MAYSILO ESTATE: The Simple Solution

The solution to this controversial Maysilo Estate double-titling mess is simply:

THERE IS ONLY ONE OCT NO. 994 and that is the one dated May 3, 1917.

The other OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 is definitely a forgery, a scam, an evil creation, an anomalous decision, and a bogus title.

If the Supreme Court will just see that the OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 is dubious and the people behind this OCT have evil intentions, then this case would not have dragged this long.

Let us see if the Justice System in this country still has its integrity intact. Let us see if there is justice in this country. Or if the big bullies get away with this scam. Let us see if justice will prevail versus the people who think they are above the law.

The Justice System should go after these people behind the OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 because they concocted an evil plot to steal and cheat.

The Land-Grabbing Syndicate should be stopped! This is a major scam!

MAYSILO ESTATE: Anatomy of double titling

Anatomy of double titling, RD’s ‘minor inadvertence’

This may well be the anatomy of double titling of land.

“Such a minor inadvertence could not: caused any damage to any party…” said Caloocan City Registrar of Deeds Yolanda Alfonso when asked by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to comment on the complaint of a couple whose property covered by a long transfer certificate of title (TCT) was overlapped by one of three “new titles” issued by the registrar.

Alfonso issued the “new title pursuant to an order dated September 9, 1996 promulgated by Judge Jaime D. Discaya, presiding judge of the regional trial court Branch 120, Caloocan City, in case of Rivera, et al. vs. de Sola et al., Civil Case No. C-424. The court adopted “April 19, 1917” as the date of original registration.

Alfonso admitted the “discrepancies” between the statement in the new titles that these were derived from Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 issued on April 19, 1917 and the LRA certification that there is no such OCT NO. 994 issued on April 19, 1917, but rather one issued on May 3, 1917 which is on file at the Caloocan registry of deeds. The latter date is the date of the issuance of OCT 994 from which the spouses’ title is derived from.

This “minor mistake” is causing the couple big trouble, the loss of their land. Not only them, but scores of landowners in Caloocan City, Malabon and a part of Quezon City whose TCT’s state that these were derivatives of mother title OCT 994 dated May 3, 1917, are in danger, if not actually facing eviction from their properties.

Even the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (MWSS) lost its 1,998 square meters compound in Caloocan City to one Jose Dimson, under a simple Supreme Court ruling.

Through their counsel, our couple said in a letter to LRA, “Records will also show that the Register of Deeds had signed letters and on numerous occasions appeared before court hearings where she testified that OCT No. 994 was issued on 03 May 1917 and not on 19 April 1917. These court appearances and letters were made prior to the issuance of TCT Nos. 314535 to 314537.”

From this, the couple’s lawyer told the LRA ‘“It appears that the curious coincidence of the use by the Registrar of Deeds of the date 19 April 1917 appears to us to be a result of more than a minor inadvertence. We believe that a more thorough investigation should be conducted on the manner by which this so-called discrepancies were committed.”

The couple said the registrar of deeds made a remark which they considered “quite disturbing”, thus:

“Besides, such minor inadvertence could not caused (sic) any damage to any party, for, if, worst came to worst, and the factual issue of original registration of OCT NO. 994 be a crucial issue, the best evidence would naturally be OCT 994, and not the subsequent titles issued, TCT Nos. 314635 to 314537 where a different date appears.”

The lawyers reminded RD Yolanda of the elementary principle in land registration that when a parcel of land is registered under the Torrens Systems, the public is supposed to rely on the certificate of title covering the registered property.

“Can the Register of Deeds honestly maintain that those who, following the law, would rely on the titles (TCT NOs 314535 to 314537) she issued will not suffer any damage ? How about those landowners/title holders, including our clients whose properties have been put in peril by these illegal issuances, must they now wage battle against holders of these new titles which overlap their properties?

“By these instances, is the integrity of the Torrens System not put into doubt more so where the primary responsibility to protect its integrity, is vested in the Register of Deeds?”

RD Alfonso, in his comment to LRA, also said she has no power to defy or reverse the orders of Judge Discaya in the face of allegations that “previous titles are in existence.”

Alfonso said, “There is therefore no semblance of authority allowing the office to defy, reverse or modify the court order in the instant case, for to do so is simply not within our power and is anathema to the rule of law, if not anarchy in practice.”

The couple’s lawyer conceded that under ordinary circumstances, this would have been a perfect defense. But, given the fact that the RD actually knew that there is no such thing as OCT No. 994 which was issued on 19 April 1917, this defense appears untenable.”

It would have been proper for the RD, the lawyer said, to formally advise the court that indeed there is only one OCT 994 issued on May 3, 1917. Consistent with the procedure under PD 1529, the Property Registration Decree, she should have inquired from the court even prior to the issuance of the questioned new titles, which titles will have to be cancelled.

By failing to do this, the counsel said, the register of deeds has caused the situation she is tasked to prevent, the existence of more than one title over the same property. Nothing also prevented her from elevating the matter in consultation to the LRA.

In this case, the lawyer said, the RD did not even bother to elevate the issue to the LRA, thus showing her utter failure to observe the procedure spelled out in the law.

‘In other words, what is claimed by the Register of Deeds as a compliance of a court order is actually an open defiance of a clear provision of law. The Register of Deeds purports to justify her issuance of the questioned titles by invoking the authority of the courts and to prevent anarchy.

“Sadly, however, her acts as well as those acting under her authority have been the primary cause of the anarchy that now reigns in the issuance of spurious titles and illegal, albeit, immoral land grabbing that is now the norm in KaIoocan City.”

