Screenshot from 2015-02-16 09:29:17_v1


It seems that the April 19, 1917 Maysilo Estate group are at it again. And now they just invaded a property using armed men. Please check this WARNING TO THE PUBLIC published in the Philippine Star on the following dates: February 15, 16 & 17, 2015. Be warned not to transact with these land-grabbers.

Please read this excellent article:,2166636

The said property is rightfully co-owned and previously (before the land-grabbing) occupied by CHUA TEE & Company and General Metal Container Corporation of the Philippines.

This is the first time this property had been invaded after all these decades. So what does this mean?

The invaders woke-up one morning and realized that they owned the property?

The invaders woke-up one morning and found a title to the property?

You be the judge.

The Maysilo Estate Scammers are at it AGAIN!

It seems the Maysilo Estate Scammers, that are peddling their OCT. 994 dated April 19, 1917, are working their evil once again.

It is important to read this article to revive our memories on these scammers. #MaysiloEstate


Save the titling system

MANILA, Philippines – You may recall that on Feb. 20, 2006, I wrote about a legal fight (“The value of a title”), just one of many cases in Caloocan where land-grabbing threatens to seriously undermine the credibility of the land titling system in our country. Property owners who acquired their properties in good faith, developed them, paid taxes on them, suddenly faced a claim by a lawyer that he, in fact, owned their properties.

That lawyer, Jose B. Dimson, claimed ownership of a very large property on the basis of a land title of doubtful authenticity but which, he claimed, predated the (up to that point) original title on which the subsequent titles of the property owners were based. Thus one claim affected dozens of properties. Despite evidence to invalidate that claim, Dimson’s case kept winning in the courts. Property owners doggedly fought the spurious claim. One such group is composed of the Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Manotok Realty, Inc., Sto. Niño Kapitbahay Association, Inc. and CLT Realty Corp.

The legal fight between the group I mentioned above, and the person claiming their land, has revealed some interesting details since I last wrote about it.

The lawyers of the claimant, Dimson, besides admitting he’d never actually possessed the lands he claimed, said he had never paid taxes on them either (which is a way of asserting responsible ownership). What’s more, Dimson’s own lawyers admitted their client had never been a lawyer at all. So how could he have obtained ownership of the properties he said he earned by way of lawyers’ fees?

Not to mention the impossibility of Dimson’s claims as to the person who transferred the land to him being entitled to do so. Dimson said he got his title to the land as attorney’s fees from a certain Bartolome Rivera. Rivera alleged in turn that he inherited his title as an heir of Ma. Concepcion Vidal. The courts, in the case of Republic v. Lilia Sevilla and Jose Seelin, held that “[t]hus, it is physically and genetically impossible for him [Bartolome Rivera] to be the grandson of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal.” The Land Registration Commission, in a report dated August 3, 1981, pointed out that “[i]f Bartolome Rivera was 65 years old in 1963 or thereabouts, he was born on or before 1898. If Maria de la Concepcion Vidal was 9 years old on or before December 3, 1912, she was born on or before 1903. Could a grandson be older than his grandmother?”

Not to mention Dimson basing his claim on a title that, he claimed, predated the title of the Araneta Institute of Agriculture group. He said his OCT was dated Apr. 19, 1917. Those whose lands he wanted to take away could only point to an OCT dated May 3, 1917. But when Dimson’s people were asked to produce their title, they could produce none. On the other hand, the aggrieved property owners demonstrated to the Supreme Court recently that only one OCT No. 994 existed: issued on May 3, 1917. No less than the Solicitor General then, Antonio Nachura, personally and formally presented to the Supreme Court en banc the original OCT No. 994 issued on May 3, 1917 (the original copy itself taken from the Land Registration Authority vault).

