EN
BANC
|
SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, FROILAN M. MANOTOK, FERNANDO M. MANOTOK III,
MA. MAMERTA M. MANOTOK, PATRICIA L. TIONGSON, PACITA L. GO, ROBERTO LAPERAL
III, MICHAEL MARSHALL V. MANOTOK, MARYANN MANOTOK, FELISA MYLENE V. MANOTOK, IGNACIO
V. MANOTOK, JR., MILAGROS V. MANOTOK, SEVERINO MANOTOK III, ROSA R. MANOTOK, MIGUEL A.B. SISON, GEORGE M. in-fact, Rosa R. Manotok, Petitioners, -
versus - |
G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605 Present: CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, SERENO, JJ. |
|
HEIRS OF HOMER
L. BARQUE, represented by TERESITA BARQUE HERNANDEZ, Respondents. |
Promulgated: August 24, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
In our
Resolution[1]
promulgated on December 18, 2008, we set aside the Decision[2]
dated December 12, 2005 rendered by the First Division; recalled the Entry of
Judgment recorded on May 2, 2006; reversed and set aside the Amended Decisions
dated November 7, 2003 and March 12, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 66700 and 66642,
respectively; and remanded to the Court of Appeals (CA) for further proceedings
these cases which shall be raffled immediately.
The CA was specifically
directed to receive evidence with primary focus on 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
After concluding
the proceedings in which all the parties participated and presented testimonial
and documentary evidence, as well as memoranda setting forth their respective
arguments, the CA’s Special Former First Division rendered a Commissioners’
Report[5]
consisting of 219 pages on
The evidence
adduced by the parties before the CA, which are exhaustively discussed in the
Commissioners’ Report, including the judicial affidavits and testimonies
presented during the hearings conducted by the CA’s Special Former Special
Former First Division, are herein summarized.
But first, a brief restatement of the antecedents set forth in our
Resolution.
Antecedents
Lot
No. 823 is a part of the Piedad Estate, Quezon City, a Friar Land acquired by
the Philippine Government from the Philippine Sugar Estates Development
Company, Ltd., La Sociedad Agricola de Ultramar, the British-Manila Estate
Company, Ltd., and the Recoleto Order of the Philippine Islands on December 23,
1903, as indicated in Act No. 1120 (Friar Lands Act) enacted on April
26, 1904. The Piedad Estate has been
titled in the name of the Government under Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. 614 and was placed under the administration of the Director of Lands.[7]
Controversy
arising from conflicting claims over
Sometime in
1990, a petition for administrative reconstitution[9]
of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 372302 in the name of the Manotoks
covering Lot No. 823 with an area of 342,945 square meters was filed by the
Manotoks with the Land Registration Authority (LRA) which granted the same,
resulting in the issuance of TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in 1991. In 1996, eight (8) years after the fire
which razed the
Learning of the
Barques’ petition, the Manotoks filed their opposition thereto, alleging that
TCT No. 210177 was spurious. Although
both titles of the Manotoks and the Barques refer to land belonging to Lot No.
823 of the Piedad Estate situated in the then Municipality of Caloocan,
Province of Rizal, TCT No. 210177 actually involves two (2) parcels with an
aggregate area of 342,945 square meters, while TCT No. RT-22481 (372302)
pertains only to a single parcel of land, with a similar area of 342,945 square
meters.[11]
On
The LRA reversed
the ruling of Atty. Bustos and declared that the Manotok title was fraudulently
reconstituted. It ordered that
reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque shall be given
due course after cancellation of TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name of the
Manotoks upon order of a competent court of jurisdiction. The LRA denied the Manotoks’ motion for
reconsideration and the Barques’ prayer for immediate reconstitution. Both the Manotoks and the Barques appealed
the LRA decision to the CA.[13]
In the petition
for review filed by the Barques (CA-G.R. SP No. 66700), Felicitas Manahan filed
a motion to intervene and sought the dismissal of the cases in CA-G.R. SP No.
66700 and CA-G.R. SP No. 66642 as she claimed ownership of the subject
property.[14]
By
Decision of
As to Manotoks’ petition (CA-G.R. SP
No. 66642), the CA’s Third Division rendered a Decision[17]
on
Aggrieved
by the outcome of the two (2) cases in the CA, the Manotoks filed the present
separate petitions (G.R. Nos. 162605 and 162335) which were ordered
consolidated on
On
As
already mentioned, the December 12, 2005 Decision of the Court’s First Division
was set aside, entry of judgment recalled and the CA’s Amended Decisions in
CA-G.R. SP Nos. 66642 and 66700 were reversed and set aside, pursuant to our
Resolution promulgated on December 18, 2008 wherein we ordered the remand of
the cases to the CA for further proceedings.
Evidence
Submitted to the CA
A. OSG
Engr.
Judith Poblete, Records Custodian of DENR-NCR, brought the original copy of
the Lot Description of Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate, a certified copy of
which was marked as Exhibit 28-OSG [DENR].
She also identified Land Use Map (1978), Exhibit 32-OSG [DENR], showing
the location of Lot No. 823 of Piedad Estate at Matandang Balara,
Engr.
Evelyn G. Celzo, Geodetic Engineer III of the Technical Services Section of
DENR-NCR, identified her signature in Technical Descriptions (Lot No. 823,
Piedad Estate) marked as Exhibit 29-OSG [DENR],[21]
which is on file at the Technical Services Section. She explained that there is no discrepancy
because the lot description “64.45” appearing in Exhibit 28-OSG should read
“644.5” (as reflected in Exhibit 29-OSG [DENR])
and they used this computation as otherwise the polygon will not
close. Sketch/Special Plans (Exhibits 30
and 31-OSG [DENR]) were prepared for Felicitas Manahan after she had purchased
Lot No. 823 of Piedad Estate. As land
investigator, she made a thorough research of the property and she was able to
see only the sale certificate of the Manahans (Exhibit 2-OSG [LMB]) but not
those of the Manotoks and the Barques.
She admitted that she does not have the record of the field notes of the
survey conducted in 1907.[22]
Atty.
Fe T. Tuanda, Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Records Management Division
(RMD), LMB, testified that she was designated OIC on
On cross-examination, Atty. Tuanda said
that while all documents received by the RMD are stamped received, there were
no such stamp mark on Exhibits 1-OSG, 2-OSG, 3-OSG, 9-OSG, 10-OSG, 13-OSG,
14-OSG, 19-OSG and 25-OSG; Exh. 17-OSG had stamp received by the Office of the
Assistant Director of LMB. When asked
why the pagination in Exh. 13-OSG is not consecutive, Atty. Tuanda said she was
not the one (1) who placed the page numbers on the documents.[24]
Engr.
Ludivina L. Aromin, Chief of the Technical Services Section, DENR-NCR,
identified the Sketch/Special Plans prepared for the Manahans for reference
purposes (Exhs. 30 and 31-OSG [DENR][25]),
based on the technical description of Lot No. 823 taken from results of the
original survey conducted in 1907. These
were signed by Engr. Ignacio R. Almira, Jr., Chief of Surveys Division, and
noted by Atty. Crisalde Barcelo, Regional Technical Director of DENR-NCR. She had verified the metes and bounds of Lot
No. 823, explaining that if the distance used between points 2 and 3 is
“64.45”, and not “644.5”, the area of Lot No. 823 would not be “342,945 square
meters” and the Special Plans would not have been approved by the LMB. She clarified that the sale certificate in
the name of Valentin Manahan she was referring to is actually the Assignment of
Sale Certificate No. 511 (Exh. 2-OSG).[26]
On November 17, 2009, the OSG submitted
the following certified true copies of documents contained in Volume 2 of the
records pertaining to Lot No. 823, Piedad Estate, on file with the LMB: (a) Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054
dated March 11, 1919 executed by Regina Geronima and Zacarias Modesto,
assignors, and Felicisimo Villanueva as assignee (Exh. 33-OSG [LMB]); (b)
Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated May 4, 1923 executed by M.
Teodoro and Severino Manotok as assignors, and Severino Manotok as assignee
(Exh. 34-OSG [LMB]); (c) Assignment of
Sale Certificate No. 651 dated April 19, 1930 executed by Ambrosio Berones as
assignor, and Andres C. Berones as assignee (Exh. 35-OSG [LMB]); and (d) Sale
Certificate No. 651 issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands in favor
of Ambrosio Berones (Exh. 36-OSG [LMB]).[27]
Recalled to the witness stand, Atty.
