Is Manahan dead? Wife remarried

October 15, 2009

AMADO P. MACASAET

http://www.malaya.com.ph/08312010/columnbusi1.html

‘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.

Advertisements

Colonial official Sir Robert Torrens devised the land titling system in Australia in 1858 to resolve disputes arising from speculation.

Taken from the August 30, 2010 article written by Jarius Bondoc with the Title “Does P-Noy have to do everything?”

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.

SC acts quickly and then sleeps

SC acts quickly and then sleeps
AMADO P. MACASAET
http://www.malaya.com.ph/08112010/columnbusi1.html

‘It cannot happen that the Court acts quickly when it so pleases and does not move at all when doing so does not please the magistrates.’

IT did not take the Supreme Court that much time to deny for “lack of merit” the motion of the heirs of Severino Manotok to require the Court of Appeals to furnish the Manotoks a copy of the 219-page report of its findings on the land case with the heirs of Homer Barque.

The resolution was passed on May 4.

The lawyers of the Manotoks filed a second motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglamentary period. Up to this time, the motion has not been acted upon.

In insisting that the litigants in the case are entitled to a copy of the CA report, former Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano, counsel of the Manotoks, told the High Court there is a law that states that “upon filing of the report, the parties shall be notified by the clerk, and they shall be allowed ten days within which to signify grounds of objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire.

“Objections to the report based upon grounds which were available to the parties during the proceedings before the commissioner, other than objections to the findings and conclusions therein set forth, shall not be considered by the Court unless they were made before the commissioner.”

The decision to deny the motion for lack of merit does not seem to sit well with this provision of the law.

But the Supreme Court saw it another way.

Now, a second motion has not been acted upon and appears to be sleeping the sleep of the dead.

It cannot happen that the Court acts quickly when it so pleases and does not move at all when doing so does not please the magistrates.

The judicial reconstitution case was earlier decided in favor of the heirs of Severino Manotok by the Land Registration Commission. The LRA reversed its ruling on appeal by the heirs of Homer Barque.

The Manotoks elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which initially ruled in favor of the Manotoks. But in a joint resolution by two divisions, the CA reversed its earlier decision in favor of the heirs of Homer Barque.

The Manotoks went to the Supreme Court on Appeal. The High Court ruled in favor of the heirs of Homer Barque and denied with finality a second motion for reconsideration.

However, retired Justice Feliciano convinced the Court to act en banc.

After brief orals, the Supreme Court decided to remand case to the Court of Appeals for investigation of facts and presumably applicable laws.

Subsequently, the CA submitted its 219-page report which the Supreme Court must now consider or resolve.

The first mistake in this case was the violation of a law that states that judicial reconstitution is an original and exclusive function of the Regional Trial Court.

It started with the Land Registration Commission which rendered a decision in favor of the heirs of Severino Manotok. The decision was reversed on appeal.

The Manotoks filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals which also sustained the Manotoks in a joint resolution by two of its divisions.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision and declared that the title(s) of the Manotoks are “sham and spurious”.

This has been the subject of an intense battle of documents between the Manotoks and the heirs of Homer Barque represented by Teresita Barque.

Apart from asking the Supreme Court to require the CA to furnish the litigants a copy of the report, the heirs of Severino Manotok are also asking the High Tribunal for a hearing on oral argument which they say “will best ensure an interactive deliberation upon the novel issues and legal implications arising from the ‘remand’ proceedings at the Court of Appeals many of which were neither pleaded nor addressed in the original administrative reconstitution proceedings that were the only subject of this case on review.”

Yet, the Supreme Court dismissed the motion to require the CA to furnish copies of its report to the litigants “for lack of merit.”

What else could have more merit than the very meat of the controversy? That is not the way the Supreme Court sees it.

The case has horrendous ramifications in reconstituting land titles in terms of facts and applicable laws.

It will be recalled that the heirs of Homer Barque moved for reconstitution of the 34-hectare prime property in Quezon City, long in possession of the heirs of Severino Manotok, only some years after the records, particularly original copies of land titles, burned in a fire hit the office of the Register of Deeds in Quezon City.

The Manotoks have submitted in evidence a copy of the deed of conveyance certified as true and correct by the National Archives.

The deed, issued by the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources on December 7, 1932, states “I, acting director of the bureau of lands, acting for and on behalf of the Government of the Philippine Islands, in consideration of TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY THREE PESOS (P2,363.00), receipt hereof is acknowledged, do hereby grant and convey to Severino Manotok, Filipino, of legal age, married to Maria Ramos … and his heirs and assigns, Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Friar Lands estate…”

The document was signed by Jose P. Dans, acting director of the bureau of lands.

How the courts accepted the claim of the heirs of Homer Barque that the title of the Manotoks is “sham and spurious” without destroying or rendering invalid the deed of conveyance is a subject of unkind speculations in many quarters, particularly those who have who have reconstitution cases pending in the Courts.

And now comes the Supreme Court denying the request of the Manotoks to have copies of the report of the Court of Appeals to which the case was remanded “for lack of merit.”

The Court has no obligation to explain its decision since right or wrong, the ruling becomes part of the law of the land. But in this case, it would benefit the Court in terms of enhancing its reputation if this case can be resolved with transparency and fairness which is always assumed of the Court but does not always happen.

There is more than meets the eye in the Manotok case in terms of its ramifications over judicial reconstitution of titles.