Reports of the Department of Justice and the Senate Fact-Finding Committee had also previously pointed out that Dimson’s (alleged) OCT was fraudulent. The Senate, upon investigating the matter, said Dimson’s so-called title was “a fabrication perpetrated by Mr. Norberto Vasquez, Jr., former Deputy Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan City” and by Atty. Yolanda Alfonso, Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan City, who “consented to the acquisition of the property by … her children adopting 19 April 1917 as the date of registration of OCT 994 knowing the same to be erroneous … is a clear case of dishonesty, malice and bad faith.” We know Alfonso did these things, because the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal ordered by the Office of the President. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The Department of Justice then issued a report stating that the two contested OCTs (Dimson’s fake and the one present property owners derived their titles from) were never actually presented to the Supreme Court. What the Supreme Court used as the basis for saying there were two OCT Nos. 994 were the certifications appearing on the faces of the TCTs submitted by the two sides: but in truth, only one OCT No. 994 existed, issued on May 3, 1917.

However, complicating matters is that the Supreme Court issued a decision in another case, which upheld a Court of Appeals decision that there were two OCTs and which then upheld Dimson’s as the original one. In a sense, the Supreme Court ended up trapped by the Court of Appeals’ refusal to take judicial notice of the findings of the Senate and Department of Justice. If a court, however, took these reports into evidence, it would shatter some of the previous assumptions made by the courts.

These details, and many more, are now before the Supreme Court. It has embarked on reviewing a decision by one of its own divisions. This review presents a last chance for it to reverse the court’s upholding of the Dimson fraud. With evidence aplenty to help rectify assumptions originally made by the courts, evidence gathered by the Senate and the Department of Justice, decades of lawful property owners being harassed and imperiled can come to an end.

The Supreme Court, acting as a whole, holds the preservation of the rule of law as it pertains to the ownership of land, in its hands. It can stem the tide of chaos in our titling system. Or it can open the floodgates to an epidemic of Dimson-style land-grabbing. A title can either mean something, or mean nothing: it can either be maintained by the rule of law or the law of the jungle.


SC ruling dispossesses millions of lot owners

GOTCHA By Jarius Bondoc (The Philippine Star) Updated April 02, 2012 12:00 AM

Catastrophic is the Supreme Court ruling on the Piedad Estate. On surface, it merely reverts to the State a thousand hectares of Quezon City prime commercial-residential land straddling Commonwealth Avenue. Yet actually upset are the Torrens titling, home financing, and executive-legislative-judicial remediating systems.

That this occurs because an absent justice was made to “cast a tie-breaker” is another blow against impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona. The implications are farther-reaching, though. From the SC’s 8-7 final vote, millions of lot owners nationwide can lose their property if falling within former friar lands like Piedad Estate.

It all began with the Manotok clan, owner of a 34-hectare slice of Piedad near UP-Diliman and posh Ayala Heights, repelling two belated claimants. One group came out to contest the Manotok holding after fire gutted the Quezon City land registry in 1985. Another emerged, as court battle ensued, to say that land tenure had passed on to them. The Court of Appeals deemed the last-minute claimants’ titles and deeds bogus.

Chaos from the city hall fire had given rise to land-grabbing gangs. The Manotoks filed for reconstitution of property documents dating back to 1919. Something odd happened in court: their papers suddenly came under questioning. Two items supposedly were missing from the files. One, the original Sale Certificate from the US colonial government to the Manotok forebears, of the land confiscated from Spanish friars. Two, the Secretary of Interior’s signature in the original Assignment of Sale Certificate. Yet it was the government’s duty, not the landowners’, to protect the deed registry. (Manila had come under invasion and countless calamities in the past century.) As for the lacking signature, landowners should not be faulted for a bureaucrat’s lapse.

The case reached the SC. Upheld in August 2010 was the finding that the two counterclaims were fakes. But in light of supposed flaws in the Manotok deeds, the government must repossess the entire 1,282-hectare Piedad Estate.

The Manotoks and contestants both moved for reconsideration. On March 6, 2012, the SC promulgated a final decision, penned by Justice Martin Villarama. The counterclaims again were denied. So was the Manotok ownership right.

Concurring with Villarama’s ponencia were: CJ Corona, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, and Mariano del Castillo.