What ever happened to the person who “dubiously created” this major mistake?

 

MAYSILO ESTATE: Grand kids, heirs whose granny died single!

GrandKids, heirs whose granny died single!

POOR “grandchildren,” their granny died single!

That’s the stranger-than-fiction story of Bartolome P. Rivera, Eleuteria Rivera, Pelagia R. Angeles, Modesta R. Angeles, Venancio R. Angeles, Felipe M. Angeles, Fidela R. Angeles, Josefa R. Aquino, Gregorio R. Aquino, and Rosauro R. Aquino. They had wanted so much to inherit land from their grandmother. They didn’t even know their alleged benefactor was still alive when they went to court to claim her supposed property.

Their pitiable lot, perhaps, could only come to pass in this country where almost anything goes, especially in government offices suffused by the winds of this world.

Maria de la Conception Vidal died single, without children or grandchildren and without any valid will, in Madrid, Spain at 6 a.m. on May 27, 1965. She died after a heart attack. This was certified to in the “Certification Literal de Inscripcion de Difuncion de Maria Concepcion Vidal y Delgado” issued by the civil registrar of Madrid, stating such fact on its face. The vice consul of the Republic of the Philippines issued a certificate of authentication for it on behalf of the Madrid consular district.

On October 20, 1961, or some four years and seven months before their supposed decedent actually passed away, Bartolome Rivera and Co. filed a petition with the Rizal CFI, Case No. 4557. They asked that as alleged heirs of “the late, Maria de la Concepcion Vidal,” their names be substituted in place of Vidal on the face of OCT 994.

During the strange court hearing, the Riveras presented testimonies claiming that Vidal was married to Pioquinto Rivera during the Spanish regime and both died also during the Spanish regime.

This was their story, as recounted in the decision of a kind judge who must have taken pity on them and swallowed it hook, line and sinker, thus:

“Maria de la Concepcion Vidal was married to Pioquinto Rivera during the Spanish regime, and to the couple were born the following children: Epifania, Pedro, Potenciana, and Severo, all surnamed Rivera, all of whom are now dead. Pedro Rivera left two daughters, Eleuteria, one of the petitioners, and Teresa. Teresa is now dead and is survived by the following children namely: Pelagia, Modesta, Venancia, Felipe and Fidela all surnamed Angeles who are named petitioners herein. Potenciana Rivera is survived by her three children: Josefa, Gregorio, and Rosauro all surnamed Aquino, also petitioners in this case. Epifania Rivera died in 1954 at the age of 116 years but left no children of her own (Exh. “F”). Severo Rivera died sometime in 1907 (Exh. “C”) and was survived by his son, Bartolome Rivera, whose mother was Luisa Pangyarihan (Exh. “G”) but she predeceased har husband Severo Rivera.

“According to the witness Daniel Villegas who is 104 years old it appears that the spouses Maria de la Concepcion Vidal and Pioquinto Rivera were well known to him as he was living on a portion of the Maysilo Estate and was paying rentals to Maria de la Concepcion Vidal and Pioquinto Rivera were well known to him as he was living on a portion of the Maysilo Estate and was paying rentals to Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, his house being close to the house of the house of the latter. The same witness identified to the Court old pictures of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal and Pioquinto Rivera, both of whom died as stated, sometime during the Spanish regime.

“From the testimony of Bartolome P. Rivera it appears that because his parents died during his infancy, it was his aunt, Epifania Rivera, who was in possession of documents and the necessary information regarding the ownership and participation of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal in the Maysilo Estate but said documents were lost during the last world war. Epifania died in 1954 when she was 116 years old. It is also a fact that the herein petitioners were presently occupying portions of the estate which they inherited from their predecessors in interest.”

What would the Riveras inherit from Vidal? In 1917, she was a registered co-owner of several parcels of land described as Original Certificates of Title (OCT) Nos. 982, 983, 984, 985 and 994 of the then Maysilo Estate.

On June 2, 1917, the Rizal court of first instance ordered that these parcels of land be partitioned among the registered co-owners. In a Proyecto de la Hacienda de Maysilo which the commissioners submitted to the court on June 12, 1917, the court approved the partition on July 3, 1917.

The share of Vidal, described as “9 years of age,” in the estate was equivalent to “one hundred eighty nine one-thousandths (1-189/1000) per cent share.” This appeared in the five OCTs of the estate. Her share, the certificates provided, “remain to the usufructuary rights of her mother, Mercedes Delgado, during her natural life.”

Under the “Proyecto de Particion” of the estate, Vidal was adjudicated portions of Lots No. 6, 10 and 11 of OCT 994 in payment of her participation in the other OCTs. Thus since this judicial adjudication, Vidal ceased to have any participation or interest in the other OCTs.

Here’s how the Verification Committee of the Land Registration Commission, predecessor of today’s Land Registration Authority (LRA), punctured the claims of the Rivera heirs.

In its reports on the dubiousness of the heir-decedent relationship, the LRC deduced from official documents and court pronouncements themselves, that Vidal was born in 1903 or in not too long a time before that date.” (A certification of the Madrid, Spain civil registrar, as authenticated by the vice consul of the Philippine embassy showed that Vidal was born on August 13, 1904.)

Both OCT 994 and Decree No. 36455 issued by the Court of Land Registration from which OCT 994 was issued by the registrar of deeds, placed Vidal’s age at “9 years of age” in 1912.

But what was vital is that, as certified through a copy of a death certificate, Vidal died single and without issue on May 25, 1965.

