The weird claim of the Manahans

The weird claim of the Manahans
AMADO P. MACASAET
http://www.malaya.com.ph/08272010/columnbusi1.html

‘Why do we have a near-winner like the Barques suddenly losing interest and may be said to be willing to give their alleged rights to the land to the Manahans by sheer lack of interest to pursue a case which they had practically won but for the en banc hearing and the subsequent remand to the Court of Appeals?’

IF former Supreme Court Associate Justice Florentino Feliciano had not succeeded in getting an en banc hearing on the Manotok vs Barque land dispute, the title of the 34-hectare property long occupied by the Manotoks would have been cancelled and a new one issued to the heirs of Homer Barque.

The Manahans were nowhere to be heard or seen while the dispute between Manotok and Barque was in a division of the Supreme Court. In the end, the division ruled in favor of the Barques. Two motions for reconsideration by the Manotoks were denied.

The decision would have become final but for the en banc hearing.

If the Manahans had a genuine interest in the land and had authentic documents to prove it, they would have asserted their rights as being superior to those of the Manotok and Barque heirs when the dispute between the two was raging.

They did not. That inaction could not be translated to anything except the fact that they were not interested in filing a claim to the land, probably because they did not have what it took to prove genuineness of documents proving ownership.

Suddenly, the Manahans represented by supposed husband and wife Rosendo and Felicitas Manahan filed an intervention after the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for determination of facts and presumably the applicable laws.

What the Manahans introduced as evidence is a deed of assignment from Valentin Manahan to Regina de Guzman Manahan, his daughter-in-law. The deed is dated June 24, 1939. Strangely, the government declared that as of the end of 1927, all the friar lands in the Piedad estate where the disputed property sits, had all been disposed of.

In one of the many hearings in the Court of Appeals, the Manahans submitted a document purported to be a certificate of sale to Valentin Manahan, dated June 23, 1913. A copy of this record is supposed to be kept in the Bureau of Lands. There is none.

Since it is a notarized document, a copy should also be on file with the National Archives. Again, there is none. There is only one copy, the copy presented to the Court of Appeals by the Manahans to prove their alleged right to the land, although it must again be stated that they did not do anything when the Manotoks almost lost the land to the heirs of Homer Barque through a decision by a division of the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, a copy of the deed of conveyance issued to Severino Manotok in 1923 by the Bureau of Lands, is on file with the National Archives and was submitted to the Court of Appeals. Its authenticity was never questioned.

However, it was disputed because the document did not have the signature of the secretary of agriculture. Mike Defensor, then secretary of environment and natural resources, issued a certification saying that the signature of the secretary was a mere formality and the lack of it does not necessarily invalidate the document.

A deed of conveyance was issued to the Manahans in the year 2000 by the director of the Bureau of Lands. The document did not have the signature of the secretary of agriculture either. But Adobo, the director of lands, issued a general circular saying that his signature can substitute for that of the secretary of agriculture.

This is highly questionable because Adodo practically usurped the powers of the secretary of agriculture. The bureau of lands is under the department.

The Court of Appeals accepted the deed of assignment and deed of conveyance on its face value. It also accepted the deed of assignment of Severino Manotok, proven genuine and authentic as it was a copy obtained and certified by the National Archives.

The other funny part of this dispute is that the battle in the case remanded by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals, was more intense between the Manahans and the Manotoks. The heirs of Homer Barque who were almost issued a new title to the land were it not for the grant of en banc hearing did not appear as interested as the Manahans.

What do we have here? The Manahans who did not intervene in the dispute between the Manotoks and the Barques when the case was in a division of the Supreme Court filed their intervention after the case was heard en banc and was eventually remanded by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals.

The heirs of Homer Barque, on the other hand, were not as active as the Manahans in the Court of Appeals.

Why do we have a situation where a claimant like the Manahans hardly ever moved when they almost lost their claims to the Barques?

Why do we have a near-winner like the Barques suddenly losing interest and may be said to be willing to give their alleged rights to the land to the Manahans by sheer lack of interest to pursue a case which they had practically won but for the en banc hearing and the subsequent remand to the Court of Appeals?

The dispute is supposed to be a three-cornered fight among the Manotoks, the Barques and lately the Manahans in the Court of Appeals.

I have been told that a copy of the ruling is now being routed among the justices of the Supreme Court for signature. We have no information which side the majority favors, the Manahans or the Manotoks or the Barques.

There are other weird factors in this case. For example, there is a death certificate proving Rosendo Manahan died on July 30,1963 and was,buried in the Catholic cemetery of Malolos City.

Who is Rosendo Manahan, said to be husband of Felicitas?

There is also a document – a marriage contract that states that Felicitas Bulambot married Librado Calumia when she was 15 years old and two months. The marriage was solemnized on June 26, 1958. But Rosendo Manahan died on July 30, 1963, according to a certificate of death certificate issued by the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Parish in Malolos, Bulacan. The document states that Rosendo Manahan was the son of Lucio and Hilario de Guzman.

One of the Manahans testified that it was Clodualdo, Rosendo’s younger brother who died. How can the person who sought the certificate of death substitute another name for the person who died?

That has not been explained. It only got the counsel of the Manahans furious.

None of these is relevant to whether the documents of ownership of the Manahans are genuine or spurious. But is the Court being deceived by another person who presents himself as Rosendo Manahan who died as early July 1963 and his wife Felicitas married another man in 1958?

Are all these in the report of the Court of Appeals submitted to the Supreme Court? Not even the lawyers know. The SC refused to order the CA to furnish them a copy.

Very curious.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: