Pagbabago pilipinas – blog – manotoc barque case

x----------------x

SC affirms resolution on land titlesMay 28, 2009 — pagbabago

http://www.mb.com.ph/node/202335

By REY G. PANALIGAN

The Supreme Court (SC) declared final Tuesday its March 31, 2009 resolution that affirmed the validity of the titles of the Manotok Realty, Inc., the Manotok Estate Corp., and the Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. over about 100 hectares of prime land in Malabon City.

In a full court resolution, the SC ruled to deny with finality the motion for partial reconsideration filed by Manotok Estate Corp. “as the basic issues raised therein have been passed upon by this court and no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned resolution.”

It further ruled that “no further pleadings will be entertained” on the case.

In a resolution written by the now retired Justice Dante O. Tinga, the SC adopted the findings of the Court of Appeals (CA) that established the right of ownership of the school and the Manotok firms over the 100 hectares of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 994 that was registered on May 3, 1917 and not on April 19, 1917.

With the ruling, the SC nullified the certificates of title over the property in the names of the late Jose Dimson and his successors in interest, and CLT Realty Development Corp. whose titles over OCT No. 994 were traced back to April 19, 1917.

“In view of the established rights of ownership of both the Manotoks and Araneta over the contested properties, we find that the imputed flaws on their titles cannot defeat the valid claims of the Manotoks and Araneta over the disputed portions of the Maysilo Estate,” the SC said.

Posted in Araneta, Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Manotok, Maysilo Estate, maysilo, manotok, manotok realty, maysilo estate, land. Tags: Araneta, Manotok, maysilo. Leave a Comment »

Court upholds Araneta, Manotok claimsApril 8, 2009 — pagbabago

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news2_april6_2009

Court upholds Araneta, Manotok claims

By Rey E. Requejo

THE Supreme Court ended more than 30 years of litigation as it declared valid the land titles held by the Araneta and Manotok clans over 70 percent of the 1,342-hectare Maysilo Estate.

The high court upheld the findings of the Court of Appeals’ Special Division in an en banc resolution written by Associate Justice Dante Tinga.

The appellate court had established the rights of ownership of the Araneta Institute of Agriculture Inc., Manotok Realty Inc., and Manotok Estate Corp. over the pieces of property that were registered on May 3, 1917.

Eight justices concurred with the ruling, while Chief Justice Renato Puno, Associate Justices Consuelo Ynarez-Santiago, Antonio Carpio and Eduardo Nachura did not participate in the deliberations. Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez was on leave.

The Court rejected the titles to the pieces of property held by the deceased Jose Dimson, his successors, and CLT Realty Development Corp.

“In view of the established rights of ownership of both the Manotoks and Araneta over the contested properties, we find that the imputed flaws on their titles cannot defeat the valid claims of the Manotoks and Araneta over the disputed portions of the Maysilo Estate,” the high court said as it quoted the appellate court’s report on Nov. 26, 2008.

The appellate court had said that the titles being held by Dimson had all been derived from the May 3, 1917 registered title.

It said that the Aranetas’ claim had been “well substantiated and proven to be superior to that of Dimson’s

One transfer certificate on the property covers a parcel of land measuring 581,872 square meters, while another covers four parcels of land with a total land area of 390,383 square meters.

The appellate court also noted that portions of the lot being disputed by the Manotoks and CLT Realty were expropriated in 1947. And because those were for resale to tenants, the Manotoks were able to establish some of their titles derived from those that had been expropriated.

“The Court has verified that the titles [of the Manotoks], as stated by the Special Division, sufficiently indicate that they could be traced back to the titles acquired by the Republic when it expropriated portions of the Maysilo Estate in the 1940s,” the Court said.

‘‘On the other hand, the Manotok titles that were affirmed by the Special Division are traceable to the titles of the Republic and thus have benefited, as they should, from the cleansing effect the expropriation had on whatever flaws that attached to the previous titles.”

On Dec. 14, 2007, the high court affirmed the validity of the May 3, 1917 registered title as the only genuine title of the disputed property stretching over the cities of Malabon, Caloocan and Quezon.

That decision set aside the Nov. 29, 2005 decision of the Court’s Third Division upholding the Court of Appeals, which in turn affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court that declared as valid the title 994 issued on April 19, 1917.