Tuanda testified that the allegation of the Manotoks in their Tender of
Excluded Evidence With Proffer of Proof that she suppressed the release of LMB records
to Luisa Padora is misleading, as she was merely complying with DENR
Administrative Order No. 97-24 dated July 30, 1997 on the release and
disclosure of information. As ordered
by the court on
On cross-examination, Atty. Tuanda said
that she assumed office only on
Nemesio
Antaran, Assistant Chief of the RMD, and concurrently Chief of the General
Public Land Records Section, LMB, brought to the court original copy of
Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511 dated June 24, 1939 in the name of
Valentin Manahan, assignor, and Hilaria de Guzman, assignee (Exh. 2-OSG [LMB]).[30] On cross-examination, he said that such
document was included in the Indorsement dated
The OSG formally offered Exhibits 1-OSG
[LMB] to 27-OSG [LMB], and 28-OSG [DENR] to 32-OSG-DENR.
B.
Manotoks
Jose Marie P. Bernabe, a geodetic
engineer who had worked in both public and private sectors and was hired as
consultant in cases involving disputed lots, examined the survey plans and
titles covering Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate. Using coordinate geometry and/or computer
aided design, he plotted the technical descriptions of Lot No. 823 based on the
technical descriptions appearing in OCT No. 614, Manotoks’ TCT No. RT-22481 and
Barques’ TCT No. 210177. He found that
although both titles indicate that Lot No. 823 was originally registered under
OCT No. 614, they contain significantly different technical descriptions of the
same property. The Manotoks’ title
indicates an unsubdivided Lot No. 823 with the following boundaries: on the East by Payatas Estate, on the
Southeast by the Tuazon Estate, and on the West by Lots 824-A, 818-A and
818-C. On the other hand, the Barques’
title describes Lot 823 as subdivided into Lots 823-A and 823-B bounded on the
Northeast and Southeast by the property of Diez Francisco, on the Southwest by
Lot 824, and on the Northwest by Lot 826.
However, the southeast and northeast boundaries of Lot No. 823 as
indicated in the Barques’ title are not mentioned in OCT No. 614. Using Google Earth, Lot 826 is actually
located far north of Lot 823 based on the Lot Description Sheet (Exh. 43[33])
certified correct and reconstructed on December 17, 1979 by the Director of Lands. Lot 818 is the correct lot to the west of
Lot 823 together with Lot 824, as shown in the various approved survey plans in
the area (such as Psd-16296, Psd-16489, Psd-6737, Psd-22842 and Psd-291211),
but as shown in the Barques’ title, Lots 824 and 826 are cited as adjacent lots
to the west of Lot 823. He found some
unusual irregularities in the Barques’ Subdivision Plan Fls-3168-D dated
Engr. Bernabe pointed out that his examination of
Survey Plan for Lot 824-A done in 1947 (Exh. 46[36])
showed that to the east of Lot 824-A is undivided
Lot 823 (Exh. 46-A[37]);
the Survey Plan for Lot 822-A (Exh. 47[38]),
which is located north of Lot 823, prepared in 1991 and approved in 1992, shows
that Lot 823 is an undivided piece of
property (Exh. 47-A[39]);
and Survey Plan for Lot 818-A-New (Exh. 48[40])
shows Lots 818-New-A, 818-New-B and 818-C the western boundaries of Lot 823,
which is consistent with the description in Manotoks’ title. Thus, based on the totality of the documents
he examined, Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate is an undivided piece of land with an
area of 342,945 square meters, bounded on the East by Payatas Estate, on the
Southeast by the Tuazon Estate and on the West by Lots 824-A, 818-A and 818-C,
consistent with the technical descriptions appearing in the nine (9)
certificates of title of the Manotoks.
Based on his research, and as shown in the Report signed by Engr.
Privadi Dalire, Chief of Geodetic Surveys Division, LMB (Exh. 49[41])
and the latter’s Affidavit dated November 18, 2006 (Exh. 50[42]),
no record of Subdivision Plan Fls-3168-D exists in the LMB and LMS-DENR-NCR,
and the machine copy of Fls-3168-D purportedly issued by the LMS-DENR-NCR is
spurious and did not emanate from LMB.[43]
Luisa Padora, employed as legal
assistant in the various corporations of the Manotoks whose responsibilities
include securing, preparing and safekeeping of all documents such as titles,
conveyances, tax declarations, tax payment receipts, etc. pertaining to the
properties of the Manotoks, identified
the documents marked as Exhibits 1 to 13, 26 to 27-EEEEEEE.[44]
Milagros Manotok-Dormido declared that
1. OCT
No. 614 issued on
2. Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated
March 10, 1919 issued by the Bureau of Lands to Regina Geronimo, Zacarias Modesto
and Felicisimo Villanueva covering Lot 823 (Exh. 10);
3. Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054
dated March 11, 1919 entered into between Regina Geronimo, Zacarias Modesto and
Felicisimo Villanueva as assignors, and Zacarias Modesto as assignee, covering Lot 823 (Exh. 11);
4.
Assignment of Sale Certificate No.
1054 dated June 7, 1920 entered into between Zacarias Modesto as assignor,
and M. Teodoro and Severino Manotok as assignees, covering Lot 823 (Exh. 12);
5. Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054
dated May 4, 1923 entered into between M. Teodoro and Severino Manotok as
assignors, and Severino Manotok as assignee, covering Lot 823 (Exh. 13);
6. Relocation Plan No. FLR67-D for
7. Description of Relocation Plan for
8. TCT No. 22813 of the Registry of
Deeds for the Province of Rizal indicating Lot 823, its area and boundaries, the lower half of this document
is torn (Exh. 8);
9. Deed of Donation dated August 23,
1946 executed by Severino Manotok in favor of his children (Purificacion,
Elisa, Rosa, Perpetua, Filomena, Severino, Jr., Jesus and Rahula Ignacio) and
grandsons Severino III and Fausto, Jr., covering Lot 823 (Exh. 7-A);
10.
Page of the Notarial Register of
Notary Public Angel del Rosario for the year 1946 issued by the National
Archives reflecting the Deed of Donation executed by Severino Manotok (Exh.
7-B);
11. TCT No. 534 of the Registry of Deeds
for the
12. Deed of Assignment dated
13. TCT No. 13900 of the Registry of
Deeds for
14. Unilateral Deed of Conveyance dated
January 31, 1974 executed by Manotok Realty, Inc. in favor of the Manotok
children and grandchildren, covering Lot 823 (Exh. 5-A);
15. TCT No. 198833 of the Registry of
Deeds for
16. Deeds of Absolute
17.
TCT No. 221559 of the Registry
of Deeds for
18. Deed of
19.
TCT No. 330376 issued in the
name of the Manotok children and grandchildren in 1984 as a result of the Deed
of Sale executed by Perpetua M. Bocanegra, covering
20. Unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale
dated December 22, 1986 executed by Ignacio R. Manotok covering his 1/9
undivided interest in Lot No. 823 in favor of his children Michael Marshall,
Mary Ann, Felisa Mylene, Ignacio, Jr. and Milagros (Exh. 3-A);
21. TCT No. 354241 issued in the name of
the Manotok children and grandchildren as a result of the Unilateral Deed of
Absolute Sale dated
22. Deed of Absolute
23. TCT No. 372302 of the Registry of
Deeds for Quezon City issued on October 17, 1987 in the name of the Manotok
children and grandchildren as a result of the October 8, 1987 Deed of Absolute
Sale executed by Fausto Manotok (Exh. 2);
24. TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) of the
Registry of Deeds for
Milagros
Manotok-Dormido also identified those documentary exhibits attached to their
pre-trial brief, several declarations of Real Property covering Lot No. 823
(Exhs. 26 to 26-N), numerous Real Property Tax Bills and Real Property Tax
Receipts from 1933 to the present (Exhs. 27 to 27-EEEEEEE, 27-YYYYYY),
photographs of the perimeter walls surrounding Lot No. 823 (Exhs. 35-A to
35-UUU), photographs of the houses and structures built by the Manotoks on the
property over the years (Exhs. 35 to 35-YY), some letters from government
offices recognizing their grandfather as the owner of the property (Exhs. 15, 16,
17, 18 and 25), and Metro Manila Street
Map (2003 ed.) identifying Lot No. 823 as “Manotoc Compound” (Exh. 34). She had secured a copy of Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 dated
On
cross-examination, the witness declared that she is testifying in lieu of Rosa
Manotok; her affidavit is the same as the affidavit of Rosa Manotok, the
daughter of Severino Manotok. She
asserted that Severino Manotok acquired Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate by
direct transfer from the Government.
