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.

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.

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.

The Story of The “Heirs of Homer Barque”

Here is the consolidated article in the “Overnight Billionaire” series by Mr. Victor Agustin written as:

Overnight Billionaire

Overnight Billionaire 2

Overnight Billionaire 3

It does not need a Sherlock Holmes, Pink Panther or a regular person to understand what the “Heirs of Homer Barque” are upto. Ms. Teresita Barque-Hernandez has a small real-estate company and all of a sudden just woke up and realized that her father owned a multi-billion piece of property. But Mr. Homer Barque, now deceased, never told anyone that he owned the property and he never even entered the property. Most likely, Mr. Homer Barque has not even seen the property which his “Heirs” claim to be his.

Enjoy these articles:

Overnight Billionaire
By Victor Agustin
Inquirer
Last updated 00:49am (Mla time) 07/21/2006

Published on Page B5 of the July 21, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

THE Supreme Court has made a litigant an overnight billionaire, and Justice Antonio Carpio is wincing from his colleagues’ decision.

The case involves a 34-hectare piece of property right behind the Ayala Heights subdivision in Quezon City, whose title, in the name of the long-time settlers, the Manotoks, was effectively invalidated in favor of a new claimant.

The new claimant, a certain Teresita Barque-Hernandez, said to be a daughter of the late Homer L. Barque, surfaced in 1996, claiming that their copy of the land title had been destroyed in the City Hall fire of 1988.

The long and the short of it is that, last December, the Supreme Court’s First Division, then chaired by outgoing Chief Justice Hilario Davide, not only upheld the reconstitution of the Barque title but also cancelled the Manotok title.

The First Division also modified the Land Registration Authority (LRA) decision that it is up to the Regional Trial Court, as the LRA had wanted, to determine the actual ownership of a disputed property, as had been spelled out in Presidential Decree 1529, the Property Registration Decree.

Ironically, the high court’s decision also effectively set aside the factual basis of a 1984 decision by the same First Division, then chaired by Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee, affecting the same 34-hectare property.

The 1984 case, involving a spurned tenancy claim, referred to the findings of the Court of Agrarian Relations that the Balara property was donated by Severino Manotok in 1946 to his eight children and two grandchildren.

The 1984 decision even noted that the Manotok heirs in 1950 used the property as their capital contribution to form the still-existing Manotok Realty Inc.

The Manotok heirs include Rosita Go, the wife of banker Edward Go, and the family of retired general Mamerto Bocanegra, who lives in the sprawling compound.

Nothing is known about Barque-Hernandez, except that she uses a No. 9 Pluto St., Greenland Village, Rosario, Pasig City, address, and that her counsel is also Joseph Estrada’s counsel, former fiscal Jose Flaminiano.

According to court records, the late Barque not only had a duplicate Transfer Certificate of Title but also real estate tax receipts and tax declarations. Five years of accumulated real estate taxes were allegedly paid in one lump sum, shortly before filing the 1996 claim.

It is not immediately clear why, since 1946, when the Manotok patriarch transferred the Balara land title to his heirs, Barque or his representative(s) never attempted to take legal or physical possession of any portion of the 34-hectare rolling land, and did it only in 1996.

In his dissenting opinion, which incidentally is longer than the opinion of decision author Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Carpio noted not only the flip-flopping findings of the LRA but also the Court of Appeals, having reversed itself in invalidating the Manotok title.

Carpio’s position is that, although the LRA may reconstitute the land title, ownership of the disputed property must still be determined in a full-blown trial before the Regional Trial Court, and not the appellate court and now the Supreme Court assuming “equity distribution” over the case, “when the law,” Carpio added, “has not granted such jurisdiction.”

But the First Division is steadfast in its ruling, saying it would be “needlessly circuitous” to remand the case to the Regional Trial Court after the LRA and two Court of Appeals divisions had already ruled the Manotok title as invalid.

“Basic is the rule that factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions are accorded not only respect but even finality, aside from the consideration that this court is essentially not a trier of facts,” said the First Division, as it again denied a renewed appeal from the Manotoks to bring the case for review by the entire Supreme Court.

“Without such authority, the LRA would be a mere robotic agency clothed only with mechanical powers.” To stop their ejectment, the Manotoks have filed an adverse claim with the LRA and Register of Deeds, although it is not clear if that can stop the writ of possession that Barque-Hernandez had already reportedly obtained.

Almost one and a half times the size of the University of Santo Tomas campus, the contested property, at a conservative estimate of P5,000 a square meter, is easily worth P1.7 billion. Except for the dozen houses built by the Manotok heirs, the property remains a “rolling, forestall land,” hardly changed since 1912, when the Manotok patriarch was said to have first laid claim on the land.

