. Even assuming that the petition for reconstitution should not have been dismissed due to the Manotok title, it is apparent that the Barques’ claim of ownership is exceedingly weak,” the SC said.

Manotoks fighting two land battles

AS I SEE IT
Manotoks fighting two land battles
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer
Last updated 00:16am (Mla time) 11/16/2007

Most Read

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=101192

Now I am ready to believe that the Batasan blast was caused by methane gas.

Why? Because of three things:

1. Methane is produced by rotting garbage. The Batasan is full of dirt and trash, di ba?

2. Methane is produced by shit, and members of the Batasan are full of shit.

3. Methane is produced in a septic tank. The Batasan is one big septic tank.

* * *

Congressmen can now say they earned the “cash gifts” (translation: bribes) distributed in Malacañang.

Malacañang can say the “distribution” was worth it.

* * *

The Manotok family is fighting land battles on two fronts: in the case involving the Maysilo Estate in Malabon-Caloocan-Valenzuela-Quezon City; and in the case involving the Manotok-Barque in Matandang Balara, Quezon City. Being prime property, the two land areas are worth billions of pesos. The portion of Maysilo Estate being contested is 300 hectares; the Matandang Balara property, beside the Ayala Heights subdivision and the Capitol Golf Course, is 34 hectares.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the two cases — against the Manotoks. But the family has successfully made the tribunal reopen the cases. The final Supreme Court decision will have a big impact on the country’s Torrens titling system.

The Manotoks have sent me two letters explaining their side on the cases after I devoted two columns on them. This is their version of the cases:

The Maysilo Estate case — More than 300 hectares of the 1,660-hectare estate are being claimed by Jose B. Dimson, a lawyer who filed his claim several years ago. Dimson says that Original Certificate of Title (OCT) 994, the mother title of 25 percent of the property he is claiming, (the bigger portion is being claimed by the so-called Rivera heirs of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal) was issued on April 19, 1917. On the other hand, the Manotoks and Aranetas have OCT 994 dated May 3, 1917. The Supreme Court has ruled that since the Rivera title antedates that of the Manotok-Araneta title, then the earlier title is superior.

The Land Registration Authority (LRA), however, has said the Dimson OCT is spurious, that it is non-existent and that it could have been “an elaborate scam perpetrated at the Caloocan City Register of Deeds.” The register of deeds, lawyer Yolanda Alfonso, and her deputy, Norberto Vasquez Jr., admitted during a Senate investigation that they changed the date of the Rivera title to April 19, 1917 for unexplained reasons, for which reason both of them have been charged criminally.

Testimonies in previous court cases also established that Vidal was only 9 years old when Decree 36455 over the land was issued on Dec. 3, 1912, while her supposed grandson, Bartolome Rivera, was already 65 years old when he testified in a Pasig court in 1963. “This is a fantastic case of the grandson being older than the grandmother,” said a report of the Land Registration Commission (now the LRA) in 1981.

Bartolome was the only surviving son of Severo Rivera, a son of Vidal who died in 1907. The mother was only 4 years old when she gave birth to Severo!

* * *

The other case, Manotok vs Barque, also concerns two conflicting certificates of titles to 34 hectares of prime land in Quezon City, known as the Manotok Compound. The Monotoks, who actually live on the property, claim that they acquired the land from the government in 1920. The other title is held by the heirs of Homer Barque who is said to have bought the land in 1975.

After the 1988 fire that destroyed the Quezon City Register of Deeds records, the Manotoks applied for reconstitution and obtained the reconstituted title in 1991. The Barques applied for reconstitution of their own title in 1996. This started the case that is now with the Supreme Court en banc.

The LRA ordered the reconstitution of the Barque title. The Manotoks appealed to the Court of Appeals who sustained the LRA and ordered the cancellation of the Manotok title. The Manotoks went to the Supreme Court, raising a number of issues:

1. Whether the LRA has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the Manotok title.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals may assume jurisdiction over the cases.

3. Whether the Court of Appeals may order the cancellation of the Manotok title and the reconstitution of the Barque title.

In a majority decision penned by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, the Supreme Court’s First Division:

1. Upheld the LRA decision declaring the Barque title as genuine (based on the owner’s duplicate certificate of title) and the Manotok title as spurious. It added that the LRA has jurisdiction to act on petitions for administrative reconstitution. Logically, the Court said, the LRA can declare a title sham or valid on its face.