After the Bureau of Lands issued the Assignment of Sale Certificate No.
1054 on
When
asked who is the registered owner under TCT No. 22813, Milagros Manotok Dormido
said she cannot answer it because said document they recovered is truncated and
cut under. But the Manotoks were the
recognized owners under TCT No. 22813 by the Provincial Assessor. As to the notation “cancelled by TCT No. 634”
she said that she has not seen that title; it could be a human error somewhere
in that document. She also had no
knowledge that TCT No. 634 covers a lot in
Susana M. Cuilao, longtime employee of
the Manotoks, testified that she assisted Elisa R. Manotok in filling the
application for reconstitution of TCT No. 372302 covering Lot No. 823 after it
was destroyed in a fire which razed the Quezon City Registry of Deeds on
One
(1) of the rebuttal witnesses for the Manotoks, Luisa Padora, in her Judicial Affidavit dated December 9, 2009,
obtained from the National Archives certifications (signed by an archivist)
stating that said office has no copy on
its file of the following: Sale
Certificate No. 511 executed by Valentin Manahan in favor of Hilaria de Guzman
(Exh. 28[51]);
the Deed of Absolute Sale between Hilaria de Guzman Manahan and Felicitas B.
Manahan (Exh. 29[52])
supposedly notarized by Santiago R. Reyes on August 23, 1974 (Exh. 119[53])
as Doc. No. 1515, Page 98, Book No. VI, series of 1974 entered in the notarial
register is a Memorandum of Agreement, Promissory Note and Payment Receipt
executed by Reynaldo Cornejo on August 23, 1974; and the Deed of Absolute Sale
between Emiliano Setosta and Homer K. Barque (Exh. 30[54])
as certified true copies of pages 84 and 85 (Exhs. 120 and 121[55])
of the notarial register of Atty. Eliseo Razon shows that neither Document Nos.
415 nor 416 was the supposed Deed of Sale dated September 24, 1975 between
Emiliano Setosta and Homer K. Barque but a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by
Magdalena Reyes and a Special Power of Attorney executed by Victorio Savellano,
respectively.[56]
Luisa
Padora further declared that sometime in 1999, she located two (2) old
documents, among others, at the Manotok’s warehouse in the compound: a 1929
certified copy of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated May 4, 1923
(Exh. 13-A[57])
between M. Teodoro and Severino Manotok (assignors) and Severino Manotok
(assignee) covering Lot No. 823, which was certified by the Chief Clerk of the
Bureau of Lands, and the original
Official Receipt dated February 20, 1929 (Exh. 14[58])
issued by the Government of the Philippines Islands for the cost of the
certified copy of the Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054. With respect to the documents relating to Lot
No. 823 which were in the LMB, Luisa Padora stated that she brought the letter-request
(Exh. 122[59])
dated
As
to the statement of Atty. Tuanda during the November 10, 2009 hearing that
Volume II of the records of Lot No. 823 was not missing and is available, Luisa
Padora stated that she received a letter-reply dated October 15, 2007 addressed
to the Manotoks (Exh. 117[61])
from Mr. Rainier D. Balbuena, OIC of the RMD, which states that out of all the
records pertaining to Lot 823, Piedad Estate, only Volumes I, III and IV were
officially returned/received by the RMD on October 5, 2006 and that Volume II
was not returned to the RMD. As
additional proof, she presented LMB Office Memorandum (Exh. 118[62])
dated September 19, 2007 which contains a note at the bottom left hand corner
which states “Volume II not yet returned as of this writing (charged to Office
of the Asst. Director and rec’d by Charie Sale on 12.21.00).”[63]
Dr. Mely F. Sorra, Document Examiner V
and presently the Chief of Questioned
Documents Division, Philippine National Police (PNP), testified that the LMB
submitted for examination on December 1, 2009 three (3) questioned documents:
“Q-1” - Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated March 11, 1919 executed
by Regina Geronimo, Modesto Zacarias and Felicisimo Villanueva; “Q-2” -
Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated May 4, 1923; and “Q-3” – Assignment
of Sale Certificate No. 511 dated June 24, 1939 (transmittal letter marked as Exh. 139 signed by Atty. Fe. T.
Tuanda, OIC, RMD). Her laboratory
report (Exh. 138[64])
contains the findings of the microscopic, ultraviolet (UV) transmitted light
and physical examinations, and photographic procedure she performed on the
questioned documents. She also went to
the National Archives for comparison of the appearance of documents dated 1919,
1923 and 1932 with “Q-1”, “Q-2” and “Q-3.”
She found the three (3) documents authentic being old and because of
their discoloration and tattered condition, but she admitted that she cannot
tell the age of said documents, nor the age of the paper used. She merely determined the age through the
browning and discoloration, tears or tattered condition of the paper. In this case, she concluded that the
documents were old because they are attested/notarized and because of their
physical appearance, such as the ink used in the signatures was already fading
and had evaporated/oxidized. Because of
age, the ink of the signatures appearing on the documents had evaporated and
the color is brownish; the particular ink which evaporates refers to a fountain
pen ink. The entries that were in ballpoint pen ink were the written entries on
the stamp pad bearing the words “Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Land Management Bureau-RMD Manila.”
When the documents were subjected under ultraviolet light examination,
they gave a dull fluorescence reaction as opposed to a very bright fluorescence
reaction of a new coupon bond.[65]
On
cross-examination, Dr. Sorra said that at the National Archives she saw the
duplicates of the originals of documents “Q-1” and “Q-2” and had examined and
photographed them; they appeared newer than those copies submitted by the LMB
because of good storage. She did not
examine contemporaneous documents in the records of the LMB because she
believes that the National Archives is the repository of all the documents in
the Philippines and because the three (3) questioned documents came from the
LMB, and she presumed that the record-keeping facilities at the LMB are not as
good as that of the National Archives based on the difference in the appearance
of the documents from these offices.
However, she was not able to see how the documents are being stored at
the LMB as she was not able to visit said office. Based on her findings, the questioned
documents are old; she had seen documents dated 1919 and 1923 on file with the
National Archives. Documents “Q-1 and
Q-2” were from 1919 based on their copies at the National Archives and her
examination thereof. She explained that
her conclusion that the document is authentic does not mean that the signatures
are also authentic because she had no basis for comparison, and that she would
not be able to determine the age of a document when there was an artificial
aging.[66]
Dr.
Sorra admitted that she did not conduct a chemical examination of the
questioned documents because the PNP Crime Laboratory has no scientific
equipment for chemical analysis, and that she did not refer the said documents
to the Chemistry Division of the PNP because the carbon dating equipment is
with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST); she also did not refer
the documents to the DOST. She agreed
that the best and more accurate way of determining the age of a paper or a
document is through carbon dating, and explained that through microscopic and
physical examination she will be able to tell whether the document is old but
not its exact age.[67]
In
her Rebuttal Judicial Affidavit,[68]
Milagros Manotok-Dormido declared
that the completion of Severino Manotok’s installment payments was evidenced by
official receipts (Exhs. 112-115[69])
and acknowledged by the Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 (Exh. 51-A) validly
certified by the National Archives (Exhs. 84 and 85[70]),
which also certified page 97 of the Notarial Register for the year 1932 that on
December 20, 1932, Jose P. Dans appeared and acknowledged the due execution of
this Deed of Conveyance (Exh. 83[71]). Said Deed of Conveyance is genuine as shown
by the certified copies of Deeds of Conveyance issued on the same date and
which contain deed numbers immediately preceding and succeeding the Deed of
Conveyance No. 29204 (Exhs. 86-98[72]). On
With
respect to the claim of the Barques, the witness presented the following
documents: (a) Certification issued on
February 10, 2009 by the National Archives stating that it has no copy on file
of the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed between Emiliano Setosta and
Homer K. Barque ratified on September 24, 1975 before Notary Public Eliseo A.