The high court ruled that “there is only one title No. 994: the mother title that was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds on May 3, 1917, and that should be the date that should be reckoned as the date of registration of the title.”

The Court of Appeals had been mandated to determine, among other things, which of the contending parties were able to trace back their claims of title to title 994 dated May 3, 1917, and whether the imputed flaws in the titles of Manotok Realty Inc. and Manotok Estate Corp., and the Araneta Institute of Agriculture Inc. were borne by the evidence.

The Manotoks and Aranetas had sought a reversal of the Nov. 29, 2005 high court decision that effectively nullified the land titles in their names.

The questioned appelate court rulings affirmed the lower court’s decisions awarding to CLT Realty and the late Jose Dimson the properties being claimed by the Manotoks and Aranetas.

Dimson had claimed that he was the absolute owner of 50-hectares of land at the Maysilo Estate in Potrero, Malabon. The lower court then ruled in his favor, prompting the Aranetas to appeal to the appelate court, which in turn affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The Aranetas appealed to the high court when the appelate court also denied its motion for reconsideration.

On Aug. 10, 1992, CLT sought to recover from Manotok Realty Inc. and Manotok Estate Corp. Lot 26 of the Maysilo Estate in an action filed before the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court, Branch 129. The court granted its petition, prompting the Manotoks to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which turned them down.

The Manotoks then elevated the case to the high court, which then consolidated the two cases.

Posted in Araneta, Araneta Institute of Agriculture, CLT, Jose Dimson, Manotok, maysilo, manotok, manotok realty, maysilo estate, land. Tags: Araneta, CLT, CLT Realty Development Corp., Jose Dimson, Manotok, manotok realty. Leave a Comment »

Complicating a simple caseApril 3, 2009 — pagbabago

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.

Posted in Heirs of Homer Barque, Homer Barque, Land Scams, Land-grabbing syndicate, Manotok, Quezon City. Tags: Homer Barque, Land Scams, manahan, Manotok. Leave a Comment »

Twice reversedFebruary 26, 2009 — pagbabago

http://www.malaya.com.ph/feb26/busi8.htm

‘No cause is hopeless if it is just. Errors, no matter how popular, carry the seeds of their own destruction.’ – John W. Scoville

*  *  *

Twice reversed

Maybe it is a not-too-sudden twist of fate. Maybe, it is the law taking its course.

Whatever it is, the records show that Supreme Court Associate Justice Consuelo Y. Santiago of the Fifth Division had three of her peers agreeing with her earlier ponencia that heirs of Homer Barque are the real owners of a 34-hectare property occupied for many decades by the heirs of Severino Manotok. The reverse is now true.

The learned lady justice stood pat on her interpretation of the law. She denied two motions for reconsideration filed by the Manotoks. The ruling was about to become final. In fact there was an entry of judgment.

In her ruling Justice Santiago ordered the register of deeds of Quezon City to transfer the title of the multi-billion property in the name of the heirs of Homer Barque. The heirs of Severino Manotok were to lose the property said to be covered by a Torrens title.

But like they say, “it ain’t over until the fat lady sings.” Up to the time, the second motion for reconsideration was denied by the 5th Division, the fat lady had not sung.

In time, rather unexpectedly, she finally sang. In the end, it was over and the heirs of Homer Barque were not to set foot on the property. It did not belong to them, after all.

The fat lady sings

The “fat lady” in this case came in the person of respected and retired Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano, who at this time, must be in his eighties, if not older.

It was he who sought an en banc hearing about the decision of Justice Consuelo Santiago.

There was an open debate, exchange of interpretation of what law is applicable on the case and how the facts were to be appreciated.

Procedurally, the court en banc had Justice Santiago defending her ruling. She would have been the ponente if majority of the en banc agreed with her. But the court overruled her ponencia, voting 8-6.

The ponente became the dissenter. She could have been two-time ponente in the same case had she been supported by her peers in her original ponencia in the Fifth Division.

In my interpretation, it was a simple case of illustrating the old Latin legal maxim “dura lex, sed lex.” The law is hard but it is the law.

Majority of the justices in the fifth division ruled in favor of the heirs of Homer Barque. The lone dissenter was Justice Antonio T. Carpio.

But in he en banc, eight minds are better than six.

