http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=765531&publicationSubCategoryId=63

By Michael Punongbayan (The Philippine Star) Updated January 07, 2012 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines – The Office of the Ombudsman’s new investigation on the so-called Euro generals case will also focus on the possible filing of criminal cases against the millionaire friend of former Philippine National Police (PNP) comptroller Eliseo de la Paz.

Tyrone Ng Areola, the businessman who claimed in a Senate investigation that he gave De la Paz 45,000 euros to buy an expensive Roger Dubois wristwatch in Vienna, Austria, will be probed for possible violation of Central Bank laws.

Assistant Special Prosecutor III Jeofferson Toribio said De la Paz’s friend should be included in the new probe, along with other delegates to the 77th Interpol General Assembly trip in October 2008.

Toribio recommended that further preliminary investigation be conducted to determine the exact amount of money and currency brought out of the Philippines by De la Paz and his wife Maria Fe “and the participation and/or liability, if any, of the other PNP delegates to Russia.”

He said Areola, along with Evita Caringal and Ahmad Galwash Waja as manager of Felisa Sakaluran Enterprise, should be probed for possible violation of Banko Sentral Ng Pilipinas Circular No. 507 in relation to Section 36 of Republic Act 7653 or the New Central Bank Act.

The law “penalizes any person who brings into or takes out of the Philippines foreign currency in excess of $10,000 and fails to declare the same in writing.”

During the Senate investigation into the Euro generals case in November 2008, Areola said he gave 45,000 euros to De la Paz after learning that he was going to make a side trip to Vienna, Austria where the wristwatch is on sale.

At Shremetyevo International Airport in Moscow, Russia, De la Paz and his wife were barred from leaving after being caught carrying 105,000 euros or P6.9 million in cash.

The Office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation into the incident and initially, after a fact-finding probe, recommended the filing of graft and other criminal charges against ranking officials of the PNP including former Director General Avelino Razon Jr.

But after preliminary investigation, the anti-graft agency only ordered the filing of charges against De la Paz and his wife.

By Michael Punongbayan (The Philippine Star) Updated January 06, 2012 12:00 AM

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=765319&publicationSubCategoryId=63

MANILA, Philippines – Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales has ordered a reinvestigation of the so-called “euro generals” case.

Former interior secretary Ronaldo Puno and a dozen other former and current officials of the Philippine National Police (PNP) led by retired Director General Avelino Razon Jr. will be investigated for graft and technical malversation of public funds “for approving, receiving, and/or using or allowing the use of the amount of (P2,314,096.00) from the PNP confidential/intelligence fund for travel expense and allowance of delegates to the Interpol Assembly in St. Petersburg, Russia.”

Others to be probed include then Deputy Director Generals Emmanuel Carta and Ismael Rafanan as chiefs for Administration and Operations; retired Directors Romeo Ricardo and Jaime Caringal who were then chief of Directorate for Plans and PNP Region IX; Director for Human Resources and Doctrine Development German Doria; Director for Operations Silverio Alarcio Jr.; Chief Superintendents Samuel Rodriguez as Special Disbursing Officer and Orlando Pestano as Director for Finance Service; Senior Superintendent Tomas Rentoy III who is Director for the Budget Division; and Superintendent Elmer Pelobello.

A special panel of investigators will review the findings of the first probe which only recommended the filing of charges against former comptroller Eliseo de la Paz and his wife Maria Fe.

Assistant Special Prosecutor III Joefferson Toribio and Director Susan Guillermo will head the five-man team tasked to conduct another investigation to determine if graft, technical malversation, and other criminal cases should be lodged against those who were questionably cleared of any liability during the time of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

Based on the recommendations of Toribio contained in a 39-page memorandum, Puno and Razon, along with Directors Romeo Ricardo and Edgardo Acuña as chiefs for Plans and Personnel and Records Management, will be probed for possible violation of Article 237 of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes acts of Prolonging Performance of Duties and Powers.