Justice Antonio Carpio led the dissent, joined by Justices Presbitero Velasco, Arturo Brion, Roberto Abad, Maria Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

Setting legal circles abuzz was how the majority got eight votes versus the dissenters’ seven. Del Castillo was absent during the March 6 promulgation, having gone on leave starting February 13, for a second heart bypass. He extended the leave on March 21, and returned to work only on March 28, last week. He had not participated in any division or en banc deliberations during his leave, or voted on any case.

Except, curiously, del Castillo voted on this Piedad case; at least, so says Corona. Concurring and dissenting justices all signed above their names. Above del Castillo’s is the handwritten note: “I certify that J. del Castillo sent his vote concurring with Justice Villarama.” Scribbled next is Corona’s signature, same as the one with his name at the top of the list. Del Castillo’s signature does not appear above his name, implying he had not read the ponencia.

In effect, Corona had voted twice in the Piedad case, making his side win by one vote, instead of ending tied. Why he dared do this in the middle of his impeachment trial, only he knows. Some say it has to do with his defense by the Iglesia ni Cristo sect. The lawyers of one of the counterclaimants hold office at the College of Law, New Era University, run by the INC.

Del Castillo’s absentee vote “shows how influential the CJ is over the Supreme Court and the judiciary,” says impeachment prosecution spokesman Rep. Miro Quimbo. “As we’ve been saying, he’s so strong that he played a great part in the issuance of the SC order that almost let former President Gloria Arroyo and husband flee the country.”

Corona reportedly denies signing for del Castillo, or swaying the justices’ votes, or any impropriety in the Piedad ruling. In December 2011 he was impeached by 188 congressmen, almost double the one-third needed from members of the House of Representatives. Del Castillo also is facing impeachment raps for plagiarism in a ponencia against “comfort women” forced into sex slavery by World War II Japanese invaders.

In dissent, Carpio cites scores of other friar land sales in the early 1900s with the Secretary of Interior’s signature also missing. With the majority ruling, he says, all these landholdings would be voided. For, it ignores the fact that the National Archives has copies of the documents. Too, that Congress already had corrected the missing signature via a recent all-encompassing law arising from the Banilad friar estate in Cebu. Lastly, that the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources in 2005 had clarified that the Banilad legislation covered other erstwhile friar lands as well.

Since the SC ruled otherwise, not only the Manotoks’ 34 and Piedad Estate’s 1,282 hectares in Quezon City are affected. All one-time friar lands are too. In Metro Manila alone, Carpio says, these consist of 35,033 hectares. (Makati, one of the 17 cities, has an area of 2,736 hectares; the whole metropolis, 63,600 hectares.) The SC’s 8-7 ruling imperils over half of Metro Manila. Former friar lands exist elsewhere, as industrial, commercial or residential estates.

“If we do not apply the DENR memo … the SC will be disquieting titles held by generations of landowners since the passage in 1904 of the (Friar Lands Act),” says Carpio. “Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of landowners would surely be dispossessed of their lands in these areas. This is a disaster waiting to happen – a blow to the integrity of our Torrens system and the stability of land titles in this country.”

* * *

Government failure punishes buyer

Government failure punishes buyer

By Amado P. Macasaet

IN its ruling promulgated March 15, the Supreme Court effectively made the state – the government – a land grabber of a valuable 34-hectare property bought and paid for and titled to the name of Severino Manotok as early as 80 years ago.

The ruling on a 7-7 vote gives the land back to the government obviously because the Court cannot determine who among several claimants can produce the documents proving ownership.

The records of the Court show that Severino Manotok bought the property, owned by the friars, in 1919 on a 10-year installment agreement. He completed the payment in more than 10 years.

Under the law, the state is required to transmit to the register of deeds the deed of conveyance in favor of Severino Manotok. The deed was transmitted as required by the state.

Forthwith, a title was issued to the buyer.