2. Ruled that the Court of Appeals properly exercised its appellate jurisdiction over the judgment of the LRA. “No useful purpose will be served if the determination of an issue is remanded to the trial court only to have its decision raised again to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court,” it said.

3. Said that the Manotoks were not deprived of “their property” without due process when the Court of Appeals ordered the cancellation of their title even without a direct proceeding in the Regional Trial Court. By opposing the petition for reconstitution and by submitting their reconstituted title, the Manotoks acquiesced to the authority of the reconstituting officer, the LRA, and the Court of Appeals, and recognized their authority to pass judgment on their title.

Although the Supreme Court decision has become final and executory, the Manotoks were able to have the Court en banc reopen the case. This is now the case that the Supreme Court has to resolve.

Vina Morales, Cedric Lee, Judy Lee, Jessica Rodriguez & David Bunevacz

Source: http://www.pep.ph/news/14227/Vina-Moraless-current-beau-spotted-in-an-event-with-ex-wife

Please click this article regarding the strange relationship of Vina Morales and Cedric Lee.

Here are the facts:

1. Cedric Lee, a businessman, is the boyfriend of Vina Morales.

2. Judy Lee, the ex-wife of Cedric Lee, is the business-partner of Jessica Rodriguez and David Bunevacz.

3. Vina Morales is the close friend of Jessica Rodriguez and David Bunevacz.

4.  Vina Morales and Judy Lee are connected to Cedric Lee obviously.

5. Cedric Lee is also connected to Jessica Rodriguez and David Bunevacz.

6. David and Jessica have a business (if it still exists) that deals with BEAUTY

7. It is one big happy family.

It is quite intriguing that Vina Morales and David Bunevacz were together in the Supreme Court En Banc hearing of the Heirs of Homer Barque and they actually sat on the side of the Heirs of Homer Barque.

Are they part of the Heirs of Homer Barque Land Scam?

Did they sell non-existent lots? Did they buy non-existent lots?

The Unbelievable “Heirs of Homer Barque”

Here is another article by Mr. Amado Macasaet which shows that there is some “foul-play” to the anomalous, unbelievable and questionable claims of the “Heirs of Homer Barque” that they realized all-of-a-sudden, after nine long years, that they own the property which the Manotok Family has been living on for decades. Out of the blue, the “Heirs of Homer Barque” (not Homer Barque himself because he never claimed any land), are claiming something that is not theirs but they do not have any “real or genuine” documents to actually prove their claim. It is just a matter of time that someone would file a “falsification of public documents” against these scammers belonging to the “Heirs of Homer Barque” group.

The following article has been taken from here

http://www.malaya.com.ph/aug13/busi8.htm

Where are Barque documents?

In the oral arguments held July 23 on the Manotok land dispute, former Supreme Court Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano asked the lawyers of the claimants — the heirs of Homer Barque — where the documents justifying the claim are kept.

The lawyer said he did not know because he was not the original lawyer of the heirs of Barque.

If he does not know, who else would know?

All I know of the case is that the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court which ruled against the Manotoks with finality conveniently ignored the requirement that judicial reconstitution of land titles belongs exclusively to the regional trial court.

The Highest Tribunal, in the pen of Associate Justice Consuelo Santiago, found the Torrens title of the Manotoks sham and spurious.

That, to the nit-wit does not necessarily prove that the title of the Barques’ — lost in a fire in Quezon City in 1988 — is genuine. Important to this case is the fact that the heirs of Barque saw fit to file a claim nine years after their alleged original title was lost in a fire.

On the other hand, there is evidence — like payment of real estate taxes — that the Manotoks have been in possession of the 34-hectare property in Quezon City since 1923.

Another Land-scam in the making…

Hmmm… it seems that more land-scams are coming out in the open and using “technical legal-looking channels” to appear legitimate. Like the story of the “heirs of Homer Barque” and their outrageous claim to a property that is clearly not theirs, here is another story….

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=81223As As I See It : RP stockholders may be cheated in P12-B deal

By Neal Cruz
Columnist
Inquirer

Posted date: August 08, 2007

There were two related stories in the newspapers this week on the corporate sector. The first is the disclosure by the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) of a report by the Philippine Dealing System Holdings Corp. that at least four local corporations have breached the limit set by the Philippine Constitution on the ownership of local publicly listed companies by foreign interests. These are Asian Terminals Inc., Edsa Properties Holdings Inc., Mabuhay Holdings Corp., and Philippine Racing Club Inc. (PRCI), which owns and operates the prime 26-hectare Sta. Ana racetrack in Makati City.