De la Paz, Rodriguez, Pestano, Rentoy II, and Pelobello will also be investigated for separate graft and technical malversation of public funds charges “for approving, receiving, and/or using or allowing the use of the amount of (P7 million) from PNP confidential/intelligence fund as contingency fund for the foreign travel” and for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act “for persuading, inducing or influencing other police officers or allowing to be persuaded, induced or influenced in releasing confidential/intelligence fund to be used as travel allowance, expenses and contingency fund” for the controversial foreign trip.

The special panel, with Director Dennis Garcia, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Richard Buban, and Assistant Special Prosecutor I Lyn Dimayuga, will further look into the possible filing of criminal charges against former acting foreign secretary Franklin Ebdalin and Senior Superintendent Joel Ma. Alvarez of the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime.

The case against them would involve possible violation of the Revised Penal Code for making a false narration of facts in relation to how they identified the wife of former PNP chief Jesus Verzosa (Cynthia) to join the delegation by identifying her as a member of the Office of the Deputy Chief for Administration which she was not.

Morales gave the special panel a period of 30 days to submit a report and its recommendations based on the outcome of a preliminary investigation wherein all respondents will again be asked to answer the charges.

The euro generals case made it to the headlines more than three years ago after De la Paz and his wife were barred from leaving the Shremetyevo International Airport in Moscow, Russia after they were caught carrying 105,000 euros or P6.9 million in October 2008.

The Office of the Ombudsman conducted a lengthy investigation of the incident and recommended the filing of graft, perjury, falsification of documents, grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and other criminal and administrative cases.

After preliminary investigation, the anti-graft agency, in July 2011, ordered the filing of cases before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular No. 507, which “penalizes any person who brings into or takes out of the Philippines foreign currency in excess of $10,000 and fails to declare the same in writing” and violation of the Revised Penal Code for acts of “Prolonging the Performance of Duties and Powers” against De la Paz.

Everybody else was cleared of any liability.

The Office of the Ombudsman said “the disbursement and utilization of the funds in connection with the travel were found to be in order” and that “the refund by the respondents of the full amount of P10 million used by the respondent PNP delegates” means that there was no undue injury to government.

Toribio’s memorandum, which has now paved the way for a reopening of the investigation, states that “the Joint Resolution overlooked key pieces of evidence in this case and proceeded to absolve all of the respondents except the De la Paz spouses.”

“It must be noted, however, that the return of the (P10 million) was made after a long period of almost nine months.”

The document submitted to the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division yesterday read: “In view of the nature of confidential/intelligence funds of the PNP which are allotted or programmed per month, the return of the said amount after a long period of time would have already caused undue injury and damage to the government.

“The injury in this case stems from the fact that the government was effectively deprived of the use of its public funds in the amount of P10,000,000 from the time that the same was received by accused De la Paz and his co-respondents in September to October 2008 up to the date of its alleged reimbursement on 25 June 2009, or for a period of almost nine months.

SC can quiet titles or make a mess

WE have no information on how the Supreme Court will decide the long-drawn land dispute among the Manotoks, the Manahans and the heirs of Homer Barque.

We can make two guesses. One, the Court may award the 34-hectare property to the Manotoks who have proven they have all it takes to own the land or to either the Barques or the Manahans.

The other possibility, remote as I see it, is the return of the land to the state. Which means that in the judgment of the Court the documents that justified the issuance of the titles of the three claimants are all forgeries.

I am personally scared of the third possibility in the sense that it creates a jurisprudence over all friar lands sold by the state.

More than 145,000 hectares of such land were former friar lands. They are scattered in at least eight provinces.

I am not saying that Court will rule that way. I am merely making a guess.

The effects can paralyze the economy. Business operates through borrowings from banks. In most cases, the collateral offered is real property.

Because of the decision – if that indeed will be the decision as I guess – the lending bank will have to first determine whether or not the offered collateral was formerly friar land.

If it happens to be, the bank will not give the loan for a very simple sensible reason. The land might be seized by the state.

Nearly all of the lands in Laguna and Cavite were former friar lands. They could be subject to forfeiture by the state if the Supreme Court rules that the Manotok property, originally part of the Piedad Estate which was friar land, must revert back to the government.

Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court will look deeply and dispassionately into the documents presented to the Court of Appeals by the contending parties.

I said earlier that the Barques admitted that they submitted fake documents. The Manahans, on the other hand, presented documents that cannot be verified and, logically, must be presumed spurious. They do not exist.

At this point, it may be helpful to the Court and to all owners of former friar lands to know that the Manotoks, maybe like other owners of former friar lands, have in their possession documents which have never been doubted although a division decision in the same Court awarded the Manotok property to the heirs of Homer Barque.

The first step in acquiring friar lands bought or ceded to the state is to have a certificate of sale. This cannot be issued without proof of payment although such payment may be made in installments.

The certificate of sale may be assigned to just about anybody the holder wants to assign it to.

The next step is the issuance of a deed of conveyance by the director of the bureau of lands, now the Land Management Bureau under the Land Registration Administration.

The deed shall be issued only upon full payment of the value of the land. The document must be notarized.

From what I can figure out the documents are transmitted to the register of deeds in the locality where the land is located. The register of deeds issues a Torrens title.

That makes the title unassailable. So are the original certificates of title or transfer certificates of title drawn from the Torrens title. They are unassailable only if the documents that led to the issuance of the Torrens title are beyond question. Such is the case of the Manotoks as proven by official records.

In the dispute now under deliberation by the Supreme Court, it appears that only the Manotoks have proofs that their documents are genuine as proven by the existence of copies in the files of the National Archive.

I heard that there is this argument that the deed of conveyance issued to Severino Manotok is void because it does not have the signature of the secretary of agriculture and natural resources.

If that is the case, there are hundreds – if not thousands – of deeds of conveyance that do not have the signature of the secretary of agriculture and natural resources.

They are as void as the deed of conveyance issued to Severino Manotok. Therefore, these lands must likewise revert to the state. Their owners will not surrender their land without a separate order from the Supreme Court.

Or is the jurisprudence that the Court could establish equivalent to an order to surrender the land?

Is Manahan dead? Wife remarried

THE Manotoks produced a document that Rosendo Manahan died on July 30, 1963.

But he and his wife Felicitas appeared in Court for the Manahans.

The Manahans claimed that it was Clodualdo, a younger brother of Rosendo, who actually died. How can the person who reported a death to the municipality mistake the identity of the deceased?

It now appears that the name Clodualdo Manahan is one among five in a tombstone.

Milagros Manahan asked a tombstone maker whether he asks for a death certificate before doing one. She was told that he does not do that. All he does is get the name. It is not his duty to verify.

Who will now verify that the bones of Clodualdo supposedly mixed with those of four others in a common tomb are his or those of Rosendo of Clodualdo? The Court of Appeals never asked. The Manahan lawyer never volunteered.

Did the Court of Appeals try to verify the genuineness of a document that after the death of Rosendo, his widow, Felicitas married again, in fact twice? One of the Manotoks told me she is of the impression that the CA did not.

Worse, the Manahan never presented to the CA a document or marriage certificate that Rosendo is married to Felicitas.

The CA may not have entertained any doubt that Rosendo is flesh and blood although there is a document showing his death. There are documents showing that his widow Felicitas married Librado Calunia.

How did it happen that Rosendo presents himself as husband of Felicitas when there is a certificate that he died of pulmonary tuberculosis?

What does Felicitas’ marriage to Librado Calunia prove? That she has two husbands?

Or is somebody standing for Rosendo who is dead as proven by his own death certificate belied by the claim that the person who died was his younger brother Clodualdo?

There is a proof that Rosendo is dead but the Manahans claim it was Clodualdo who died. Where is the death certificate of Clodualdo Manahan? The lawyer of the Manahans never bothered to produce it to disprove the genuineness of the death of Rosendo.

There is no document civil registry, in the Church or in the National Statistics Office, that Clodualdo is dead.

Neither did the lawyer of the Manahans produce the marriage certificate of Rosendo to Felicitas.