Torrens title vs. deed of conveyance

The government agency that deals with land, land-management, land-titles and everything else land-related should be investigated. Someone or some people within that agency is doing dishonest, anomalous, destructive forgeries and certifications without thinking of the consequences of their actions. Again, we can see the outrageous and unbelievable claims being made by Rosendo Manahan & Felicitas Manahan. They should really be investigated and all those involved in this land-grabbing scam should be exposed and put to justice. This is not good for the honest investing public and honest landowners.

http://www.malaya.com.ph/11202009/busicircuit.html

Torrens title vs. deed of conveyance

The Court of Appeals is faced with a choice between a Torrens title of the heirs of Severino Manotok over a 34-hectare prime land they have been in possession of since 1919 and a deed of conveyance claimed to have been issued to the heirs of Vicente Manahan on April 17, 2000.

The Manahans are now saying that their deed was issued by the Land Management Bureau over lot No. 823 of the vast Piedad Estate.

How the LMB issued the deed in spite of the existence of a Torrens title in the name of Severino Manotok is another question that the Court should find an answer to after examining the evidence presented by the contending parties.

The Manahans filed an intervention in September 2006 claiming that on the basis of a deed of conveyance Vicente Manahan allegedly purchased the property from the Republic of the Philippines which issued sales certificate No. 511.

I failed to notice the dates of the purchase of the property by Vicente Manahan and the dates of issuance of the certificate of sale which was the basis of the deed of conveyance.

I also failed to see the date of the issuance of deed of conveyance.

Background

The land dispute was originally and still is between the heirs of Severino Manotok and the heirs of Homer Barque.

The dispute started with the Land Registration Commission, on to the Court of Appeals and finally to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the claim of the heirs of Homer Barque. Two motions for reconsideration were denied leaving the Barques with what they thought was their right to file a petition for the cancellation of the title of the Manotoks and for the issuance of a new title in favor of the Barques.

In fairness to the Court, it granted a petition for en banc orals by the Manotoks.

The Court finally decided to remand the case to the Court of Appeals where it originated although there is a law that states that judicial reconstitution is an original and exclusive function of the Regional Trial Court.

From what I can understand from this decision, the Manotoks have to prove the genuineness of their title.

The appellate court has the duty to submit to the Supreme Court its finding of facts and the applicable laws.

The establishment of the facts is a function of the Regional Trial Court but the Court of Appeals can also review finding of facts which it already did when, after initially denying the petitions for review of the heirs of Homer Barque, two of its divisions made an identical ruling upholding the claim of the Barques.

Unusual behavior

It is on record that Severino Manotok and later his successors in interest or heirs have been occupying the property and paying taxes on it since he was granted the Torrens title to the land in 1919.

The Manotok family has introduced improvements on the land. On the other hand, neither the Manahans nor the Barques and their heirs ever questioned the possession of the land by the Manotoks. Not until the records of the register of deeds of Quezon City went up in smoke sometime in 1988. It took the Barques several years until 1996 after the fire to file a petition for reconstitution with the Land Registration Administration.

Again at the risk of being cited for contempt, I dare say it is beyond me and many others to understand why the heirs of Barque and Manahan allowed the Manotoks to be in continued possession of the property from the time Severino Manotok was issued a Torrens title in 1919.

Didn’t either the Barques or the Manahans know that they in effect allowed the Manotoks to possess their property for almost a hundred years and benefiting immensely from it?

Realtors estimate that the 34-hectare prime property in Quezon City now commands a price of at least P5 billion.

Torrens title vs. deed of conveyance

The land dispute among the Manotoks, Barques and Manahans is clearly a question of which documents the Court of Appeals shall consider authentic and superior over the others.

The Manotoks maintain that they have Torrens title issued to Severino Manotok as early as 1919 and have been in possession of and paying taxes on the land since then.

On the other hand, the Manahans are basically relying on the Deed of Conveyance which they said is derived from a Certificate of Sale. The Certificate is made to appear that Vicente Manahan bought the 34-hectare property, known as lot No. 823 from the Republic of the Philippines.

On the other hand, the Barques who never set foot on the land occupied and improved by the Manotoks since 1919 and paying taxes on it, suddenly came from nowhere in the 1990s and filed a petition for the reconstitution of their alleged title which they claimed was lost to a fire in 1988.

Initially, the LRA denied the Barques petition but later turned around and approved it. The same turning around happened in the Court of Appeals acting on the separate petitions for review of the Manotoks and the Barques. These acts, initially administrative since these originated from IRA and later judicial when the CA took over acting on petitions for review, directly assaulted the Torrens title of the Manotoks without giving weighty evidence except some tax payments which were made only in the 1990’s.

Reconstituted title

It must be explained very clearly that the Manotoks knew that their original title of the 34-hectare property was lost in a 1988 fire that gutted the office of the register of deeds of Quezon City.

They acted more quickly than the heirs of Home Bargue in the sense that three years after the fire they were issued a reconstituted title in 1991 without the Barques and the Manahans raising a question.

On the other hand, the Barques who, it must be repeatedly said, never knew the terrain of the land because they had never set foot on it, filed a petition for reconstitution on what they claimed was their original title lost to the same fire, only in 1996.

The petition of the Barques was filed with the Land Registration Commission five years after the Manahans secured a similar reconstituted title over the same property.

How the LRA first denied the petition of the Barques and later approved it after the Manotoks were issued a similar reconstituted title five years before is another question that the Court of Appeals must answer.

There are curious matters that continue to attend this case such that back in the LRA, there were suggestions that powerful people were interceding for the Manahans.

Ownership since 1919

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

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

Ownership since 1919

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weird case

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

The Manotoks filed a motion for reconsideration. Denied.

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

The petitions were dismissed separately by the CA.

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

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

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

The Manahans’ cause

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is conveyance vital?

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

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

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

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

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

The fatal mistake

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute over Piedad estate continues

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

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

Dispute over Piedad estate continues

<!–

By Peter J.G. Tabingo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complicating a simple case

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

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