Overnight Billionaire 2

By Victor Agustin

Inquirer
Last updated 05:59am (Mla time) 07/24/2006

Published on page B2 of the July 24, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

IT IS BEGINNING TO LOOK LIKE mischievous spirits have run circles around the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, causing the learned justices to award the 34-hectare Manotok compound behind Ayala Heights, Quezon City, to an unknown claimant.

Read Cocktales, July 21, 2006, for background and then consider these:

A realtor-wife of a Caloocan City Regional Trial Court judge had been selling lots and bringing prospective buyers to the P1.7-billion compound even while the case was still being heard by the Court of Appeals.

The realtor-wife and the judge happen to be neighbors of the “overnight billionaire,” Teresita Barque-Hernandez, of 9 Pluto St., Greenland Village, Rosario, Pasig City.

The Greenland Village house that Barque-Hernandez uses is not registered in her name–a detective agency found out that she is merely renting the property–despite her claim to the 34-hectare property and presumably other inheritance.

A check with the Bureau of Internal Revenue showed no tax account number has been issued to Barque-Hernandez. No employment history or business affiliation is known about her, except that she is being represented by Erap counsel, former Fiscal Jose Flaminiano.

The Register of Deeds of Quezon City who had initially resisted issuing duplicate papers to support the Barque-Hernandez claim was transferred to Cebu under duress.

The administrator of the Land Registration Authority, Reynaldo Maulit, under whose tenure the Manotok title was cancelled, is now the lawyer of another private individual who had obtained a title to and is now claiming the 30-hectare Los Baños compound of the Department of Science and Technology.

And, in a sign of–to be polite about it–judicial inadvertence, both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court’s First Division were unaware that the ownership of the same 34-hectare property had already been upheld in favor of the Manotok family by the Supreme Court way back in July 1984 under GR L-62626.

The Manotok lawyer who appeared in and won that 1984 case is now a Supreme Court justice, Romeo Callejo Sr. Callejo was with the Second Division and apparently was not consulted on the case when the First Division handed down the controversial ruling shortly before last Christmas.

Just last month, a certain lawyer Lito Abrogar, allegedly with Ayala Land, e-mailed a proposal to banker Edward Go, claiming that a client of his, not Barque-Hernandez, owns the 34-hectare compound and offered P35 million to the Manotoks to ally against Barque-Hernandez.

In return, the Manotoks would give up their claim to their property in favor of the Abrogar client, and would be allowed to continue living in the property for the duration of the court case, this time against Barque-Hernandez.

(Correction: The first name of banker Edward Go’s wife, another Manotok heiress, is Pacita, not Rosita, as had been reported in Friday’s column.)

Overnight billionaire 3

By Victor Agustin
Inquirer
Last updated 00:07am (Mla time) 07/31/2006
ERAP counsel Jose Flaminiano furnished some biographical data on his “overnight billionaire” client, whose claim on the 34-hectare Manotok compound in Diliman has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

According to Flaminiano, the lucky litigant, Teresita Barque-Hernandez, is a retired teacher who owns the Pasig house that she lives in, contrary to information furnished to Cocktales in previous columns.

In 2003, Barque-Hernandez put in P62,500 as paid-up capital to form a real estate company for the urban poor, with proper SEC and BIR papers to boot.

Flaminiano also traced the provenance of Barque-Hernandez–Cocktales has several photos of the alleged Barque-Hernandez bungalow, showing its rusted roof and makeshift garage–but, unfortunately, the learned counsel failed to answer the most crucial question of all: When and how much did his client acquire the multibillion-peso, 34-hectare property?

Caveat Emptor – Buying real estate in Quezon City

Just recently, it has come-out in the open that OFW’s are being victimized not only by Ponzi Schemes or Scams like the recent FrancSwiss scam… but also, they are being scammed by unscrupulous Real Estate Brokers that sell non-existent real estate or condominiums to these innocent Overseas Filipino Workers. This is now called the “Housing Scam”. You can also read this about OFW’s being victimized and also this more recent warning to OFW’s.

It is heard-thru-the-grapevine that a lot of these unscrupulous Real Estate Brokers that want to make a quick-buck, are selling properties in Quezon City that are not for sale or are not owned by the seller. Some even sell lots in Quezon City at very-low “pre-development” prices so that the would-be victim would buy right away.

Why are they selling properties in Quezon City? They are selling properties in Quezon City simply because of the proliferation of fake “reconsituted” titles that were caused by the anomalous fire that destroyed land titles in the City Hall of Quezon City in 1988. Without this fire, the land scam syndicate would not have been able to steal properties or do their dirty land-grabbing from honest land-owners.