Final ponencia

After the Court en banc voted against the original ponencia of Justice Santiago, Justice Dante Tinga was assigned to pen the decision of the majority in the en banc vote.

That left Justice Santiago a dissenter. A ponente in a division decision becoming a dissenter in the en banc ruling does not happen that often in the Supreme Court.

When it does, we get the feeling that the law, wrongly interpreted in the division decision, is set aright in the en banc.

The law takes its course in the right direction. The division ponencia was wrong. The denial by the First Division of two motions for reconsideration did not bring the ruling of Justice Santiago remotely close to what the majority believed was right.

One way of looking or interpreting this situation is that the en banc or collective minds of majority of the 15 magistrates are more correct than the mind of one justice in a division supported by three peers.

The rule of the majority becomes more significant and credible when the number increases from five to 15. In the en banc vote, it is not incorrect to say that eight minds against six including the four in the First Division, are better.

Denied with finality

The law allows the losing litigant to file a motion for reconsideration. The lawyers of the heirs of Homer Barque did just that.

But again, the Barques could not change the ruling of the eight magistrates in the en banc. To write finis to the case, the en banc denied the motion for reconsideration with finality. The ruling is now part of the law of the land after some procedural matters are complied with.

The decision is to remand the case to the Court of Appeals.

It might be said that Justice Santiago lost again. My presumption is that, being a dissenter in the en banc, she had wished to grant the motion for reconsideration. The minority she led was out-voted.

Maybe there is a lesson to learn from this case. Maybe the Court should draw up guidelines on what to accept for orals by the en banc or what to support at the division level.

The grant of en banc orals depend on the weakness or errors of the questioned decision and the strength of the new arguments.

En banc orals are on exclusive authority of the Chief Justice but the final decision belongs to the majority in the Court.

In other words, a ponencia made at the division level, can be reversed by the en banc if the division refused, as in the case of Manotok vs Barque, to reverse itself.

Third case

A lawyer friend told me that a division ruling as in case of Manotok being reversed by the en banc is only the third such case in the history of the Supreme Court.

The ultimate meaning and interpretation of the final ruling by the en banc is that justice prevailed in the end.

Let it not be said that the en banc shamed Justice Santiago. Let it be said that her peers by a vote of 8-6 loudly told her that she was wrong although she insisted four times that she was right.

The first was her ponencia.

Then Justice Santiago and her division denied two motions for reconsideration by the heirs of Severino Manotok. That was the second.

The third was the reversal by the en banc of her ponencia.

The final blow or we might say death knell was the resolution denying the Barque motion for reconsideration with finality.

It is said that the Court is powerful because it is right even when it is wrong. In the Manotok case, the Court set aright what the en banc had seen was wrong.

The final decision is a triumph of justice. Justice Santiago herself should be happy about it.

Posted in Homer Barque, Land Scams, Land-grabbing syndicate, Manotok, Teresita Barque Hernandez. Tags: Heirs of Homer Barque, Homer Barque, Land Scams, land-grabbing, Manotok. Leave a Comment »

The Ponente becomes the dissenterDecember 27, 2008 — pagbabago

http://www.malaya.com.ph/dec27/busi8.htm

The ponente becomes dissenter

It was not a sudden twist of fate that Supreme Court Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago became a dissenter in the aftermath of a land title case where she was the ponente.

It was just that the Court en banc found her earlier decision so peppered with holes that it had to be reversed.

The reversal, promulgated on Dec. 18, forced Justice Santiago to stick by her guns and even improve a defense of her decision, this time as a dissenter. The Court junked her ruling 8-6.

The unkind way of looking at the reversal is that Justice Santiago and three of her colleagues in the First Division, did not know the facts and the laws applicable in the land dispute between the heirs of Severino Manotok and the heirs of Homer Barque. They felt comfortable in their decision such that two motions for reconsideration were denied by Justice Santiago.

In fact, Justice Santiago had insisted that her ruling had become final and executory. It was not to be since the en banc took over the case.

A dizzying land case

The land dispute between the heirs of Severino Manotok and the heirs of Homer Barque is dizzying.

In the first stage, the Land Registration Administration sustained the position of the Manotoks. On appeal by the heirs of Homer Barque, the LRA reversed its decision.

The Manotoks elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. Again, as in the LRA, they won the appeal.