The second story was about the denunciation by its minority stockholders of a sellout of the PRCI to a shell corporation controlled by Malaysians. In fact, it has the appearance of another multibillion-peso scam. The assets of PRCI would be swapped with a company with only a P25-million capitalization called JTH Davies Holdings. The firm has admitted that it has been consistently in the red until 2005 and that it has disposed of all its earning assets.

A P25-million firm without assets would be swapped with the PRCI whose main asset is the 26-hectare racetrack in Makati worth P12 billion. The racetrack is the only big open space left in Makati, and you can put two Rockwell shopping centers in it. That is why land developers are salivating to get their hands on it. That property will be swapped with a shell company with a P25-million capital? There’s something very wrong here.

PRCI is a public corporation whose shares are sold in the Philippine Stock Exchange. It has many small stockholders. At least 25 percent of the shares are held by Filipino minority stockholders. Whatever happens to it is, therefore, of public interest.

The Filipinos objected to the deal for two reasons: (1) they were kept in the dark regarding the transaction, alleging that the Malaysian-led group refused to furnish them with documents and details pertaining to the transaction; and (2) the swap would have taken away from the racing club its most important earning asset, the racetrack.

The Malaysians partnered with the Cua family in PRCI. The Cuas are led by 80-year-old Santiago Sr., who also goes by the name of Cua Sing Huan. His three sons — Santiago Jr., Solomon and Simeon — also own significant holdings and important positions in the racing club. Santiago Sr. is the honorary chair, Solomon is president, Simeon is executive vice president, and Santiago Jr. is a director.

The Malaysian interest in PRCI is represented by the Kuala Lumpur-based Magnum Holdings Berhad, which has four board seats, led by Datuk Surin Upatkoon.

A look at the Internet on the backgrounds of the Cuas and Datuk Surin will send shivers climbing up and down the spines of Filipino shareholders. Santiago Cua Sr. once served as president of Wincorp Corp. Santiago Jr. served as senior executive vice president of the defunct Westmont Bank. Wincorp, it will be recalled, was involved in a giant misadventure in the late 1990s, which saw a lot of companies and business personalities go under. Westmont, on the other hand, went bankrupt and closed down. Many cases filed by investors and depositors are still being tried by the courts.

Datuk Surin Upatkoon, a.k.a. Lau Khin Koon, on the other hand, figured in the Temasek Holdings scandal that rocked the Thai business community and led to the downfall of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Datuk Surin turned out to be the major stockholder of a private firm used in the controversial takeover by Temasek Holdings of Thailand’s Shin Corp. The takeover was the fuse of a major political scandal in Bangkok. Thai politicians accused Datuk Surin of being a “Temasek stooge” or “front.”

The takeover generated overwhelming Thai anger. Thais call the Temasek takeover a “sellout” of their country’s sovereignty. They believe Datuk Surin was the key player in that deal.

The takeover of our own multibillion-peso racing club is very similar to the Temasek takeover. Is Datuk Surin about to do a Temasek on PRCI?

According to the PSE, PRCI breached the limit on foreign ownership in 2005. It was also in 2005 that PRCI led by the Malaysian group purchased the moribund JTH Davies and apparently started preparing the ground for the swap.

It would seem that the Magnum group bought more shares in PRCI in 2005, over the limit of 40 percent. No other foreign group would want to get into PRCI unless it can control the firm, either directly or through local “representatives.” Magnum may have also decided to buy more shares to fund the JTH Davies purchase. Also, Magnum may have decided that it is cheaper to breach the constitutional limit, fund the JTH purchase and then swap its shares with the prized Sta. Ana property rather than directly buy it. JTH Davies is a P25-million firm; Sta. Ana is a P12-billion property.

It is understandable that Filipino shareholders would protest. Take the Sta. Ana racetrack out of PRCI and its share prices will plunge.

There is, therefore, public interest that must be protected here to preserve confidence in the capital market. Filipino minority stockholders must also be protected from becoming victims of an emerging scam.

For most of those who breached the cap, it looks like a simple case of foreign investors wanting to cash in on infrastructure development opportunities in the Philippines. For the racing club, it looks like a scheme for a very cheap way to get hold of a prized real estate.