Razon (Exh. 80[76]); (b) Property Identification issued by the
Quezon City Assessor’s Office showing that Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate
remains unsubdivided (Exh. 79[77]); (c) Letter dated August 7, 2007 addressed to
Engr. Privadi J.G. Dalire (former Chief of Geodetic Surveys Division) from
Chief of Geodetic Surveys Division, Engr. Bienvenido F. Cruz, attesting that
Fls-3168-D is not recorded in the Inventory Book of Fls Plans (Exh. 99[78]),
also shown by a certified copy of page 351 of the Inventory Book of Plans (Exh.
82[79])
; and (d) Letter dated August 6, 2009 from the Quezon City Assistant Assessor
confirming that Property Index No. 21-22020 which was submitted by the Barques
marked as Exh. 35, does not pertain to Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate but to a
property located at Miller St. cor. Don Vicente St., Filinvest II Subdivision,
Bagong Silangan, Quezon City (Exh. 100[80]).[81]
As
to the claim of Manahans, the witness submitted the following documents: (a) the same Letter from the Quezon City
Assistant Assessor, it was confirmed that Tax Declaration No. C-138-06951,
submitted by the Manahans as Exh.1, does not pertain to Lot No. 823 of the
Piedad Estate but to a property located at Don Wilfredo St., Don Enrique
Subdivision, Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City (Exh. 100[82]); (b) Certifications from the National Archives
that it has no copy on file of Sale Certificate No. 511, Assignment of Sale
Certificate No. 511 and Deed of Sale between Hilaria de Guzman-Manahan and
Felicitas Manahan (Exhs. 28[83],
104 and 105[84]);
(c) Certification dated October 14, 2009 issued by Jose M.B. Cabatu, Chief,
Reconstitution Division-LRA, stating that an administrative petition for
reconstitution of the purported original of TCT No. 250215 of the Registry of
Deeds for Quezon City was filed by a certain Felicitas Manahan and transmitted
to the LRA on or about January 7, 1998 but the petition and other documents transmitted
therewith could not be located, and that it has no record of any order
directing the reconstitution of said title (Exh. 106[85]); (d)
Certificates of Death issued by the Parish of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in
Malolos City, Bulacan stating that Valentin Manahan died on September 21, 1931, thus refuting the claim that
Valentin Manahan caused the property survey of Lot No. 823, the preparation and
approval of survey plan Fls-3164 and executed the Assignment of Sale
Certificate No. 511 in favor of Hilaria de Guzman on June 24, 1939
(Exhs. 102, 61, 62[86]);
(e) Negative Certification of Death issued by the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Malolos
stating that the records of deaths during the period January 1931 to December
1931 were all destroyed by natural cause and for that reason it cannot issue a
true transcription from the Register of Deaths relative to Valentin Manahan who
is alleged to have died on September 21, 1931 in Malolos City (Exh. 103[87]); (e) Documents obtained from the Parish of Our
Lady of Mt. Carmel, the Office of the Civil Registrar of Malolos City and the
National Statistics Office (NSO), and also Liber Defunctorum 5-Entry No. 10,
showing that Rosendo Manahan died on July 30, 1963 at the age of 20, thus
refuting the claim of Rosendo Manahan that he is the son of Lucio Manahan and
Hilaria de Guzman-Manahan (Exhs. 107, 108, 109 and 57[88]).[89]
Milagros
Manotok-Dormido further declared that the building permits applied for by her
aunt refer to the houses appearing in the photographs attached to her Judicial
Affidavit. Based on the index cards (Exhs. 64 to 69[90]),
the location of the properties described therein is Capitol Golf Club, Capitol;
at that time, the location of the property subject of the building permits in Exhs.
67, 68 and 69 is Capitol Golf Club, Capitol.
They did not apply to build residences inside a golf club and there is
no golf course inside the Manotok Compound.[91] She went to Malolos about four (4) times to
confirm the story of the Manahans. At the
Parish of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, the custodian of the records, Teodora Dinio,
referred her to a man she knew as “Mang
Atoy” who showed her the Book of Deads.
She borrowed three (3) books and returned them right away after
xeroxing. She asked “Mang
Atoy” where the Catholic cemetery is and he pointed to the back of the
church. There she saw (for a brief time)
the tombstone of Lucio Manahan; she did not see that of Valentin Manahan. When asked why she did not go to the LMB or
other government office instead of the National Archives to secure a
certification in the records concerning Sale Certificate No. 511, the witness
said it was because that was a notarized document. The certifications she obtained were not signed
by the Executive Director but only by an archivist who was authorized to sign
in behalf of Dr. Teresita Ignacio, Chief of the Archives Collection and Access
Division. As to the lack of signature of
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in the certified copy of
Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 from the National Archives, she asserted that it
is still a complete document being just a copy of the duplicate original, which
must have been signed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources;
she was sure of this, as in fact they were issued TCT No. 22813 dated 1933 (not
August 1928 as erroneously reflected in the title because the Deed of
Conveyance was issued in 1932 and her grandfather was notified by the
Provincial Assessor of Rizal that he can start paying his tax on August 9,
1933).[92]
The
Manotoks also presented as witness Msgr.
Angelito Santiago, Parish Priest of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Barasoain,
Malolos, Bulacan. Said witness testified
that based on their record book, Hilaria de Guzman who was living in Bulihan
was the wife of Lucio Manahan who died on August 19, 1955, while in Book 7,
Hilaria de Guzman who died on June 19, 1989 was living in San Gabriel and the
husband was Jose Cruz; “Hilaria de Guzman” appearing in Book 7 is different
from Hilaria de Guzman found in Book 5.
He further declared that the Certificate of Death of Valentin Manahan
married to Francisca Lucas (Exh. 61[93])
does not cover the death of Valentin Manahan married to Placida Figueroa. He could not explain why Folio Nos. 145, 146,
148, 149 are intact while page or Folio 147 of Book 4 covering the record of
deaths in the month of February 1955 is missing.[94]
Other
documentary evidence formally offered by the Manotoks are the following: (a)
Exh. 7[95] - a photocopy of TCT No. 534 covering Lot No.
823, Piedad Estate in the name of the Manotok children, which is offered to
prove that said title is a transfer from TCT No. 22813 which was cancelled by
TCT No. 534; (b) Exh. 19[96]
- certified copy of a Certification
dated November 18, 1950 issued by Register of Deeds for Pasig Gregorio
Velazquez that the original of TCT No. 534 issued in the name of Purificacion
Manotok, et al. was forwarded to the Register of Deeds for Quezon City; (c) Exh. 119[97]
- certified copy of page 98 of the Notarial Register of Atty. Santiago Reyes
which shows that document no. 1515 is a Memorandum of Agreement-Promissory Note
& Payment Receipt executed by one (1) Mr. Cornejo on
As
part of their rebuttal evidence, the Manotoks also formally offered the
following: Exh. 142 - Certified copy
issued by the National Archives of
Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated March 11, 1919 between
Zacarias Modesto, Regina Geronimo and Felicisimo Villanueva (assignors) and
Zacarias Modesto (assignee), covering Lot 823 of Piedad Estate[100];
Exh. 143 – Certified copy issued by the National Archives of Assignment of Sale
Certificate No. 1054 dated June 7, 1920 between Zacarias Modesto (assignor) and
M. Teodoro and Severino Manotok (assignees)
covering Lot 823 of Piedad Estate[101];
and Exh. 144 - Certified copy issued by
the National Archives of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated May 4,
1923 between M. Teodoro and Severino Manotok (assignors) and Severino Manotok
(assignee), covering Lot 823 of Piedad Estate.[102]
C.
Barques
Teresita Barque-Hernandez identified and
affirmed the contents of her Judicial Affidavit declaring that she caused the
filing of an application for administrative reconstitution of TCT No. 210177
before the LRA because the original copy thereof was among those titles
destroyed in a fire which struck the
On
cross-examination, the witness said that she is engaged in selling subdivision
lots and many attempted to sell
As
for the title of the Manotoks, nobody told her about it when she was securing a
new tax declaration. Before 1979, she had visited the property which had no
fence then. She was not actually interested, she just went there for a visit
with her friends to boast that her father bought something that is big. She only learned there was somebody
occupying their land after she had paid the taxes and submitted documents which
were transmitted to the LRA; it was the reconstituting officer who told her
that the title has been reconstituted already.