The CA, for reasons which are very difficult to understand, reversed itself and declared that the 34-hectare disputed land in Quezon City should be titled in the name of the heirs of Homer Barque.

Naturally, the Manotoks appealed to the Supreme Court. The case landed in the First Division.

Justice Santiago ruled that the register of deeds should reconstitute the title for the Barques.

We all thought that was the end of the case although we have maintained that the lone dissent of Justice Antonio Carpio was the correct interpretation of the laws and appreciation of the facts. It turned out in the en banc that his dissent was right and the ponencia or ruling of Justice Santiago was wrong.

Unorthodox

Associate Justice Dante Tinga, the en banc ponente, acknowledged the petition of the Manotoks “are attended by a few procedural unorthodoxies, such as, for example, the Court en banc’s move on the Special First Division’s referral to these petitions when an entry of judgment had already been made in favor of the Barques.”

“Yet,” Justice Tinga opined, “the prevailing consensus within the Court en banc was to proceed with the reevaluation of these cases pro hac vice (“for this time only”).

“There are good reasons for the Court to act in such rare manner in these cases. Most urgently, the Court had felt that the previous rulings by the First Division and the special First Division warranted either affirmation or modification by the Court acting en banc.”

This case is the only one I know where an entry of judgment had been made but the decision was reversed in the en banc.

The act of re-evaluation alone is a clear suggestion that Justice Santiago erred in affirming the findings of the LRA and Court of Appeals.

The ruling on this case maybe considered a landmark in the sense that the Supreme Court made it clear that judicial reconstitution is a sole and exclusive function of the regional trial court. Therefore, neither the LRA, the Court of Appeals nor even the Supreme Court may tinker with the law.

Justice is done when majority of the jurists overturn a division which was supposed to be final and executory.

The Torrens system

In this ponencia, Justice Tinga observed:

“The office of the Solicitor General correctly pointed out that this Court has sanctioned the recall entries of judgment. The power to suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final.

“The militating concern for the Court en banc in accepting these cases is not so much the particular fate of the parties, but the stability of the Torrens system of registration by ensuring clarity of jurisprudence on the field.”

Of utmost significance and importance is the en banc decision that raised the question of whether or not the Court of Appeals was

empowered to direct the annulment of the Manotok title through petitions…by the Barques and the Manotoks. It could not. The lesson to be learned by those who will try claiming other people’s land without proof of ownership is that the law provides that “a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in direct proceeding in according with law.”

The direct proceeding referred to was the original and exclusive jurisdiction of judicial reconstitution by the Regional Trial Court.

Justice Santiago trivialized it and declared in her overturned decision that allowing the RTC to exercise jurisdiction is a waste of time since the facts had already been established by the LRA and the Court of Appeals.

The controversy

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.

Justice Tinga ruled:

“Reconstitution of Torrens title is intended for non-controversial cases, or especially where the subject property is not covered by an existing title in favor of a person other than the applicant.

“Such an implication is consonant with the rule that the reconstitution proceedings are not the venue for confirmation or adjudication of title, but merely a means by which a previously adjudicated title whose original has been lost or destroyed may be re-issued to its owner.”

The problem with this case is that it seems to be both administrative and judicial. The claim of the Barques was first denied by the LRA but later sustained. The same with the Court of Appeals.

The point is it hardly matters whether the findings of facts by the LRA may be upheld. The LRA has no authority to determine facts in judicial reconstitution. Justice Santiago and the three members of the First Division never saw it that way.

Posted in Heirs of Homer Barque, Homer Barque, Land Scams, Land-grabbing syndicate, Manotok. Tags: Heirs of Homer Barque, Homer Barque, Manotok, manotok realty, Teresita Barque Hernandez. Leave a Comment »

Manotok case remanded to appellate courtDecember 24, 2008 — pagbabago

There is justice indeed. The land-grabbing scam of the “Heirs of Homer Barque” has lost this round. It is really hard to believe that the “Heirs of Homer Barque” found titles to a property that is worth a huge amount of money bu their deceased father Homer Barque never ever mentioned about.

LINK

Manotok case remanded to appellate court

By Rey E. Requejo

The Supreme Court has remanded to the Court of Appeals for reception of further evidence the land dispute case involving the Manotok clan and heirs of Homer Barque, who both claimed ownership over the Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate situated in Quezon City, covering 342,945 square meters of prime property.