The Order granting the subsitution of the Riveras for Vidal as supposed heirs in OCT 994, stated that Epifania Rivera was 116 years old when she died in 1954. Thus she should have been born in 1838 and older than her supposed mother, Vidal, who was born in 1903 or, another way of saying that the daughter was born ahead of the mother.

The father of Bartolome Rivera, Severa Rivera, died in 1907 then her supposed mother, Vidal, was only four years old. The witness Daniel Villegas who was 104 years old in 1962 must have been born in 1858. Vidal was supposed to have died during the Spanish regime, but, in truth, Vidal was born in 1904 during the American occupation.

Again, she was supposed to have gotten married during the Spanish regime. If that were true, then she was not yet born when she got married. It is, therefore, genetically and physically impossible for the Riveras to be the children or grandchildren of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal.

What a scam! This is a classic!

 

MAYSILO ESTATE: What is happening?

The following was the announcement from Lawphil.net which was posted last February 9, 2006.

“SUPREME COURT NULLIFIES TITLES OF MAYSILO ESTATE

The Supreme Court has nullified the titles to more than 70 hectares of prime land in the cities of Malabon and Caloocan in Metro Manila registered in the names of a realty firm and its sister company, an agricultural school, and homeowners association.

In a decision written by Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez, nullified were the land titles in the names of the Manotok Estate Corporation and heirs of Jose B. Dimson represented by Roqueta R. Dimson, Norma and Celso Tirado, Alson and Virginia Dimson, Linda and Carlos Lagman, Lerma and Rene Policar, and Esperanza R. Dimson.

In a 39-page decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by the Manotok firms, the Araneta Institute of Agriculture, and the homeowners association. It affirmed the decision handed down by the Court of Appeals that upheld the rulings issued by the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Related Document:
– (MWSS vs. Court of Appeals, GR. No. 103558, November 17, 1992)
– (Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals, GR. No. 96259, September 3, 1996)

Posted: February 9, 2006″

It is quite obvious that the Manotok Family and the Araneta Family are victims of a major land-grabbing syndicate. These two families and a lot of other families have had their titles since many decades ago and then, all of a sudden, someone claims to own the whole Maysilo Estate. There is really something dubious going on here. Powerful evil forces are at play over here.

We will be adding some articles here regarding the Maysilo Estate Land Titling Scam.

MAYSILO ESTATE: Battle over land

This was taken from the article written by Fel. V. Maragay of the Manila Standard:

“WHO says that landlords owning lands as far as the eyes can see are a thing of the past?

While vast haciendas in the provinces have been parceled and distributed to tenant farmers through land reform, it is ironic that there are individuals still owning—or claiming to own—hundreds or thousands of hectares right here in Metro Manila.

A classic example is the Maysilo Estate in Northern Metro Manila, which consists of 1,342 hectares of prime land. A huge portion of the estate supposedly belongs to Jose Dimson. And on the basis of land documents under Dimson’s name, the courts have upheld the claim of his heirs to ownership of the disputed property.

If the land titles of Dimson are authentic, his heirs would be the lawful owners of Maysilo Estate, which covers parts of Caloocan City, Malabon, Valenzuela City and Quezon City. The estate covers Monumento, where the shrine of national hero Andres Bonifacio is erected, Caloocan, parts of the Northern Luzon Expressway and Edsa. It also extends to thousands of private lots now being occupied by the Manila Central University, University of the East-Caloocan, Eternal Gardens Memorial Park and Ever Gotesco Grand Central, to name only a few.

Though the heirs of Jose Dimson have won victories in protracted court battles, the other claimants have not given up the fight. The dispute over the property is far from resolved.

Only the other day (Aug. 2), the Supreme Court held an en banc session on the case and heard the oral arguments of all parties.

One of the petitioners is the Araneta Institute of Technology, which has a pending motion for reconsideration with the high tribunal that it filed after the SC’s third division canceled its titles for a portion of the Maysilo Estate. The third division upheld the claim of Dimson’s heirs on the grounds that “not being a trier of facts, it could not anymore review findings of facts by the lower court.”

Araneta Institute’s land title is contained in Original Certificate Title no. 994, dated May 3, 1917. Of the Maysilo Estate’s 1,342 hectares, 1,174,478.90 square meters (or 117.4 hectares) belong to Jose Rato, one of the 32 co-owners of the estate. His title was previously under Transfer Certificate of Title no. 8692, which later on became TCT no. 21857. The whole property was later on sold to the Araneta Institute of Agriculture Inc. and was registered under AIA’s name under TCT nos. 7784-737 and 13574 in the late 1940s.

AIA and other claimants have been in peaceful and uncontested ownership and possession of the estate for decades. The other petitioners in the land case at hand, Manotok Realty and Sto. Niño Kapitbahayan, also derive their respective land titles from the same OCT no. 994, dated May 3, 1917.

The controversy began when Dimson, a lawyer, filed a case in 1977 before the Caloocan Regional Trial Court for the execution of an earlier decision issued by then Pasig Judge Cecilia Palma, confirming the Deed of Conveyance issued to him by one of the alleged heirs of Ma. Concepcion Vidal, one of the owners of the Maysilo Estate. The basis of Dimson’s land title is OCT no. 994, but dated April 19, 1917.

Dimson was said to be lawyer of one of Vidal’s grandchildren, Bernardino Rivera, and as payment for his legal services rendered, the latter gave him a Deed of Conveyance of 25 percent of his share of the estate.