She had not seen before any structure inside the property. The reconstituting officer made it hard for
her to have administrative reconstitution of her title, verifying if she had an
approved plan. She admitted that as
shown in the Deed of Conveyance No. 4562 dated P10,000,000.00; Mr. Cedric Lee will buy the
property. Her sister was to be operated
at that time and she was forced to borrow money. Mr. Lee wanted to be ahead of Ayala,
Megaworld, and others, in offering to buy the property. She admitted that they never tried to occupy
Lot No. 823 after learning that her father owned it in 1985. They were then employed and had a bus line
(Mariposa Express); her father bought other properties but she was not privy to
this. Exhibits 34, 35, 35-A and 35-B[113]
pertaining to the claim of Manahans were given to him not by Atty. Quilala but
by Atty. Bragado. She never saw the title of Emiliano Setosta as her father
transferred immediately the title in his name (TCT No. 210177).[114]
As to the Sale
Certificate and Deed of Conveyance in the name of Emiliano Setosta, she did not
yet know its number or date when she asked for a copy in the LMB (she went
there accompanied by Castor Viernes), they just located it. After two (2) days
she returned and the person in-charge gave her a certified xerox copy of Deed
of Conveyance No. 4562 and Sale Certificate No. V-321 (Exh. 1), which documents
were later authenticated by the LMB. The
caption of this document dated
Engr.
Castor C. Viernes, a former employee of
the Bureau of Lands (1961-1972), identified in court the following documents he
obtained through his research: (a) Certification dated June 19, 2007 issued by
Rainier D. Balbuena, OIC, RMD, LMB, Binondo, Manila stating that according to
verification of their records, “EDP’s Listing has available record with
Fls-3168-D, Lot 823, xerox copy of which is herewith attached, situated in
Caloocan, Rizal (now Quezon City), in the name of Survey Claimant Emiliano
Setosta” (Exh. 10[119]);
(b) Certification dated June 19, 2007
issued by LMB-RMD OIC Rainier D. Balbuena stating that according to
verification of their records, the
office has no available record of F-30510 and F-87330, situated in Piedad Estate,
Rizal, in the name of M. Teodoro as Assignor, and Severino Manotok as Assignee,
as per attached xerox copies of the Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054,
according to the general index card” (Exh. 24[120]);
(c) Certification issued by Ernesto S. Erive, Chief, Surveys Division, DENR-NCR
stating that “plan Flr-67-D is not among those existing records on file in the
Technical Records and Statistics Section of this Office. However, further
verification should be made from Land Management Bureau, Binondo, Manila” (Exh.
26[121]);
(d) Letter dated January 10, 2003 from Bienvenido F. Cruz, OIC, Geodetic
Surveys Division, LMB, stating that Flr-67-D is not listed in the EDP listing
(Exh. 27[122]);
(e) Plan of Lot 823, Piedad Estate prepared by Geodetic Engineer Teresita D. Sontillanosa
on April 23, 1998 (Exh. 28[123]);
(f) TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name of Severino Manotok IV, et al.
indicating Payatas Estate as a boundary in the survey made in 1912 when Payatas
Estate did not exist until 1923 (Exh. 29[124]);
(g) Certification dated April 13, 2009 issued by Ignacio R. Almira, Chief,
Regional Director Surveys Division, confirming the absence of any record in the
DENR of Sale Certificate No. 511 issued to Valentin Manahan (Exh. 30[125]); (h) Certification dated August 27, 2002 issued
by Bienvenido F. Cruz, OIC, Geodetic Surveys Division, LMB stating that
Fls-3164 is not listed in the EDP Listing (Exh. 31[126]);
(i) Letter dated March 12, 2003 from
Atty. Crizaldy M. Barcelo, Assistant Regional Executive Director for Technical
Services, DENR-NCR stating that their office has no record on file of Sale
Certificate No. 511 in the name of Valentin Manahan and Sale Certificate No.
1054 in the name of Modesto Zacarias, Regina Geronimo and Felicisimo
Villanueva, covering Lot 823, Piedad Estate, and advising Mr. Viernes to make a similar request with
the LMB which has jurisdiction over friar lands (Exh. 32[127]);
(j) Copy of TCT No. 250215 in the name
of Felicitas Manahan, married to Rosendo Manahan issued on May 25, 1979
covering Lot 823, Piedad Estate with an area of 342,945 square meters given to
Felicitas Manahan by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City (Exh. 34[128]);
(k) Tax Declaration No. D-138-07070 in the name of Felicitas Manahan indicating
that Lot 823, Piedad Estate is situated at Old Balara, Holy Spirit/Capitol,
Quezon City for the year 1996, with tax receipt and certification (Exhs. 35, 35-A and 35-B[129]);
(l) Letter dated February 21, 2003 from Emelyne Villanueva-Talabis, Special
Assistant to the LMB Director informing Mr. Viernes that his letter requesting
for a certified copy of Sales Certificate Nos. 511 and 1054 was forwarded to the RMD on February 21, 2003
(Exh. 36[130]);
and (m) Letter dated February 27, 2003 from Leonardo V. Bordeos, OIC of LMB-RMD
informing Mr. Viernes that the latter’s request cannot be granted because “the
said records are still not in the custody of this Division” and suggesting that
a similar request be made with the DENR-NCR (Exh. 37[131]).[132]
Engr. Viernes
asserted that the subject property is not bounded by the Payatas Estate
considering that when the Piedad Estate was surveyed in 1907, the Payatas
Estate was not yet existing because it was surveyed only in 1923. The computation made by Engr. Barikwa (sic) and report made by Engr. Evelyn
Celzo, and also the plotting of Marco Castro seems to be erroneous. The other parties claimed that the property
described in TCT No. 210177 (Barques’ title) is not located in
Engr. Viernes
denied that he was employed by the Barques for a fee. It was Mr. Gregorio Que,
a friend of Mrs. Hernandez, the son of his client Mr. Domingo Que, who asked
him to help verify the authenticity of the Barques’ title. He obtained copies of TCT No. 250215 and tax
declaration of the Manahans from Engr. Mariano Flotildes. As to the Barques’ Exh. 1, he denied having a
hand in securing said document but admitted he was with Teresita B. Hernandez
when it was handed to her. Mrs.
Hernandez presented a document to Mrs. Teresita J. Reyes for authentication,
but he did not see the latter sign the certification because he was at the
ground floor of the LMB talking to a friend; the document was already signed
when it was handed to Mrs. Hernandez.
He also did not see Ignacio R. Almira sign the Certification dated
The Barques
presented as witnesses in rebuttal Engr. Castor Viernes, Teresita
Barque-Hernandez, Dante M. Villoria and Engr. Mariano Flotildes.
Engr. Viernes
declared that Mrs. Hernandez had told him that it appeared during her
cross-examination in court that the alleged Deed of Conveyance No. 4562 is spurious. A copy of said deed of conveyance (Exh. 44)
was given to him by the LMB sometime in March 1997 which he in turn submitted
to Mr. Que. Mr. Que had asked him to
verify
Teresita
Barque-Hernandez testified that she did some research on the alleged practice
among employees of the Bureau of Lands of issuing fake documents and was
dismayed to discover that Atty. Fe T. Tuanda, a high-ranking official of the
LMB, was suspended from the practice of law, and her credibility is in question
after having been charged with violation of B.P. Blg. 22. She described the practice of “saksak-bunot”
wherein documents are inserted in the records of the LMB, and people submit
documents from their own personal file after which they would ask for certification
or a certified copy thereof. She
admitted that Exh. 1 which was presented by her lawyer was a falsified
document, and that she was fooled by somebody from the Bureau. However, she was
sure of the authenticity of Exh. 44,[137]
as it came from Mr. Que. When confronted
with Exh. 44 which stated that the price of Lot 823 was P2,850.45 but
only 50% thereof was paid allegedly by Emiliano Setosta, she lamented that she
was not yet born at the time of the transaction – January 25, 1938 – and did
not know what really happened. She
denied asking for re-authentication after the conduct of her cross-examination
which tended to show that her Exh. 1 was a forgery and after Teresita Reyes
testified that the latter’s signatures thereon were forged. She affirmed that she went to Mr. Que in the
early part of 1997 to borrow money in order
to redeem the property covered by TCT No. 210177, which was mortgaged by her
father to the sister of her lola in
1985. She received a total of P2,000,000.00
from Mr. Que; thereafter, she went to another lender, Mr. Jesus Lim, from whom
she secured a loan of the same amount.