And now Rosendo is with his wife Felicitas claiming they are the real owners of a 34-hectare property long awarded to Severino Manotok whose heirs introduced improvement on the land having been in possession for longer than 70 years.

The Manotoks have contract for sale, a deed of conveyance certified as in existence by the National Archives.

They also have a Torrens title.

Given the fact that the heirs of Homer Barque, the original adverse claimants to the property, have reportedly admitted that they submitted fake documents to prove their claim and given the fact that the documents presented by the Manahans cannot be verified, it may be proper for the Supreme Court to ask the Court of Appeals to make a review of the genuine and fake documents.

It is also of extreme value to the decision-making process of the Supreme Court to ask the Court of Appeals to verify whether Rosendo Manahan is really dead as proven by a death certificate.

It is also of extreme value in the decision making process of the Supreme Court to verify whether or not Felicitas is married to Librado Calunia as proven by a marriage certificate.

Verifying the genuineness of these documents is important for the Court so that it will not to be misled into believing that Rosendo Manahan is flesh and blood but there is a certified document proving his death.

None of this, it must be stressed, is relevant to the fact that the Manahans submitted to the Court documents they cannot prove exist. But the Court must have the certainty that it is not deciding a case where a litigant does not exist because he died a long time ago.

It is worth reiterating that this case started as administrative in the Land Registration Administration. In its first decision the LRA certified or ruled that the land indeed belongs to the Manotoks as proven by the uncontested documents in their possession.

The LRA later reversed its decision saying that the title of the Manotoks is “sham and spurious.”

The Manotoks appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA’s first decision was also in favor of the Manotoks. But a later consolidated decision by two divisions threw out the first ruling.

In word, the Manotoks initially won twice but lost twice. The third “loss” was the decision of the Supreme Court awarding the property to the heirs of Homer Barque.

The Supreme Court is now deliberating on the report of the CA to which the case was remanded after former SC Associate Justice Florentino Feleciano was granted oral arguments by the Highest Tribunal.

Hundreds of thousands of landowners who bought friar lands are now eagerly awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court that finally might put all questions on friar lands on ice.

In the end, it becomes the clear duty of the Aquino administration to clean up the Augean stables in the Land Registration Commission.

I remember the World Bank made a grant to the government precisely for this purpose. I have no knowledge how the money was spent.

I am reasonably certain, however, that disputes over land ownership continue to pile up in Court.

The Supreme Court may find wisdom in coming up with a ruling that will end all disputes. But, unfortunately, it may also have the capability to encourage more disputes.

Let us wait for the ruling.

Two claimants have no proof of ownership

THE Manahans, represented by supposed man and wife Rosendo and Felicitas Manahan, in claiming that the family has a valid claim to the disputed 34-hectare property long occupied by the heirs of Severino Manotok, appear to have submitted to the Court of Appeals documents which do not exist.

This is obviously intended to support the admission that they do not have a title to the disputed property.

The basis of their alleged validity of claim is a deed of conveyance supposedly issued in 2000 by Ernesto Adobo, director of the Bureau of Lands. The deed does not have the signature of the secretary of agriculture and natural resources.

It is the lack of this signature that emboldened the Manahans to say that the deed of conveyance issued to Severino Manotok as early as 1923 is void. But it does exist as shown by a copy certified by the National Archives.

The Manahans told the Court of Appeals that there is a General Memorandum Order No. 1 supposedly issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in 1977 allowing the director of lands to substitute his signature for that of the secretary.

The allegation states “then secretary of agriculture and natural resources.” The Manahans did not even know that at that time the secretary was Jun Leido Jr. from Mindoro Oriental.

The lawyers of the Manahans promised to submit a copy of the Memorandum Order.

They have not done so even as the Court of Appeals has already submitted its report to the Supreme Court before the Supreme Court makes a final resolution.

The lawyers cannot submit the document. It does not exist. The deed of conveyance issued by Ernesto Adobo is void. It has no basis.