Voting 8-6, the SC en banc through Associate Justice Dante Tinga set aside the Dec. 12, 2005 decision of the Court’s First Division, which affirmed the two CA rulings both directing the QC Register of Deeds to cancel the Manotok title, while ordering Land Registration Authority (LRA) to reconstitute the Barque title.

“The Court recognizes that there is not yet any sufficient evidence for us to warrant the annulment of the Manotok title. All that the record indicates thus far is evidence not yet refuted by clear and convincing proof that the Manotoks’ claim to title is flawed. To arrive at an ultimate determination, the formal reception of evidence is in order,” the SC said in its resolution noting that the tribunal was not a trier of facts.

“The primary focus for the Court of Appeals, as an agent of this Court, in receiving and evaluating evidence should be whether the Manotoks can trace their claim of title to a valid alienation by the government of Lot no. 823 of the Piedad Estate, which was a Friar Land. On that evidence, this Court may ultimately decide whether annulment of the Manotok title is warranted…”

The SC said the CA should hear and receive evidence, conclude the proceedings and submit to the Court a report on its findings and recommended conclusions within three months from notice of the resolution.

In its ruling, the SC admitted the Court’s First Division erred in its 2005 decision, affirming the CA ruling that cancelled the land title of the Manotok clan over the prime lot, which is part of the Piedad Estate in then Caloocan town of Rizal province at the same time declaring the Barque heirs as real owners.

According to the SC, neither the LRA nor the CA has jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title over the property valued at more than P5 billion.

Under the law, the CA’s jurisdiction covers only special civil actions and actions for annulment of judgments of the regional trial court, the high court said, sustaining the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in its position that the LRA had no jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title nor rule on the validity of a certificate of title.

It cited paragraph 2, Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which mandated the regional trial court the exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions involving the title or possession of real property.

Based on the provisions of the Presidential Decree 1529 or the Property Registration Decree, the LRA had no power to cancel titles, the SC noted.

“The 2005 decision accepted the findings of the LRA and the Court of Appeals that the Manotok title was spurious and accordingly sanctioned its cancellation, even though no direct attack on the title had been initiated before a trial court,” the SC said.

“That the 2005 decision erred in that regard is a necessary consequence following our earlier explanation of why the mere existence of the Manotok title necessarily barred the LRA from inquiring into the validity of that title.”

The row over the Piedad Estate came after a fire struck Quezon City Hall, destroying, among others, numerous certificates of land title at the Register of Deeds office.

Records showed that Barque title actually involved two parcels as part of Piedad Estate Lot 823, measuring 342,945 square meters, while the Manotok title referred to a parcel, but with a similar area.

The Barques filed a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of the original transfer certificate of title 210177 issued in the name of Homer Barque, claiming their title was among the records destroyed by the 1988 fire.

They submitted copies of the alleged owner’s duplicate of the Barque title, real estate tax receipts, tax declarations and a plan covering the said property.

The Manotoks, led by Severino Manotok IV, filed an opposition, claiming that the lot covered by the Barque title formed part of the land covered by their reconstituted title TCT RT-22481 (372302) in the name of Severino, et al.

The LRA denied Barques’ petition but later reversed its ruling and declared that Manotoks’ title was fraudulently reconstituted.

But the LRA noted that only the regional trial court could cancel the Manotoks’ title as a Torrens title.

The LRA later denied the Manotoks motion for reconsideration as well as the motion of Barques prayer for the immediate reconstitution of their title.

This prompted the two parties to separately elevate the case before the CA through a petition for review.

During the pendency of their petitions, a certain Felicitas Manahan filed a motion for leave to intervene, claiming ownership over the subject property.

The CA Second Division issued an amended decision on Nov.7, 2003 granting Barques’ immediate reconstitution of their title being valid and genuine.

The CA Third Division, where the Manotoks’ appeal was raffled off, also upheld the right of the Barques over the Piedad Estate.

On Dec. 12, 2005, the SC’s First Division issued a decision penned by Associate Justice Consuelo-Ynares Santiago and concurred in by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., and Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing and Adolfo Azcuna affirming the CA ruling.