Judge Palma confirmed the conveyance but disallowed the actual awarding of the property and title to Dimson in 1966 due to the opposition of Rivera’s co-heirs and the fact that his 25 percent share had already been awarded to them. This means there was no more available land to be given to Dimson.

In spite of this, Caloocan Regional Trial Court Judge Marcelino Sayo granted Dimson’s motion for the issuance of a land title to him, TCT no. R-15169, covering 500,000 meters of Lot 25-A-2 of the Maysilo Estate. Dimson then instituted a civil case for recovery of property against AIA on the grounds that the institute was “illegally occupying the land.” In 1993, the Caloocan RTC granted Dimson’s petition and ordered AIA to vacate the property. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision.

But AIA lawyers have argued that the judicial decisions favoring Dimson were faulty on the following grounds:

• There is only one OCT no. 994, which was issued on May 3, 1917 and not on April 17, 1917. The same was upheld by several officials of the Land Registration Authority and certifications issued by the Caloocan register of deeds, as well as by the Department of Justice and the Senate.

• In at least three different cases pending in different courts—two in the SC and one in the CA—the title of Dimson had been deemed “spurious, nonexistent, fraudulent and of impossible origin.”

• Dimson’s title was irregularly issued because it was made without the presentation of the owner’s duplicate certificate of the transferor.

• It is highly improbable that Dimson’s title came from OCT no. 994 because as early as 1920, the Maysilo Estate had already been partitioned and distributed to different owners.

• The Caloocan RTC had no jurisdiction to award and issue the TCT since it should have been the Pasig RTC that should have been asked to implement the order.

• The SC should have at least granted a new trial and remanded the case to a lower court.”

Is Dimson a major land scammer or is there someone bigger behind this Maysilo Land Scam.

MAYSILO ESTATE : Maysilo Claimants seek retrial

This was taken from the article of Rey E. Requejo

“LAWYERS of two clans locked in an almost three-decades-old dispute over a 70-hectare property yesterday prodded the Supreme Court to either reconsider its decision or send the case back to a trial court for presentation of evidence.

Former Associate Justices Santiago Kapunan and Ricardo Puno Sr., appearing as counsels for the Manotok and Araneta clans, respectively, asserted that their clients were the real owners of Lot 26 of the Maysilo estate, which covers parts of Caloocan City and Malabon as stated by the Original Certificate of Title no. 994 registered on May 3, 1917 and found in the registry of deeds of Caloocan City.

During the oral argument, Puno said the Court en banc should reevaluate the Nov. 29, 2005 decision of the High Court’s Third Division upholding the validity of the titles to the property in the names of CLT Realty Development Corp. and the heirs of Jose Dimson, in light of a fact-finding report submitted by the Department of Justice and the Senate that Dimson’s land title, issued on April 17, 1917, could have been fabricated considering that “there is only one OCT 994 issued, transcribed and registered on May 3, 1917.”

The validity of CLT Realty and Dimson’s OCT 994 had earlier been upheld by the High Court in MWSS vs. Court of Appeals, et al. dated Nov. 17, 1992, and the heirs of Gonzaga versus Court of Appeals dated Sept. 3, 1996.

In those rulings, the High Court held that CLT and Dimson’s land title should be declared valid, citing legal doctrine that priority is given to the title first registered.

However, Kapunan and Puno argued that the decision was based on a wrong “assumption and presumption” that there were two OCT nos. 994, one issued on April 19, 1917 and the other one on May 3, 1917.

Based on the findings of the Senate and the justice department, there was only one OCT 994 issued, dated May 3, 1917, the lawyers said.

Puno stressed that the Manotoks and Aranetas are not asking the justices to abandon their decisions on the MWSS and heirs of Gonzaga cases since they were entirely irrelevant to the present motion for reconsiderations.

“We respectfully submit that the present case can be decided on its own facts without advertence to MWSS and Heirs of Gonzaga case, which were decided based on the preposition that there were two OCT nos. 994. The present case is different since the Senate and the DoJ are now saying there was no OCT 994 issued on April 19, 1917 and that there is only one title issued on May 3, 1917,” Puno said.”

Are we not supposed to investigate as to how an OCT No. 994 was “dubiously created” on April 19, 1917?

MAYSILO ESTATE : Lawyers argue against SC decision

This very interesting 2-part article was taken from Neal Cruz’s As I See It:

The Maysilo Estate land case
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer
Last updated 02:40am (Mla time) 08/07/2006

Published on page A14 of the August 7, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

PROOF THAT THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE IN the Philippines are the slowest in the world is the land cases that take several generations to finish in the courts. Original claimants are long dead before a court case is decided, and it is his or her grandchildren and other heirs who continue the case.

One of the longest land cases on record is the ownership of the vast Maysilo Estate which covers a land area of 1,660 hectares in parts of Caloocan, Malabon, Valenzuela and Quezon City. The estate, which was previously owned by the family of Don Gonzalo Tuason y Patino was subdivided into five titles—OCTs 982, 983, 984, 985 and 994.

The present controversy, still under litigation, concerns only OCT 994, dated May 3, 1917, covering 1,342 hectares. The date has become the main issue in the controversy.

On July 3, 1917, the Court of First Instance of Rizal ordered the partition of the land covering OCT 994 among the 32 co-owners, two of whom were Jose Rato and Maria de la Concepcion Vidal.

The land acquired by Jose Rato was registered under TCT 8692 covering Lot 25-A-3 of the Maysilo Estate with an area of 1,174,468.90 square meters. Subsequently, TCT 21857 was issued in the name of Jose Rato covering the same area on May 23, 1932.