One of the Manotoks took pains to ask the Department of Agriculture for a certified copy of General Memorandum Order No. 1 She was told that the copy should be in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

So off she went to the DENR. A certain Galo Martinez showed the Manotok heir all the memorandums issued in 1977 kept in the vault. There is no such General Memorandum Order No. 1.

Martinez told her back in those days, specifically 1977, memos were never called general memorandum orders. They were called “department administrative order”, “ministry order” or department memorandum order (1977).

In an official communication addressed to Ma. Milagros V. Manotok, Galo C. Martinez Jr., chief, records management and documentation division of the DENR, declared “please be informed that this office does not have in its custody a General Memorandum Order No. 1 signed by then Minister of Environment and Natural Resources issued in 1977.”

The Manahans also submitted to the Court of Appeals a machine copy of a document showing that they had a contract of sale signed by Dean Worcester in 1913.

A certified copy of this document, supposedly on file with the National Archives, has not been produced either.

Obviously, the Manahans wanted the Court to believe that their contract of sale over the disputed property was obtained ahead of the Manotoks who had their contract signed in 1923.

But the Manotoks submitted to the Court a copy of their contract certified by the National Archives. The Manahans did not have a certified copy.

The Barquez, the other party in the dispute, admitted before the Court of Appeals that they submitted a fake document.

In a word, the Court has documents submitted by the Manahans that cannot be verified and an admission by the Barquez that they submitted fake evidence.

That leaves the Manotoks as a claimant with a valid claim – verified contract of sale deed of conveyance and a Torrens title.

Strangely, there has been no question on the genuineness of the documents submitted in evidence by the Manahans. Nobody except the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

Where does the Supreme Court go from here?

The Court of Appeals submitted to the Supreme Court a 159-page report. This report shall be the basis for the High Tribunal to make a final decision.

Nobody except the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court en banc knows about the report. The Manotoks asked the High Tribunal to order the CA to furnish them with a copy.

They filed two motions. Both motions were denied.

The Manotoks also asked for oral arguments. The Supreme Court gave them the thumbs down.

In effect, the denial by the Supreme Court to order the Court of Appeals to furnish the litigants a copy each of the report amounts to a denial to due process in the sense that a ruling will be made without giving the parties the right to question in the sense that a ruling will be made without giving the parties the right to question or seek clarification on the report.

Oral arguments would have substituted for the copy of the report. But again, the Supreme Court denied request of the Manahans for the orals.
(To be continued)

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100901-289867/Realty-firm-faces-raps-over-projects-in-Pampanga

Filed Under: Real Estate, Crime, Housing Mortgage & Loans, Government offices & agencies

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/199871/lawmaker-seeks-probe-into-illegal-use-of-pag-ibig-fund

A House leader on Tuesday sought an inquiry into the alleged illegal use of Pag-IBIG funds for bogus home loans and questionable housing development projects.

The Pag-IBIG fund, also known as the Home Mutual Development Fund, is a government housing program.

Republic Act 9679, or the Home Mutual Development Fund Law of 2009 (also known as the Pag-IBIG Law of 2009), made membership into the Pag-IBIG fund mandatory for all employees of companies that are members of the Social Security System (SSS) or the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).

Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II on Thursday, through House Resolution 316, wanted the House committee on good government to investigate the alleged malpractices or corrupt acts of certain Pag-IBIG fund officials.

These are the officials who have allegedly allowed the funds to be used for bogus housing loans and fraudulent housing schemes and projects.

He cited newspaper reports that in Pampanga alone, hundreds of loan accounts involving hundreds of millions of pesos were found to be spurious and fictitious. The listed borrowers did not even know that they have applied for and have been granted Pag-IBIG housing loans.

He said at least P6.6 billion in housing loan proceeds were allegedly taken out by Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation for buyers of its units in housing projects in Pampanga.

The fund was allegedly taken out even though the housing units to be financed were not yet completed, or were below standard, unoccupied, or closed.

Hundreds of the said buyers were reportedly fake Pag-IBIG members or ineligible for Pag-IBIG membership. Hundreds of other people were reportedly used to obtain spurious loan accounts.