She paid the loan to Mr. Lim with the proceeds of yet another loan from
Mr. Cedric Lee.[138]
Dante
M. Villoria, retired City Assessor of Quezon
City, declared in his Judicial Affidavit that Lot 823 is located in Barangay
Matandang Balara, which has existed as a separate barangay from Barangay Culiat
even before they were transferred from Caloocan City to Quezon City in 1939.[139] He
testified that it is the technical description of the property that
determines its identity, regardless of the name of its location. He was shown Tax Declaration No. 06895 in the
name of the Barques (Exh. 123[140]-Manotoks)
which contains a memo on the lower left hand portion which reads “this property
appear[s] to duplicate the property of Manotok Realty, Inc., declared under
[Tax Declaration Number] D-067-02136 with area of 342,945 sq.m./P.I. No.
21-4202”, and was asked if that meant that the tax declaration in the name of
Manotok Realty Inc. existed before the tax declaration in favor of the
Barques. Upon the objection of his
counsel, the witness vacillated and said he is not certain as he has to see
first the tax declaration of the Manotoks to determine which came ahead. However, he affirmed that if such memo is
written on a tax declaration, it means that the information stated in the memo
was already available on the date of the tax declaration. As to the statement on the reverse side of
Exh. 124[141]-Manotoks
on the portion indicating the tax declaration cancelled there is an entry “new” (“undeclared”),
witness explained that it means that there was no tax declaration for the same
property in the name of the Barques prior to the said tax declaration. He then clarified by saying that while there
is an existing tax declaration, they still issued another tax declaration
because the documents presented as basis therefor were legal and binding. He admitted that their office will issue
several tax declarations covering the same property even with the knowledge
that the tax declaration can be used as evidence for ownership because the main
concern is to collect more taxes.[142]
Engr.
Mariano Flotildes declared in his
Judicial Affidavit that Rosendo Manahan engaged his services in 1998 and gave
him a relocation plan, photocopy of TCT No. 250215 in the name of Felicitas
Manahan, field notes cover of the survey returns, complete lot survey data,
traverse computation and azimuth computation.
After signing the relocation plan in March 1998, Mr. Manahan submitted
the Relocation Survey and the related documents to DENR-NCR, Surveys
Division. Thereafter, Relocation Survey
Number Rel-00-000822 was issued in favor of Felicitas Manahan.[143] He testified that he was commissioned by
Rosendo Manahan sometime in 1998 to conduct a relocation survey of a property
owned by his wife, Felicitas Manahan, covered by TCT No. 250215. His findings coincided with the technical
description of said title, duly certified by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City,
which was shown to him together with the full print survey returns, tax
declaration, field notes cover (Exh. 45[144]),
plot data computation, traverse computation (Exh. 47[145])
and azimuth computation (Exh. 48[146])
and the plan itself. However, the
relocation plan for the Manahans was not approved by the Bureau of Lands. It was Rosendo Manahan who gave him a copy of
TCT No. 250215 (Exh. 34), from which was derived the information found in the
plot data of Lot No. 823 (Exh. 46[147]);
these were not based on documents from the Bureau of Lands.[148]
Other
documentary evidence formally offered by the Barques are the following: Exh. 8 – “Certified copy of Logbook Entries
of Destroyed and Salvaged Documents” in the fire which razed the office of the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City on P350,000.00 for the
purchase of Lots 823-A and 823-B, located in Matandang Balara, Quezon City;[153]
Exh. 16 – Certification dated
Exhibits 1
(certified copy of Deed of Conveyance Record
No. 4562 with Sale Certificate No. V-321 in the name of Emiliano Setosta, and 2
(Certification dated
C.
Manahans
Rosendo Manahan declared in his
Judicial Affidavit that
Rosendo Manahan
testified that the documents relied upon by the Manotoks were submitted for
verification by the LMB to the NBI and found to be fake and spurious. A very thorough search of documents covering
On
cross-examination, Rosendo Manahan testified that his father Lucio Manahan and
mother Hilaria de Guzman were born in Malolos, Bulacan; he was also born and
lived there almost his life. In 1945 or
1946 when he was about seven (7) years old, his grandfather Valentin Manahan
brought him to P350,000.00
because his other siblings had no money to buy the property. He met Evelyn Celzo when he accompanied his
wife to the regional Office; they had no intervention in the preparation of her
report. He cannot recall if Evelyn Celzo
asked his wife about Valentin Manahan’s application and assignment of
Rosendo Manahan
asserted that Sale Certificate No. 511 (Exh. XXXVII[176])
was issued as early as 1913; he had verified its existence in the records of
the LMB. However, he had sent letters -
the last being in 1998 - asking for a certification, to no avail; despite a
thorough search for the document in the LMB and DENR, it could not be
found. He did not think of obtaining
copy of the document from the National Archives because as far as his layman’s
understanding, the main purpose of the National Archives is to keep and
preserve documents of historical and cultural value. Sometime in 1974, he obtained a xerox copy of
Sale Certificate No. 511 from his mother in Malolos and furnished the LMB with
a copy thereof as reference. When he
verified with the LMB in 1997, he actually saw an assignment of sale
certificate, not the sale certificate itself.
He had knowledge of the tax declarations that his wife filed for
On redirect
examination, the witness declared that he is claiming
Felicitas
B. Manahan declared in her Judicial Affidavit
that her grandfather-in-law Valentin Manahan occupied and cultivated P2,140.00,
he was issued Sale Certificate No. 511.
Valentin Manahan assigned his rights over
Felicitas
Manahan identified the following documents in court: (a) Letter dated
On
cross-examination, Felicitas Manahan testified that her mother-in-law was
living in Malolos, Bulacan but occupied P350,000.00,
she obtained from Hilaria the sale certificate, assignment of sale certificate
and a sketch plan. However, when she
visited the land in 1981, she was told by an elderly man not to return and aspire
to recover the land because it belonged to Imee Manotok. When she went there in 1979, the property was
not fenced and it seemed to her there were no occupants. She met Evelyn dela
Atty.
Roseller S. de la Peña, former Undersecretary
for Legal Affairs of DENR and now Dean of the College of Law of Polytechnic
University of the Philippines, declared in his Judicial Affidavit that in June
2000, he received a query from LMB Director Ernesto D. Adobo, Jr. on whether a
deed of conveyance for Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate may be issued to Felicitas
B. Manahan by virtue of Sale Certificate No. 511 issued to Valentin Manahan. In response to this query, he issued a
Memorandum dated
Atty.
Rogelio Mandar, Chief of the Claims and Conflicts
Section, Legal Division, LMB, declared that he, together with Atty. Manuel B.
Tacorda, Assistant Chief, Legal Division of LMB, were authorized by the LMB
Director under Special Order No. 98-135 dated December 18, 1998 to conduct an
investigation regarding Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate. It appears that on
Atty. Mandar
further declared that they were not able to conduct the ocular inspection of
Evelyn
G. Celzo, nee Evelyn C. dela Rosa, Land
Investigator/Geodetic Engineer of DENR-NCR declared that she conducted an
investigation of Lot 823, Piedad Estate, pursuant to Travel Order dated May 15,
1989 issued by North CENRO, Quezon City.
She conducted an ocular inspection of the land and interviewed
witnesses. She prepared a written
Investigation Report dated
On
cross-examination, Evelyn Celzo testified that she is not acquainted with
Hilaria de Guzman but she knew her to be one (1) of the heirs of P2,140.00,
Valentin Manahan was issued a sale certificate.
She did not conduct another survey of
On redirect
examination, Evelyn Celzo corrected a typographical error in the last paragraph
of her report, in which the word “no” should be inserted between the words
“since” and “deed” to read: “In this regard, since no deed of conveyance has
been issued to the above applicant, it is hereby recommended that appropriate
action be issued.” She also identified
her signature and the signature of Engr. Ludivina Aromin appearing on the
sketch plan (Exh. XL[202])
showing that the land claimed by the Barques is 5639.59 meters from the lot
claimed by the Manahans based on the tie line; the tie line of
When confronted
with the discrepancy in her computation based on the tie lines of Lot 823-A and
Lot 823-B appearing on the technical description on TCT No. 210177, Evelyn
Celzo said that they have copies of titles in their office and she could not
make a decision whether it is the same title being shown to her by counsel
(Atty. Carao, Jr.). Responding to clarificatory questions from the court,
Evelyn Celzo admitted that she was not able to obtain information as to whether
there are other claimants over
Teresita
J. Reyes, who retired on
On
cross-examination, Teresita Reyes testified that a party requesting for a
certified true copy of the records in the LMB had to file a written request
which will be forwarded to the unit concerned and then to the Division. With respect to the records pertaining to
friar lands, the sales registry books were decentralized to the regional
offices of the bureau pursuant to Executive Order No. 292 issued in 1987. She did not know for sure what records were
decentralized because she was assigned to the RMD only in 1997. She had been requested to authenticate or
certify copies of records of
Atty.