TCT 21857 was later subdivided into TCT 26538 (592,606.90 sq m) and TCT 26539 (581,872 sq m), both issued in the name of Jose Rato.

Later on, the Araneta Institute of Agriculture (AIA) acquired a portion of it—390,262 sq m—covered by TCT 26538. The same was registered under TCT (7784)-737 in the name of AIA. On the other hand, Victoneta Inc. acquired the land covered by TCT 26539, for which TCT 6196 was issued on Oct. 18, 1947 in favor of Victoneta.

Less than two years later, AIA acquired the land covered by TCT 6196 from Victoneta. On May 20, 1949, TCT 13574 was issued for that parcel of land in the name of AIA.

One of the original owners of Maysilo Estate under OCT 994 was the late Maria de la Concepcion Vidal. She was married to Pioquinto Rivera and had four children—Epifania, Pedro, Potenciana and Severo.

Epifania died in 1954 but left no children. Pedro had two daughters—Eleuteria and Teresa. Teresa is now deceased and is survived by children Pelagia, Modesta, Venancio, Felipe and Fidela, all surnamed Angeles.

Potenciana is survived by three children—Josefa, Gregorio and Rosuaro, all surnamed Aquino.

Severo died sometime in 1907 and is survived by his son Bartolome Rivera, whose mother was Luisa Pinangyarihan.

On Sept. 30, 1960, Bartolome Rivera and lawyer Jose Dimson entered into an agreement wherein the former assigned to the latter 25 percent of the total land area of Lot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28-B and 29 as attorney’s fees.

On June 13, 1966, the Pasig CFI, through Judge Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, approved the Deed of Conveyance to Jose Dimson of the 25 percent of whatever Bartolome Rivera was entitled to under Lots 25, 26, 27, 28-B and 29 from OCT 994. The surviving heirs of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal asked a Caloocan court to partition their shares under OCT 994 which the court approved on Dec. 29, 1965.

But in an order dated Aug. 16, 1966, Judge Palma denied Dimson’s motion to award him the 25 percent share because there was no more portion left to be given to Dimson. In their opposition to Dimson’s motion, the heirs led by Victoria Rivera said that whatever portions of the property covered by OCT 994 which had not been disposed of by the previous owners had already been assigned and adjudicated to Bartolome Rivera and his assignees.

Eleven years later, Dimson filed a case before the Caloocan CFI to confirm the order of confirmation of Pasig Judge Palma without however presenting the Aug. 16, 1966 order dismissing his motion for the awarding of his share of the property.

Lawyers say that Dimson’s case was filed in the wrong court since his action was essentially an enforcement of an order which was issued by a Pasig judge. The case should have been filed before Judge Palma.

But on Oct. 18, 1977, Caloocan City Judge Marcelino Sayo granted Dimson’s petition despite the fact that he never presented the original copy of OCT 994 and a subdivision plan duly approved by the Bureau of Lands or the LRA, and ordered separate TCTs for Lots 25-A-1, 25-A-2, 26 and 28 in the name of Dimson.

With titles now in his name for a portion of the Maysilo Estate, Dimson then filed an action for recovery of possession with damages and annulment of TCTs against AIA, claiming that the latter’s TCT overlapped a portion of his property.

The Caloocan RTC upheld Dimson’s claims and ordered AIA to vacate the property overlapped. The Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the lower court.

AIA then filed a motion for reconsideration. The Department of Justice and the Senate, in separate reports, affirmed AIA’s contention that OCT 994 was issued on May 3, 1917 by the Register of Deeds by virtue of Decree 36455 issued on April 19, 1917 in Land Registration Case 4429. AIA then filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial based on newly discovered evidence (the DOJ and Senate reports).

On Aug. 5, 1998, the CA denied AIA’s motion, relying mainly on the decision of the Supreme Court in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. CA (215 SCRA 783) and Heirs of Gonzaga vs. CA (261 SCRA 327).

AIA then appealed the CA ruling to the Supreme Court on Aug. 5, 1998. On Nov. 5, 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed AIA’s petition. (To be continued)

By Neal Cruz
Inquirer
Last updated 01:34am (Mla time) 08/09/2006

Published on Page A12 of the August 9, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

Continued from last Monday

IN THE controversy over the ownership of a portion of Maysilo Estate, specifically OCT 994, from which a number of TCTs emanated, the issue is which of two OCTs with different dates, over the same piece of land, is superior to the other. A portion of the land covered by OCT 994 was bought by the Araneta Institute of Agriculture (AIA) in the late 1940s. AIA has been in peaceful and uncontested ownership and possession of the property since then. OCT 994, from which AIA’s title came, is dated May 3, 1917.

In 1977, a lawyer by the name of Jose Dimson filed a case before the Caloocan regional trial court for the execution of a decision 11 years before by Judge Cecilia Muñoz-Palma confirming the Deed of Conveyance issued to him by one of the alleged heirs of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, one of the owners of the vast estate (see column of Aug. 7). The basis of Dimson’s title is OCT 994 dated April 19, 1917.

Following a ruling in MWSS vs. CA, in which the Supreme Court said that where two certificates of title over the same land exist, the earlier prevails, the lower court upheld Dimson’s title.

But lawyers of AIA argue that:

1. There is only one OCT 994, that which was issued on May 3, 1917 and not on April 19, 1917. The same is upheld by several officials of the Land Registration Authority and the certification issued by the Caloocan Register of Deeds as well as by the Department of Justice and the Senate.