Pag-IBIG internal audit report showed that many loan documentations were incomplete and deficient, lacking even the membership status verification slip that determines borrower’s eligibility for a housing loan. The loan processing was also irresponsibly fast tracked or facilitated, the audit report showed.

Gonzales said the processors turned a blind eye to loan documentation deficiencies to approve loans in one to three days only, “a suspicious indication of an unholy cooperation with the concerned developer that made possible the dissipation of Pag-IBIG funds to the detriment of the interest of Pag-IBIG members.”

He added there were reports that loan rules and regulations were suspiciously relaxed to favor certain developers.

“The irresponsible large scale use of Pagibig funds for unlawful housing activities may lead to a financial crisis affecting the overall state of the national economy,” the Mandaluyong lawmaker warned. –VVP, GMANews.TV

Pilot housing project

By Tonette Orejas
Central Luzon Desk
First Posted 02:20:00 08/31/2010

Filed Under: Housing Mortgage & Loans, Government offices & agencies, Company Information

Pilot housing project

By Tonette Orejas
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:23:00 08/30/2010

Filed Under: Housing Mortgage & Loans, Government offices & agencies, Company Information

Does P-Noy have to do everything?
GOTCHA By Jarius Bondoc (The Philippine Star) Updated August 30, 2010 12:00 AM

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=607425&publicationSubCategoryId=64

Colonial official Sir Robert Torrens devised the land titling system in Australia in 1858 to resolve disputes arising from speculation. The method suited property ownership in the Philippines when the Americans applied it to friar lands in the early 1900s. Still scholars and jurists deem Torrens’ system imperfect. More so since it is open to fraud, in original registration or later transactions. Trouble sparks when land registries, consisting of bound volumes kept by municipios, are lost during wars or, more often, fires. In such cases property owners’ need to have titles reconstituted. The way to do it is via the court or the Land Registration Authority. Judicial or administrative re-titling suffices in uncontroversial losses. But some cases challenge the supposedly “indefeasible” Torrens titles.

Strife followed the 1988 fire at the Quezon City Hall that gutted the Register of Deeds. Great grief befell families that have owned land in the area even before Quezon City was born. Land-grabbers saw a chance to become overnight billionaires. Hucksters brandishing titles purportedly dating to the Spanish era laid claim to land that Malacañang had bestowed to the University of the Philippines. It was only settled since records existed that the property was part of friar lands seized during the American rule and sold to citizens before World War II.

One of the titles burned in the 1988 fire was to a 34-hectare segment of a friar land called Piedad Estate. It had been in uncontested possession of the family of Severino Manotok since the 1920s. The property is located in Old Balara, behind what is now Ayala Heights. The Manotoks were able to reconstitute the title three years after the blaze. Seven years later realtor Teresita Barque asked the LRA to reissue the title to a piece of land allegedly owned by her father Homer. Aside from a copy of a supposed title, she presented real estate tax receipts, tax declarations dated in the 1990s, and a subdivision plan. The LRA rejected the re-titling because the property covered by Barque’s claim was already in the Manotoks’ name. The LRA ruled that Barque’s Plan FLS 3168-D was spurious.

Barque appealed the LRA ruling, starting a string of lawsuits about the power of the LRA and the Court of Appeals to cancel land titles. The Barques admitted in CA hearings that the deed of sale that transferred the land from the government to their family was bogus. A third family intervened, claiming that papers dated 2000 made them the owners.

There was no attempt to have the Manotok title cancelled in the regional trial court. A court proceeding would have involved presenting papers, such as the chain of titles, the very thing that the Torrens system aims to replace. Averting disturbance of RP property law, the Supreme Court set aside previous rulings in 2008. It said that neither the LRA nor CA had jurisdiction to annul titles. Yet it also remanded the case to the CA instead of the RTC, thus confusing lawyers, academics and judges.

Two years after the SC returned the case to the CA and 22 years after the fire that caused it, the matter remains unsettled. Meanwhile, the LRA is struggling to computerize land registries for stability.