The usual modus operandi of these scammers:

1. They would have bogus brochures and pictures whether printed or using a website like FrancSwiss.
2. If the scammer is big-time and wants to scam big-time investors, the scammer usually rents a helicopter and does a “fly-over” on the property and points his finger saying “that is the property for sales”. But please note that the scammer does not even own the property.
3. Scammers would even rent trucks, bull-dozers or whatever machinery as “props” to show the would-be victim that the property is undergoing “pre-development”.
4. Some scammers who have contacts with the “show biz” industry would even ask some show-biz talents to “endorse” these bogus properties.
5. It is easy for these scammers to victimize OFW’s in another country since these OFW’s have not set foot on the property and can only view the property from a brochure or bogus land title.
6. The more sophisticated scammers that are armed with laptops now even use Google Earth to show the approximate location of the property to add some bogus credibility.

How do you protect yourself from these Real Estate Scams, Housing Scams, Land Scams, Land-grabbers,… or simply criminals?

1. Make sure you do your “due diligence” or investigate the history of the property and check if the seller of the property really owns the property.
2. It would help if the property for sale is being advertised that it is “For Sale” to the public. If the scammer tells you that it is for sale, you have to make sure that it is really for sale.
3. Do not buy a property if you have not set foot inside the property.
4. Do not buy a property that is under “contestation”.
5. Do not buy a property without checking the Land Titles first and go to the appropriate government agencies to do your research.
6. To see is to believe — don’t believe these colorful brochures or websites especially if the developer is not a well-known or credible developer.
7. Check with the SEC if the “developer” or “company selling the property” is registered to sell properties and if the properties are really under their name.
8. Scammers are very good at the “business of scamming” and therefore you never know you are being scammed (like the victims of FrancSwiss and PIPC), until it is too late.
9. Consult your lawyer, if you do not have one, … get a friend who has one.

Like the victims of FrancSwiss and now the more recent Performance Investment Products Corp or PIPC scam, the usual victims are those that do not do their own research, due diligence or even seek “lawyerly-advise”. And so, if a property is “too cheap”… buyer beware. If it is too good to be true, … it usually is.

Hmmm…. is it possible that some scamming real estate brokers have sold portions of the Manotok’s property even though the Manotok family are not selling the property?

Is it possible that these scamming real estate brokers that are “friends” with the “Heirs of Barque” have sold portions of the Manotok property to some innocent OFW’s abroad? Maybe selling portions of the Manotok property at “too cheap to turn-down” or at so-called “pre-development” prices?

Similarly, the University of the Philippines, has been victimized by these scamming real estate land-grabbing syndicates that try their best to make quick-money by selling something that is not even for sale.

CAVEAT EMPTOR in Quezon City.

The questionable “Heirs of Barque”

This article written by Mr. Amado Macasaet, justifiably questions the simple fact as to why did the Heirs of Barque only claim the land (owned, occupied, and in-possession of the Manotok Family for 85 years) 9 very long years after the original certificate of title (of the Manotoks) was burned in the Quezon City Hall fire in 1988?

It is also important to note that the reason as to why they are called “Heirs of Barque” is simply because the person whom the Heirs of Barque claim to own the land is Homer Barque (Sr.) who, while he was still alive, never even set foot on the property or never even claimed that the property was his. It is only the “Heirs of Homer Barque” who say that their father owned the property of the Manotoks. But why did Mr. Homer Barque never claim it was his when he was alive? Why did Mr. Homer Barque never set foot on the property while he was alive?

It is quite obvious that the “Heirs of Homer Barque” are taking advantage of Mr. Homer Barque being dead, most likely, if he were still alive, he would never claim the Manotok property which his “Heirs” are claiming. This is an obvious scam created with some outrageous “Heirs of Barque” story. The story of the “Heirs of Barque” just does not add-up. The story simply does not make sense. This could create other stories of other “Heir of this and heirs of that”.

Sitting on one’s rights

Obviously, the law punishing a person or denying his rights for sitting on them too long does not apply in land disputes. Otherwise, the Court of Appeals would have thrown out the petition for reconstitution of the alleged title of the heirs of Homer Barque over a 34-hectare property in Quezon City.

The heirs of Homer Barque, represented by Teresita Barque Hernandez, woke up to discover their title or rights over the land, long occupied and titled in the name of the Manotok family, nine years after the original certificate of title was burned in the Quezon City Hall fire in 1988.

The presumption is the heirs of Homer Barque knew all along that they are rich, having a property with a present estimated value of more than P5 billion. Why they decided to be less than rich when they are sitting on huge wealth is a question the Supreme Court did not give too much value to.

The heirs of Barque were sitting on their rights far too long and it took a fire in the register of deeds in Quezon City for them to ask for a reconstitution of the title the duplicate of which they claimed they have.