2. The Supreme Court should have made a distinction between a decree of registration and certificate of title. Section 41 of the Land Registration Act says that a certificate of title takes effect not when the decree was issued but only on the date of transcription of the decree of registration. Since the transcription of the decree of OCT 994 was made on
May 3, 1917, it should be deemed the date its certificate of title was issued.

3. The Supreme Court should have at least granted a new trial and remanded the case back to the lower court since the DOJ and the Senate reports have probative value and hold some persuasive effect since both are deemed regular acts. The same could trace the original certificates of title from which the disputed TCTs were derived.

4. The issue of whether or not only one valid OCT 994 was issued on May 3, 1917 is very important. The Supreme Court should have taken it into consideration because it involved a total of 1,342 hectares of prime land in four cities now occupied by various public and commercial buildings, residential houses and schools.

5. The Court of Appeals, in its decision, went beyond the issues raised when it concluded that AIA’s title is a nullity when it was not touched upon by the Caloocan RTC in its decision. This alone should have compelled the Supreme Court to review the findings of the Court of Appeals.

6. The MWSS case does not apply in the present case because no pronouncement on the validity of Dimson’s petition before the Caloocan RTC was made by the court because AIA was not a party in the MWSS case, and the issues raised in the MWSS are different from the present controversy.

7. The Caloocan RTC had no jurisdiction to award and issue TCTs to Dimson because the Pasig RTC should have been asked to implement its own order.

8. Dimson’s title was irregularly issued because it was made without the presentation of the owner’s certificate of the transferor (Section 55, Land Registration Act) and the corresponding subdivision plan duly approved by the Bureau of Lands or the Land Registration Authority (Section 58, Land Registration Act).

9. It is highly improbable that Dimson’s title came from OCT 994 because as early as 1920, the Maysilo Estate had already been partitioned and distributed to the different owners as shown in the cases of Bustamante vs. Tuason (47 PR 696) and Garcia vs. CA (35 SCRA 380).

10. In at least three different cases pending in different courts, two in the Supreme Court and one in the Court of Appeals, the title of Dimson has been established to be “spurious, inexistent, fraudulent and of impossible origin” (Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp. vs. CLT Realty Development Corp; Alfonso vs. Office of the President and Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp.; and Republic of the Philippines vs. Lilia Sevilla and Jose Seelin.

Based on the above facts and arguments, it is easy to determine which of the two parties has a better right to the land.

Property owners and legal experts have expressed apprehension over the implications of the Supreme Court ruling. They said that if the title of the winning claimant (Dimson) is upheld, it would create a crisis among the present owners of the lands originating from OCT 994 dated May 3, 1917. As things stand, most of the current owners and occupants of the lots in the areas affected by the Supreme Court ruling originate from OCT 994 dated May 3, 1917. They are asking: What will happen to our titles? Will the current titleholders be evicted? Hundreds or thousands of lot owners in the affected areas face the danger of losing their homes if Dimson’s title is upheld, they fear. If I am not mistaken, however, the land titles of “buyers in good faith” are protected by law.

But certainly, this issue has far-reaching effects not only on the validity of land titles in the country but the entire system of land registration. This will undermine the integrity of our torrens system and evoke fears that land titles that have been issued within the regular and normal process are still not fool-proof.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will side with the truth and not be pressured to create a huge mistake out of a forgery and lie.

MAYSILO ESTATE: more articles

Here are more articles of interest regarding the Maysilo Estate Controversy


The Maysilo Estate story : A microcosm what ails the Torrens System.

The Maysilo Story : When heirs are older than mom or granny.

Can any one just monkey around with land titles?

Even Bonifacio can lose his Monument!

DoJ [Department of Justice] forms land title probe body.

The Maysilo Estate Story: When dates are changed, the dire consequences.

Deeds registrars to help check spurious land titling.

Faking of titles a heinous crime.

The Maysilo Estate Story: MWSS [Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System] ruling a shotgun vs Caloocan landowners.

The Maysilo Estate Story: Checking out court orders unmasks titling scandal.

A title to land not found on world map!

MWSS property 12,000 m away from Dimson ‘land’!

And here is a very nice article by Manuel L. Quezon III

The value of a title
First posted 03:15am (Mla time) Feb 20, 2006
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer

SINCE THE TURN OF THE LAST CENTURY, THE ownership of land in our country has been determined through a Torrens title. An Australian definition of the title is presented as follows: “Under the Torrens Title system a Certificate of Title exists for every separate piece of land. The certificate contains a reference that consists of a volume and folio number, ownership details, easements and/or rights of way affecting the land and any encumbrances including mortgages, leases and other interests in the land.”

A Senate report explains why property owners in Caloocan are concerned with what they believe is a crucial challenge to the Torrens system:

“In the August 12, 1997 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, these landowners reiterated their request for a Senate inquiry into the land titling crisis affecting properties covered by the Hacienda Maysilo. They called on the government to stop claimants from titling big tracts of already titled and developed commercial and industrial properties in the areas. They stressed that unless swift action is taken, the Torrens system of land title registration would become useless, public confidence in commercial transactions would be destroyed, and overall economic development adversely affected.”

So what was-and is-the actual dispute?

Let’s begin with the mother property, so to speak. On May 3, 1917, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994, was issued. OCT 994 covers 1,660 hectares in what is now Caloocan and parts of Quezon City. That property was eventually subdivided. One of the smaller “subdivisions” is Lot 25-A3, also known as the Tuason Estate. This lot was recognized in no less than four Supreme Court decisions: G.R. No. L-22510, dated Feb. 6, 1925; G.R. No. L-23239, dated Dec. 31, 1925; G.R. No. L-30668, dated Aug. 28, 1929; G.R. No. L-33646, dated Dec. 29, 1930.