Romeo C. Dela Cruz, counsel for the
Manahans, testified in court and identified the letter dated
Aida
R. Viloria-Magsipoc, NBI Forensic Chemist
III, testified that the documents examined were submitted to the Forensic
Chemistry Division from the LMB by Evelyn Celzo and the requesting party was
Atty. Manuel Tacorda, Assistant Chief, Legal Division, LMB. She explained her findings in Chemistry
Report No. C-99-152 (Exh. XXV[211])
on the following specimen documents: (1) Sale Certificate No. 1054 in the name
of Regina Geronimo, Modesto Zacarias and Felicisimo Villanueva (Exh. XXV-A,
front[212]
and Exh. XXV-B,[213]
back); (2) Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated
Explaining the
word “examinations” in her report, the witness said that first, they did an
ocular examination. Visualization
includes photography, viewing the documents under direct light, under UV light,
under infrared (IR) light using the stereoscope; and then chemical examinations
to determine the kind of paper or reaction of the paper, and the reaction of
the ink strokes that are on the questioned documents. A stereoscope enables one (1) to view the
whole sheet of paper by just tilting the mouse (macro viewing), whereas for the
microscope, you could view just a very small portion. After examination over UV, IR and direct
light examinations, chemical examination is done on a paper wherein punch holes
are taken from the pieces or sides of the document. Only these physical and chemical examinations
were done on the questioned documents.[227]
The following
photographs taken of the questioned documents were also presented: Exh. XXV-C,[228]
the front close-up of the tear on top of the page of Sale Certificate No. 1054;
Exh. XXV-D,[229]
front close-up of uneven browning and discoloration of paper (Sale Certificate
No. 1054); Exh. XXV-E,[230]
front page browning and discoloration of tears and creases along the edges of
document (Sale Certificate No. 1054); Exh. XXV-F,[231]
front of the Assignment of
On the
particular findings in her report,[244]
the witness testified that “printed entries on all the documents showed
similarities but differ in font size.”
The font size would indicate if there were insertions or corrections
that have been made on the typewritten entries on the document. Next, the
typescript entries are clear/distinct/uniform especially on specimens 5 (Sale
Certificate No. 651 dated
In contrast, the
standard document (Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511 dated June 24, 1939)
was found to have “showed natural aging and discoloration of paper”; it also
exhibited a “water mark which is distinct under transmitted light”; “the
adhesive tapes were attached along creases and tears”; and “the paper did not
exhibit the characteristics which were observed on the questioned
documents.” The witness thus concluded
that Exh. XXV-V and XXV-W is authentic and as old as the date indicated
therein. The witness denied having been
influenced by anybody in arriving at these findings.[246]
On
cross-examination, Ms. Viloria-Magsipoc admitted that while she had attended a
training course for questioned documents, she has not done any work under the
Questioned Documents Division. This case
was assigned to her by the Chief of the Forensic Chemistry Division and it took
her about thirty (30) working days to finish the work. Regarding handwritten
entries in ballpoint pen ink, she had read an article in the New Encyclopedia
Britannica stating that ballpoint pens came in the late 19th
century, and that commercial models appeared in 1895. There is no known method in chemistry to
determine the age of ballpen writing.
Paper chromatography and thin layer chromatography methods were used
only in determining whether the ink was ballpen ink, fountain pen, sign pen and
other ink entries. The LMB chose
specimen No. 7 (Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511 dated June 24, 1939) as
the reference standard, while specimens 1 to 6 are the questioned
documents. She did a comparative
analysis of papers and went to the National Library to look at documents which
are 5 to 10 years prior to a particular date and 5 to 10 years after said date.[247]
The witness
declared that when she went to the National Archives, she did not see a copy of
the following documents: Sale Certificate No. 1054; Assignment of Sale Certificate
No. 1054 dated March 11, 1919; Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated
June 7, 1920; Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated May 4, 1923; Sale
Certificate No. 651 in the name of Ambrosio Berones; and Assignment of Sale
Certificate No. 651 dated April 19, 1930.
Chromatologic analysis was used in this case to determine whether the
entries in the questioned documents were written in ballpoint pen ink. She opined that it was possible that tears
and creases along the edges of the subject documents are mechanical in
nature. As to punch holes and staple
wires, these are used to determine the characteristic of paper so that if the
marks and holes are clean and clear, they were made recently, regardless of
whether the paper is old or new. The
marks of staple wire or puncher on a recent document are different from those
on an old document. A recently stapled
or punched paper has a “very, very firm” impression while an old document would
have some tear or a reaction of the mechanical impression, or the hair fiber
would be flaky already because of the brittleness of the paper. However, the preservation of paper may be
affected by storage conditions and a very old paper can be well-preserved, such
that even if created in 1911, it could survive without any insect bites. As to the quality of the impression made by
dry seals, it depends on the quality of the seals, the force exerted on the
seal lever when the seal is being pressed on paper, and the quality of the
paper itself. The discoloration of
documents is caused by the reaction of paper to air, as well as to dust and
exposure to strong light. It is possible
that the torn portions of the document, which were lighter in color than the
document itself, were separated or folded in such a way that they were less
exposed than the rest of the documents before they were re-attached. Specimen No. 7 does not bear any stamp mark
of the LMB-RMD.[248]
On redirect
examination, Ms. Viloria-Magsipoc pointed out that ball point pens were
commercially used in the
Responding to
clarificatory questions from the court, the witness declared that water marks
on documents would indicate the possible manufacturing date of the paper. Water
mark that is on the manufacturer of the paper is different from the water mark
being placed on those government paper for official use only. In determining
the possible age of the paper, she had used both physical and chemical
examination. Because of their characteristics, she was able to conclude that
the questioned documents are of recent paper and they could not have possibly
been executed on the dates indicated. As to carbon dating, the witness declared
that the NBI does not have carbon dating.
Recent document means 10 years or less.
As to type of paper, she said that bond paper was used in the questioned
documents; she does not know the exact date when bond paper was introduced in
the
As sur-rebuttal
evidence, the Manahans presented the affidavit/deposition of Rosendo Manahan, Atty.
Richie Q. Caranto, Jacinto Ramos de Guzman and Felix S. Javier.
Rosendo
Manahan in his Judicial Affidavit dated January
5, 2010, declared that the statement made by Milagros Manotok-Dormido in her
Rebuttal Judicial Affidavit that Valentin Manahan could not have caused the
survey of Lot 823 in 1938 and executed the Deed of Assignment of Sale
Certificate No. 511 in favor of Hilaria de Guzman on June 24, 1939 because
Valentin Manahan died on September 21, 1931 is not correct. He asserted
that Valentin Manahan died on
Rosendo Manahan
said that he tried to get a certificate of death from the Parish of Our Lady of
Mt. Carmel but half-page of pages 147 and 148, Book IV of their Liber Defunctorum in which the death of
his grandfather is supposedly entered/recorded, were torn off and missing after
Milagros Manotok-Dormido borrowed it.
This was the information relayed to him by the custodian of the parish
records, Felix Javier. Felix Javier told
him he was surprised when Milagros, who borrowed the book as she wanted to
photocopy some pages thereof, returned it with the half of pages 147 and 148 already
missing. The missing pages cover deaths
during the period January 26 to February 16, 1955, as evident in the remaining
half-pages 147 and 148 (Exhs. XLVII, XLVII-A and XLVII-B[255]). He also went to the Roman Catholic Cemetery
of Malolos City to look at the tombstone (lapida)
of his grandfather Valentin Manahan and see the date of his death inscribed
thereon. However, the tombstone was
freshly vandalized; the date of his death and middle initial of his wife
Placida Figueroa Manahan were chiselled off, which he had photographed (Exhs.