The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Martin Villarama upholds the recommendation of the Court of Appeals that the property belongs to the state and the title must be cancelled based on the statute that states “no sale shall be valid until approved by the Secretary (of agriculture and natural resources)”

It is plain to us that the state failed Severino Manotok, now represented in Court by his heirs. We agree that there might be such a requirement. But we ask, did Severino Manotok have any kind of control over the duty of the state – the secretary of agriculture and natural resources in this case – to sign the deed of conveyance?

In fact, the buyer of the friar land, Severino Manotok, may not have known whether or not some details were missed in the deed of conveyance since the document was transmitted to the register of deed without him or his representative being notified – least of all given a chance to review it.

Why then should the Manotoks (heirs of Severino) be denied a right to own the land proven by payment, deed of conveyance and a title that was subsequently issued?

The Manotoks cannot be divested of their right to the land on the argument by the Supreme Court that the deed of conveyance did not have the signature of the secretary of agriculture and natural resources. If that were to be so, the Supreme Court is punishing the Manotoks for the failure of the state to do its job.

It is not reasonable either for the Court to argue that the register of deeds can no longer find the transfer documents. The heirs of Severino Manotok never had any role in that negligence.

Therefore, the property must be turned over to the state, absent such evidence that the Manotoks are not required to produce the documents?

When the state fails to do its job – by omission or design – nobody should suffer for it. That is common sense law. After all, there is proof of full payment of the friar land. Taxes have been paid by the Manotoks up to this day from the time they took over possession.

They have been in possession for around 80 years. They will lose the friar land sold to them by the state for failure of the state to perform its duty? That does not sound fair.

It is important to remember that the state sold the friar lands to private persons or corporations after taking them over from the Spaniards. The state did its job of giving the Filipino the right to own land in his country. But the buyer must pay. And pay the Manotoks did. The records prove it.

If the state takes back the land on orders of the Supreme Court, it will undo what it did when it sold the friar lands to the private sector. For what reason? That the deed of conveyance and other transfer documents supposed to be kept by the state cannot now be found?

The precedent is dangerous. There could be hundreds, maybe thousands of buyers of friar lands, similarly situated as the Manotoks. Will their lands be ceded back to the state if the documents are questioned or adverse claims are filed and the documents perfecting the transaction cannot now be produced by the state although it is the keeper?

But the Supreme Court said that is another matter. It is not.

Some powerful people can always file an adverse claim with the Court. Some powerful people may strike a deal to buy the land after the state takes over.

What happens to the buyer who has been presumably cultivating the land he paid for and got a title for it? He will lose it to the state, courtesy of the Supreme Court?

If the Supreme Court can commit this kind of injustice it effectively condones the inefficiency of the state in keeping records as far as friar lands are concerned, or more specifically as far as the Manotoks are concerned.

The Supreme Court makes the state a land grabber. The victim is an innocent buyer who believed – it now turns out wrongly – that if he performs his part of the sale the state will similarly do its job.

The state did not. He must pay for the mistake or negligence of the state.

It must be noted that the Supreme Court based its decision on the recommendations of the Court of Appeals which usurped the powers of the Regional Trial Court which, according to the law, has the original jurisdiction in administrative reconstitution of land titles.

It is not funny at all that the High Court remanded the case to the CA instead of the RTC to comply with law.

There is more than meets the eye in this case. We recall that in a division ruling, the land was awarded the heirs of Homer Barque. It turns out, however, that the documents of the Barques are not genuine as discovered by the appellate court.

The fact finding job belongs to the regional trial court. That is what the law provides.

Twice to vote

Twice to vote
By: Conrado R. Banal
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Disturbing issues hound Chief Justice Renato Corona regarding his actions in the Supreme Court even while he is standing trial at the Senate that may cost him his powerful position.

According to reports, in a landmark case involving a 30-year dispute over some 34 hectares of prime property in Quezon City, the Chief Justice in effect voted not just once but twice.

The SC early this month issued a ruling en banc that the so-called Piedad Estate, which is close to the Ayala Heights project of premier developer Ayala Land, should belong to the government.