The ruling became final after it denied the motion for reconsideration of the Manotoks on June 19, 2006.

The Barques filed multiple motions with the First Division seeking the execution of the judgment, including the issuance of a writ of possession or for execution.

The Manotoks filed an urgent motion to refer motion for possession to the SC en banc and to set the issue for oral argument.

On July 26, the court en banc promulgated a resolution accepting the cases.

In ordering that the case returned to the CA, the SC admitted that it had before sanctioned the recall of entries of judgment due to compelling reason—to provide “clarity of jurisprudence on the field” in connection with the Torrens system of registration.

The SC also observed that on its review of the records, the Barques’ claim was also weak—if the property was bought from a certain Setosta, the title should have been registered under the name of Setosta.

It said the title was registered under the name of Manotok Realty, Inc., which contradicted Barques’ claim that the Manotoks had no title to the property.

“These discrepancies highlight the error of the LRA and the Court of Appeals in acknowledging the right of the Barques to seek reconstitution of their purported Barque title. Even assuming that the petition for reconstitution should not have been dismissed due to the Manotok title, it is apparent that the Barques’ claim of ownership is exceedingly weak,” the SC said.

Posted in Homer Barque, Land Scams, Land-grabbing syndicate, Manotok, Supreme Court, Teresita Barque Hernandez. Tags: Heirs of Homer Barque, Homer Barque, Land Scams, land-grabbing, Manotok. Leave a Comment »

Law and facts on ManotokOctober 7, 2008 — pagbabago

http://www.malaya.com.ph/oct07/busi8.htm

Law and facts on Manotok

In his dissent which happens to be longer than the ponencia, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio stressed points of law and fact over the affirmation by the Supreme Court of a Court of Appeals decision ordering the cancellation of the Manotok land title and transferring it to the heirs of Homer Barque.

On the question of law, Carpio pointedly told the majority of the First Division that their opinion was wrong because it “patently violates… the Property Registration Decree which expressly states that a Torrens title ‘cannot be cancelled except in direct proceeding in accordance with law.”

What is in accordance with law in this case is a provision of BP 129 which provides “regional trial courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction…in all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property or any interest therein.”

By ignoring this vital provision, Carpio claims that the heirs of Severino Manotok were denied due process.

The majority opinion penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares, stressed that requiring the court of Appeals to remand the case to the RTC is a waste of time. That is saying that the facts, which should have been established by the regional trial court have already been determined by the Land Registration Commission and the Court of Appeals.

Speaking of dura lex sed lex.

Spurious plan

It has been established beyond doubt that the survey plan – Fls3168 – said to be have been issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and submitted by the heirs of Homer Barque “is a spurious plan which may have been inserted in the file.”

The plan is supposed to be authenticated by the DENR but it was never submitted to the department’s NCR office for that purpose.

Privadi Dalire, chief of the geodetic surveys division of the land management bureau, was asked by Benjamin M. Bustos, chief of the reconstitution division of the LRA for a certified copy of the said subdivision plan.

He replied that his office does not have a record of the Fls-3168-D.

However, presumably without being asked, Ernesto S. Erive, chief of the surveys division, told Bustos that a microfilm copy of the plan “is on file in technical records and statistical section.”

Thus ensued the question of who is telling the truth between Dalire and Erive. The letter told the LRA administrator on Jan. 2 1997, in a hand-carried letter that “the copy of the subject plan was forwarded to this office”, and after verification and comparison “made in our microfilm records, it was found out that they are identical and bore the same stamps and initials used in this office.”

Who is lying?

Dalire stood pat on his report that his office does not have records of the subdivision plan. But he explained that the “LRA, however, furnished us with a machine copy of Fls-3168-D…and we found out that the copy of the plan did not originate from this office. Dalire forthwith requested that copy of Fls-3168-D be forwarded to him for evaluation and comment.”

Dalire wrote two more letters to the LRA on the same question but up to the time the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the heirs of Homer Barque, he never got a reply.

In one of his letters to the LRA, Dalire said “our inventory of approved plans enrolled in our file, our microfilm computer list of plans do not have this plan Fls-3168-D; logically we cannot issue any copy.”

So, there was, in the words of Dalire, a syndicate operating in the LRA. The CA and the Court of Appeals failed to take notice of the import of Dalire’s claim of a syndicate. The SC, in the pen of justice Santiago, merely affirmed the findings of the CA.