Lot 25-A3 was bought from Jose Rato Tuason in 1947 by the Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. (AIA). On that property, AIA established a school, which is today known as the De La Salle-Araneta University.

From the time of the original purchase (which was undertaken in good faith), AIA occupied the land, faithfully paying the real estate taxes therefor, constructing buildings thereon, and subdividing it into several portions with the approval of the appropriate government agencies.

Thirty-two years later, a certain Jose B. Dimson filed a complaint against AIA. In his Dec. 18, 1979 complaint, Dimson alleged that he discovered that his land had been illegally occupied! According to him, 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. AIA’s case has been lumped with other cases filed in connection with OCT 994.

In 1997, a regional trial court ruled in favor of Dimson. The decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals and then by the Supreme Court. AIA has appealed the high court’s verdict.

Some lawyers have told me that there is a legal principle at work, here, too: the Doctrine of Laches. It is to land what the statute of limitations-which sets specific periods for the filing of cases-is to certain suits or crimes.

Basically it would be like this: you buy a piece of land in good faith. You develop it, improve it; you may even, at certain points, sell off parts of the original property you bought to other people. Decades after you bought the land, someone comes along and claims that the land is his. The claimant naturally stands to benefit from all the improvements you put on the land. And anyone who bought a piece of that land from you, or bought from someone else who purchased a piece of that land from you, stands to lose his lot because of this claim. Had you been fairly warned that there was a dispute over the property you bought, would you have made improvements on that land, or would people have bought from you in good faith? And if the claim, made decades after improvements on the land have been made so obviously and publicly, is allowed to prosper, wouldn’t it be unfair both to you and everyone else with titles to parts of the land you originally bought? That’s the rationale behind the Doctrine of Laches.

One thing is sure: this case involves a huge property and so many people and entities. If AIA loses its appeal, its case will be the third precedent case affirming that OCT 994 of May 3, 1917 is not real. Anyone holding a TCT (Transfer Certificate of Title) from this OCT will, in essence, be considered by the courts to be holding a fake title.

Well, is there anyone else holding such TCTs? Yes, among them: the national government-450 hectares (covered by 1,254 land titles), and within its ambit are roads, national highways, portions of the North Expressway, Edsa, the Bonifacio Monument, public markets and other public areas; private/business owners-1,210 hectares (covered by thousands of land titles), which cover property occupied by the Manila Central University, University of the East, Eternal Garden Memorial, Ever Grand Central, Sony Corporation, Mojica Properties, to name a few.

Indeed, the implications of this case are far too wide and virtually all-embracing that its resolution requires no less than a Supreme Court of the Philippines sitting en banc. This certainly is one question that deserves the determination by the whole, not just a division, of our highest court.

MAYSILO ESTATE : Supreme Court nullifies titles of Maysilo estate

This is why the Justice System in the Philippines is, again, in question. Did the Supreme Court decide under pressure or did they not do their research first? Do they know the dire consequences of their decision?

This is the flaw when someone in the lower courts commits a malicious mistake.

By REY G. PANALIGAN

The Supreme Court has nullified the titles to more than 70 hectares of prime land in the cities of Malabon and Caloocan in Metro Manila registered in the names of a realty firm and its sister company, an agricultural school, and a homeowners association.

In a decision written by Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez, nullified were the land titles in the names of the Manotok Realty, Inc. and the Manotok Estate Corp., the Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc., and the Sto. Niño Kapitbahayan Association, Inc.

Affirmed were the titles to the same tracts of land known as the Maysilo Estate in the names of CLT Realty Development Corp. and the heirs of Jose B. Dimson represented by Roqueta R. Dimson, Norma and Celso Tirado, Alson and Virginia Dimson, Linda and Carlos Lagman, Lerma and Rene Policar, and Esperanza R. Dimson.

In a 39-page decision, the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the Manotok firms, the Araneta Institute of Agriculture, and the homeowners association. It affirmed the decisions handed down by the Court of Appeals that upheld the rulings issued by the Caloocan City regional trial court (RTC).

“Wherefore, the instant petitions are denied and the assailed decisions and resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby affirmed in toto,” the High Court ruled.

The decision was concurred in by then third division chairman and now Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, and Justices Renato C. Corona and Conchita Carpio Morales. Justice Cancio C. Garcia did not take part as one of his decisions when he was a member of the Court of Appeals involved the three petitions.

“Here, the paramount question being raised in the three petitions is whether TCT (Transfer Certificate of Title) No. 15169 issued in the name of Jose B. Dimson and TCT No. 177013 issued in the name of CLT are valid. Undoubtedly, such issue is a pure question of fact – a matter beyond our power to determine,” it said.

“Where, as here, the findings of fact of the trial courts are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the same are accorded the highest degree of respect and, generally, will not be disturbed on appeal. Such findings are binding and conclusive on this court,” it pointed out.

But the High Court said that “to reinforce our conclusion, we shall still proceed to discuss why the present petitions have no merit.”

The petition filed by the Manotok firms assailed the Sept. 28, 1995 Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the May 10, 1994 ruling of the RTC in favor of CLT. The trial court ordered the cancellation of TCTs 4210 and 4211 in the names of the Manotoks because they encroached on CLT’s 20.1 hectares denominated as Lot 26 of the Maysilo Estate.

The trial court also ordered the Manotoks to vacate the property and to pay CLT P201,288 annually from 1989 as reasonable compensation for the use of the land.