The en banc voting was close at 8 versus 7, meaning it could have gone either way. It seems the Chief Justice himself broke the deadlock, but not with his own vote.

Together with his own vote, he supposedly also used the vote of a justice on leave for more than a month—Justice Mariano del Castillo. The ailing Del Castillo reportedly was not even able to take part in the deliberation.

In fact, all other SC documents would show that Del Castillo was on leave. In this particular case, the Chief Justice simply used the vote of the absent justice. It was the tie-breaking vote, at that.

Disturbing questions thus arise. For one, can an absent justice, who could not be present in the discussion of the issues in a case, vote on en banc decision? May the Chief Justice really take the place of an absent justice?

Is it legal, and if it is, is it the proper thing to do, particularly for a man who is supposed to be the paragon of fairness and morality in this country?

* * *

We have been following this interesting case since the 1990s and have written a number of pieces on it. It started way back when, in 1988, a mysterious fire broke out at the office of the Registry of Deeds at the Quezon City hall. The result was a flood of apparently spurious titles over pieces of property in the city.

The longtime owner of the Piedad Estate was the Manotok family, whose ancestor bought the land from the government in the 1930s. For the past 80 years or so, the family has been paying for the real estate tax on the property.

All of a sudden after the fire at city hall, two other titles appeared, purportedly as evidence of the real ownership of the property. Two other names surfaced in the land title mess, Manahan and Barque, both claiming ownership of the property.

Thus the Manotok family went to court to challenge the alleged “reconstituted” titles. The case dragged on for over two decades, going back and forth between the Court of Appeals and the SC.

This is important: The ownership of the Manotok family, who had control over the property for the longest time by sheer of possession, was never in question in the original case.

In an earlier decision, the SC negated the claims of the two groups—the Manahans and Barques. Thus, you would think that the Manotok family has won in the long-running land dispute.

For whatever mysterious reason, the SC also decided that the CA should answer a question that came from nowhere. And that was, “Did the Manotok family own the land or not?”

The CA eventually ruled that the property should go back to the government because of one reason: Some bureaucrat’s signature was missing in the documents presented by the Manotok family.

Look at that: it was the government that failed to do its job. The court in effect said that, because of such a government failure, the poor individual must be punished.

The SC in 2010 upheld the CA decision. The SC early this month ruled with finality on the case. That was the ruling in which the Chief Justice voted twice, if only to beat the dissenting opinion, penned by Senior Justice Antonio Carpio.

* * *

Horror stories are flying on the possible reason for the daring role that the impeached Renato Corona played in this landmark decision.

One story points at the group of lawyers specializing in land disputes in Quezon City. It is said that the Chief Justice could possibly owe the group favors in connection with the ongoing trial at the Senate.

Those stories are rather difficult to substantiate. The fact is they are going around business and legal circles. They are not doing the impeachment process any good.

But more than the reputation of the embattled Chief Justice, the land title system in this country can be in danger of collapse.

Thousands—if not millions—of individuals already have titles on their properties in former friar lands, seized by the Americans during their occupation of the Philippines, and then sold to various individuals.

More than half of Metro Manila used to be friar lands. The question is this: What will happen to the titles covering all those properties?

The recent SC ruling takes the force of law, and it could therefore encourage other crooks to lay claim on thousands upon thousands of hectares of property all over the country.

The decision may even open up an entire new racket in the property sector: Some syndicates would be selling land titles over certain property owned by millions of Filipinos for the past several years.

Officials of the Land Registration Authority have long admitted such a problem. It seems that, for some time now, the LRA has been trying to settle land disputes—all in Quezon City.

The cases were all handled by a certain group of lawyers associated with an organization.

SC can quiet titles or make a mess

October 15, 2009


‘What the decision – my guess, not the Court’s – will create is utter confusion and leave useless and meaningless all titles to those lands. Torrens titles from which transfer certificates of titles were drawn and have been quieted by operation of law and for lack of any adverse claims will be questionable as a result of the possible ruling.’

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

October 15, 2009


‘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.’

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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.