The argument of the Manotoks that the heirs of Homer Barque never set foot on the land was also ignored by the Land Registration Authority, Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.

The tribunal ruled that the title of the Manotoks was sham and spurious.

By whose word? The Land Registration Commission which earlier supported the Manotoks but changed the decision in favor of the Barque. The thing happened in the Court of Appeals.

The RTC’s jurisdiction

None of these would have ever come to pass had the LRA, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court saw fit to comply with the inescapable necessity of a law that says that judicial reconstitution of titles is an exclusive and original function of the Regional Trial Court.

Even the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to remand the case to the RTC saying the process is time-consuming and unnecessary since the title of the Manotoks had been established to be sham and spurious.

The key question is who established these “facts”? The wrong agencies such as the land Registration Authority which was sustained by the Court of Appeals which in turn was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Manotoks filed a memorandum of reconsideration twice. The Supreme Court denied it twice.

Pending before the court for which orals were held on July 24 was the petition of the heirs of Homer Barque to order the register of deeds of Quezon City to transfer the titles of the Manotoks to the heirs of Barque.

I never commented on that beyond saying that the schedule for five oral arguments were postponed until the sixth was held on Tuesday, July 24.

Self-established facts

The allegation, affirmed by the Supreme Court, that the title of the Manotoks was sham and spurious, was “established” by the Land Registration Authority which, as earlier said, had initially considered the titles as genuine.

The LRA changed its mind. That forced the Manotoks to file an appeal to the Court of Appeals. From what I can understand, the appeal automatically elevated the question to a judicial reconstitution, not administrative in the hands of the LRA.

It is here that the Court of Appeals which also initially agreed that the Manotok title was genuine might have made the mistake of ignoring a law that judicial reconstitution is an original and exclusive function of the regional trial court. In which case, the CA should have remanded the case to the RTC.

A division in the Supreme Court made the same mistake by ruling that since the titles of the Manotoks have been established as sham and spurious, there was no need to remand the case to the regional trial court as required by law. That could be time-consuming and unnecessary, according to the decision of the majority in the division headed by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago.

RTC should establish the facts

The alleged facts relied upon by the Supreme Court in ruling in favor of heirs of Homer Barque were not judicially established although the case is one of judicial reconstitution.

In which case, according to the law, the regional trial court has exclusive and original jurisdiction.

The RTC is the venue that should have established the facts by examining documents and hearing the testimonies of witnesses, not the LRA whose administrative function is to approve or deny a petition for reconsideration.

Therefore, the case having become one of judicial reconstitution, the LRA has lost jurisdiction over the dispute.

It would have been automatically assumed by the regional trial court if the LRA had said so. But it did not. Neither did the Court of Appeals. Neither did the Supreme Court.

The SC ruled that the titles of the Manotoks are sham and spurious as established by the LRA and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

I would have kept my peace if the conclusion that the Manotok titles are sham and spurious was established by the Regional Trial Court as required by law.

Jurisprudence

The 38-page dissent of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio complete with four pages of bibliography contends that the jurisprudence long established by the Supreme Court was inapplicable.

Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago in ponecia declared that it is.

Whether it is or it is not, does not depart from the law that the regional trial court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

Which is saying that if the law had been observed, it would be easier to believe that the RTC had ruled that the jurisprudence is applicable or inapplicable.

Of course the Supreme Court can determine which jurisprudence is applicable and which is not.

But we would have had the comfort of knowing the regional trial determined which jurisprudence is applicable.

The comfort is drawn from the fact the law giving the regional trial court exclusive and original jurisdiction was not skipped. In which I personally would not mind if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the heirs of Homer Barque, like it did, with finality.

It’s a case of dura lex sed lex which the LRA, the Court of Appeals completely closed their eyes to.

Manotoks, land grabbers?

After I wrote the first item on this case, a lawyer-friend called me up and told me that I got the facts all wrong. I then told him to write me a summary of what is right.

He never did. Instead, he told me that the Manotoks are the biggest land grabbers in Metro Manila. I countered that is subject to proof.

In the present case, who is the land grabber? Is it the Manotoks who have a Torrens title to the property which they have been occupying and paying taxes on since ‘1923 or the heirs of Homer Barque who woke up to discover their rights nine years after their alleged original copy of the title was lost in a fire in 1988?

They suddenly came up with a duplicate copy of the original which they wanted reconstituted.

If I were one of the heirs of Barque, I would have taken possession of the 34-hectare property long before the copy of the original title was burned. That would have given me oodles and oodles of money and saved me from the current sticky litigation.

That, to my lawyer friend, makes the Manotoks, the biggest land grabber in Metro Manila.

Email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com