Forged letter, spurious plan

It appears that on Feb. 13, 1997, Dalire told the LRA administrator that the letter he purportedly wrote on Jan. 2, 1997 is a forgery. The letter is presumably a testimony to the existence and genuineness of the subdivision plan Fls-3168-D.

He pointed out that “the statement that the subject plan was forwarded to us by the chief, technical records statistics section of the NCR is not true..

He said that as of Feb. 13, 1997, “the NCR has not turned over the plan they reproduced in compliance with your (LRA administrator) urgent letter requests.

Dalire found himself left with no option except to tell the LRA administrator to disregard Fls-3168-D as being spurious. He explained that “there are many markings on the copy to prove it did not come from the LMB (Land Management Bureau).

Dalire said “we have no copy of Fls-3168-D on file so how can we issue a copy of plan that is non-existing?” He went on to say “the plan shows only initials. I sign in full copies of plans with the initials of my action officers and their codings below my signature. These are not present in the spurious copy of plan.”

He also told the LRA administrator that “the letter size of the rubber stamp ‘NOT FOR REGISTRATION/TITLING. FOR REFERENCE ONLY is smaller than our rubber stamp.”

Sustained!

He said “the submitted plan Fls-3168-D is a spurious document as categorically stated by Engr. Privadi J. G. Dalire…”

Expectedly, the heirs of Barque moved for reconsideration of the order after being informed that Bustos denied the request of reconstitution “for lack of merit.”

The Manotoks must have celebrated a well and hard-earned victory. The celebration was too early.

The LRA administrator gave due course to the motion for reconsideration and reversed his first order in favor of Manotoks saying that only the owner’s copy or co-owner’s duplicate of an original or transfer certificate of title could be used as a source of administrative reconstitution.

The reversed order practically suggests that Dalire went beyond his duty in helping insure the genuineness of a title sought to be reconstituted. It was his fault. That fault may have violated simple sense of law and common sense.

Posted in Is this Justice or Injustice?, Land Scams, Land-grabbing syndicate, Manotok. Tags: Heirs of Homer Barque, Homer Barque, land, Manotok, manotok realty, Teresita Barque Hernandez. Leave a Comment »

« Older posts

Newer posts »

x------x

https://pagbabago.wordpress.com/category/manotok/page/3/

x--------------x

Manotoc vs Barque:

In the case of Manotoc vs Barque[ii], the Court declared the land, which was a Friar Land, as still part of the Government’s patrimonial property despite the claimant’s longtime possession of the property. It cited the ruling in Alonso vs. Cebu Country Club, Inc.[iii] wherein the Court held that:

Neither may the rewards of prescription be successfully invoked by respondent, as it is an iron-clad dictum that prescription can never lie against the Government. Since respondent failed to present the paper trail of the property’s conversion to private property, the lengthy possession and occupation of the disputed land by respondent cannot be counted in its favor, as the subject property being a friar land, remained part of the patrimonial property of the Government. Possession of patrimonial property of the Government, whether spanning decades or centuries, can not ipso facto ripen into ownership. Moreover, the rule that statutes of limitation do not run against the State, unless therein expressly provided, is founded on “the great principle of public policy, applicable to all governments alike, which forbids that the public interests should be prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they are confided.” (Emphasis supplied)

Noteworthy is the ruling elucidated by this Court in Director of Forestry vs. Muñoz[iv] and consistently adhered to in a long line of cases, the more recent of which is Republic vs. Court of Appeals[v], that forest lands or forest reserves are incapable of private appropriation and possession thereof, however long, cannot convert them into private properties. This ruling is premised on the Regalian doctrine enshrined not only in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions but also in the 1987 Constitution Article XIII of which provides that:

“Sec. 2.All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal . . . , forests or timber, . . . and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.”

Pursuant to this constitutional provision, the land must first be released from its classification as forest land and reclassified as agricultural land in accordance with the certification issued by the Director of Forestry as provided for by Section 1827 of the Revised Administrative Code[vi]. This is because the classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the executive department of the government and not of the courts.[vii]  Moreover, a positive act of the government is needed to declassify a forest land into alienable or disposable land for agricultural or other purposes.[viii]

x-------------------x