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.

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.

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.