In arriving at its decision, the trial court relied on the findings and recommendations of two of three commissioners formed with the approval of the parties and the court to resolve the conflict.

After hearings on the recommendations, the trial court affirmed the findings that the Manotoks’ titles to the property were irregularly issued as evidenced by, among others, the “inherent technical infirmities or defects” like while Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 was written in English, the descendant or derivative title was written in Spanish “which is highly improbable and irregular;” absence of lot number and survey plan number in the technical description, and the absence of a subdivision survey plan at the records of the Bureau of Lands or the Land Registration Authority.

On the other hand, the trial court affirmed the findings that TCT 177013 in the name of CLT was a transfer from TCT-R17994 registered in the name of Estelita Hipolito which in turn is a transfer from TCT-R-15166 registered in the name of Jose B. Dimson which also is a transfer from OCT 994.

The petition filed by the Araneta Institute of Agriculture challenged the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals issued on May 30, 1997 and July 16, 1998, respectively, in favor of Dimson represented by his heirs.

The complaint for recovery and possession of the property was filed by Dimson on Dec. 18, 1979 against the Araneta Institute of Agriculture before the RTC. Dimson said that he owned the more than 50 hectares of land of the Maysilo Estate which the Aranetas occupied, constructed buildings, and set up a subdivision. The Aranetas denied the accusation.

On May 28, 1993, the trial court issued a decision ordering the Aranetas to vacate the more than 50 hectares property, remove all improvements, and turn over the full possession of the land to Dimson.

In ruling in favor of Dimson, the trial court found that the titles of the Aranetas under TCTs 13574 and 7784 (now TCT 21343) were derived from those issued in the name of Jose Rato under TCTs 26538 and 26539 by Decree No. 4429 and Record No. 4429.

But the trial court said that Decree No. 4429 was issued by the then court of first instance (now RTC) of Isabela, while Record No. 4429 was issued for ordinary land registration case on March 31, 1911 in CLR No. 5898 in the province of Laguna.

At the same time, the trial court said that the Araneta’s TCT 13574 and TCT 21343 purportedly derived from OCT 994 registered on May 3, 1917 had been nullified by the Supreme Court in 1992 in the case of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Court of Appeals and the High Court decision had long become final and executory with a ruling that the genuine OCT No. 994 was registered on April 19, 1917.

The petition filed by the Sto. Nino Kapitbahayan Association, Inc. against the CLT challenged the March 23, 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the ruling of the trial court issued on Feb. 12, 1996.

At first, the trial court ruled in favor of the association, but later reversed itself in favor of CLT on the ground that there was fraud in the issuance of TCT 4211 from which the association’s titles were derived.

TCT 4211 had earlier been declared invalid by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the case filed by CLT with a finding that TCT 4211 could not have been a true derivative of OCT 994, the Maysilo Estate.

During the pendency of the three petitions at the Supreme Court, the Manotoks filed manifestations informing the tribunal of a fact-finding report submitted by the Department of Justice (DoJ), the Land Registration Authority, and the Office of the Solicitor General, and the Senate committee report that both concluded that “there is only one OCT No. 994 issued, transcribed and registered on May 3, 1917.”

Resolving the issues, the Supreme Court said:

“We noted in the beginning of this decision that the issue in all these three cased involves the validity of the parties’ overlapping titles. The titles of the respondents (CLT and the heirs of Dimson) were derived from OCT 994 of the Registry of Caloocan City registered on April 19, 1917.

“The validity of such mother title has already been upheld by this court in GR No. 103558, MWSS vs. Court of Appeals, et al dated Nov. 17, 1992 earlier cited in the assailed decisions. Significantly, the ruling in MWSS was a reiteration from GR No. 96259, Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals dated Sept. 3, 1996.

“The MWSS decision, confirming the validity of OCT No. 994 issued on April 19, 1917 from which the titles of the respondents in the cases at bar were derived, has long become final and executory. Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it becomes immutable and unalterable.

“Finally, we cannot consider the alleged newly-discovered evidence consisting of the DOJ and Senate Fact-Finding Committee Reports invoked by petitioners herein. Certainly, such committee reports cannot override the decisions of the trial courts and the Court of Appeals upholding the validity of respondents’ titles in these cases.

“The said decisions were rendered after the opposing parties have been accorded due process. It bears stressing that the courts have the constitutional duty to adjudicate legal disputes properly brought before them.

“The DoJ and Senate, or any other agencies of the government for that matter, have clearly distinguishable roles from that of the judiciary. Just as overlapping of titles is abhorred, so is the overlapping of findings of facts among the different branches and agencies of the government.”

THE GARCI SCANDAL just got hotter!

Virgilio “Garci” Garcilliano seems to be all smiles these days. And why not? He probably realizes that he has the best hand in any poker game and he received a very nice and most likely, big fat Christmas present.

Not only is his controversial case dismissed by the Department of Justice (Injustice is more appropriate), he was most likely even paid to shut-up.

If Garci talks or if he was found guilty, then the legitimacy of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is definitely going to be the main topic of discussion and would then be the focus of the opposition.

It was predicted that due to the above reasons, Garci’s case was dismissed. It would not seem appropriate (for the President & her trapos) if Garci was found to be guilty.

But because of this too, Garci seems to have the upper-hand and his secret will only remain a secret if he is alive or if he finds a higher bidder. Most likely, he can also do a complete turn-around like what the President is very well know for nowadays. It is a popular move in the Cha-cha.

To top it all, Garci is going to run for Congress.

ONLY IN THE PHILIPPINES!!! Really!!!