XLII and XLIII[256]). It was Milagros Manotok-Dormido and her
brother who went to Felix Javier, the parish records custodian, and Emilio V.
Pangindian, Jr. the sepulturero of the Roman Catholic Cemetery of
Malolos City and inquired about the tomb of the Manahan family. Emilio V.
Pangindian, Jr. executed an Affidavit (Exh. XLVIII[257])
in support of this fact. As to the
certificate of death (Exhs. 108 and 109) showing that he died on July 30, 1963
at age 20, he declared that it was a mistake since it was his brother Clodualdo
de Guzman who died on July 30, 1963 at age 20 but his uncle, Jacinto de Guzman,
erred in reporting the matter to the Local Civil Registrar as shown by his
Affidavit (Exh. XLIX[258]).
To prove that he is still alive, he submitted copies of his Philippine passport
issued to him on December 12, 2006 (Exh. L[259]),
US Visa issued to him on
Rosendo Manahan
further declared that the claim of Milagros Manotok-Dormido that she was able
to obtain a copy of Sale Certificate No. 1054 from the LMB is contradicted by
the testimonies of former DENR Undersecretary Roseller dela Peňa, Evelyn
dela Rosa Celzo and Atty. Fe T. Tuanda.
As to Deed of Conveyance No. 4562 (Exh. 44-Barques), it is a spurious
document like Deed of Conveyance No. 4562 marked as Exh. 1 in the Barques’
Pre-Trial Brief, for the simple reason that the documents have the same number
but different dates and varying details issued by the Bureau of Lands for the
same lot and in favor of the same party (Emiliano Setosta). Upon verification with LMB, said office
replied to her wife that they do not have Exh. 44 on their files and that Deed
of Conveyance No. 4562 was issued to Paulino Bigalbal on June 28, 1955 covering
a 1.1396-hectare land identified as Lot No. 1540-N of the Naic Friar Land
Estate (Exhs.
Jacinto
Ramos de Guzman identified Rosendo Manahan as his
nephew during the taking of deposition and his Judicial Affidavit dated
Atty.
Richie Q. Caranto, in his Judicial
Affidavit declared that at about
Felix
S. Javier, undersecretary of Parish of Our
Lady of Mt. Carmel residing at
Other documents
formally offered by the Manahans are the following: Exh. I – Certified copy of
the Petition dated
CA
Findings
Examining
the entire evidence on record, the CA found that none of the parties were able
to prove a valid alienation of Lot 823 of Piedad Estate from the government in
accordance with the provisions of Act No. 1120 otherwise known as the
“Friar Lands Act”. Notably lacking in
the deed of conveyance of the Manotoks is the approval of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce as required by Section 18 of the said law. Upon close
scrutiny, the factual allegations and voluminous documentary exhibits relating
to the purchase of
Manotoks’
Claim
In
our Resolution promulgated on
...The
apparent flaws in the Manotoks’ claim are considerable and disturbing
enough. The Court, as the ultimate
citadel of justice and legitimacy, is a guardian of the integrity of the land
registration system of the
Many
of these flaws have especially emerged through the petition-for-intervention of
Felicitas and Rosendo Manahan, whom we have allowed to intervene in these
cases. The Manahans had filed a petition
with the OSG seeking that it initiate cancellation/reversion proceedings
against the Manotok title. That petition
was referred by the OSG to the LMB of the DENR, which duly investigated the
claim of the Manahans. The Chief of the
Legal Division of the LMB recommended that the appropriate proceedings be taken
in the proper court for the cancellation of the Manotok title, through a
Memorandum dated
Around
the same time, the LMB referred to the DENR Undersecretary for Legal Affairs
Roseller S. dela Peña a query on whether a deed of conveyance could be issued
to Felicitas Manahan. The DENR
Undersecretary, in answering that query through a Memorandum dated 6 July 2000,
pointed out that the titles of the
Manotoks could not have been derived from OCT No. 614, the mother title of Lot
823 of the Piedad Estate. The chain
of transfers leading from OCT No. 614 to the Manotok title was a TCT No. 22813,
purportedly issued by the Office of the Register of Deeds for the
“After a thorough verification from the files of
this Office, it appears that the
documents leading to the issuance of TCT No. 22813, Blk. T-92 cannot be found
from the files of this Office.”
These
findings were twice verified with due diligence and reconfirmed by the DENR,
according to Undersecretary Dela Peña.
The
DENR also requested the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) in conducting the said investigation.
The NBI examined various sales certificates and assignment of sales
certificates in the names of the purported predecessors-in-interest of the Manotoks
Regina Geronimo, Modesto Zacarias, and Felicisimo Villanueva – certificates
that were all dated prior to 1930. In its Chemistry Report No. C-99-152 dated
x
x x x
Also
on record is an Investigation Report on Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate dated
“Records
show that the Sale Certificate No. 511 covering
All
told, these apparent problems with the Manotoks’ claim dissuade us from being
simply content in reflexively dismissing the administrative petition for
reconstitution filed by the Barques.
Indeed, we have to take further action.[288]
But
since the Court recognized there was yet no sufficient evidence to warrant the
annulment of the Manotok title, the case had to be remanded to the CA for
further reception of evidence for the Manotoks, as well as the Barques and
Manahans, to prove a valid acquisition from the Government of Lot No. 823.
Evaluating
the documentary and testimonial evidence adduced by the Manotoks, the CA
concluded that they still failed to establish a valid claim over
The
most fatal defect stressed by the CA in its Commissioners’ Report is the lack
of signature of the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands (now Director of Lands)
on Sale Certificate No. 1054 and approval by the Secretary of
Interior/Agriculture and Commerce on the Manotoks’ Sale Certificate No. 1054
and Deed of Conveyance No. 29204, as required under Act No. 1120. For being null and void ab initio, Sale Certificate No. 1054 cannot thus be the source of
any legal right over
Barques’ Claim
With
the admission made by Teresita Barque-Hernandez that their Exh. 1[291]
(certified true copy of Deed of Conveyance Record No. 4562 with Sale
Certificate No. V-321) is a fake and spurious document, no legal right was
acquired over
The
Barques themselves realized their mistake in presenting Exh.1 and so they
submitted another document, a photocopy of Deed of Conveyance No. 4562 dated
January 25, 1938 (Exh. 44) with accompanying Certification dated 14 March 1997
(Exh. 43) of Amando V. Bangayan, Chief, LMB-RMD stating that the only available
record on file with their office is the said Deed of Conveyance No. 4562 issued
to Emiliano Setosta covering Lot 823 of Piedad Estate, Caloocan, Rizal.[293] The CA, however, gave scant weight to the
aforesaid documents, particularly as the Deed of Conveyance No. 4562 lacks the
approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, thus:
...The
veracity of the certification is seriously contradicted by the reply letter of
Atty. Fe Tuanda (Exhibit LVI, Manahans) to the letter of Felicitas B. Manahan
(Exhibit LV, Manahans). In her reply,
Atty. Fe Tuanda, OIC, Records Management Division, LMB categorically declared
that “xxx please be informed that according to our verification, this Office
has no record/copy of the alleged Deed of Conveyance No. 4562 purportedly
issued in the name of EMILIANO P. SETOSTA supposedly covering a parcel of land
identified as Lot No. 823, Piedad Estate, Quezon City.” Atty.
Fe Tuanda further declared that “(F)urther verification of our records shows
that the Deed of Conveyance No. V-4562 was issued on June 28, 1955 in favor of
PAULINO BIGALBAL covering a parcel of land situated in Naic, Cavite identified
as Lot No. 1540-N, Naic Friar Land Estate containing an area of 1.1396
hectares, and the same was transmitted to the Register of Deeds of Cavite on July
13, 1955.” In his Judicial Affidavit
dated July 17, 2009, former DENR
Undersecretary Roseller de la Peña declared that Deed of Conveyance Record No.
4562 and Sales Certificate No. V-321 are not in the records of the LMB and
DENR. Also, DENR-NCR Land Investigator
Evelyn G. Celzo, declared in her Judicial Affidavit dated
Aside
from the absence of a valid deed of conveyance and/or sale certificate in the
name of the Barques’ predecessor-in-interest, Emiliano Setosta, the basis for
the issuance of TCT No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque is further put
seriously in doubt in view of the Barques’ failure to prove the existence of
Subdivision Plan Fls-3168-D duly authenticated by the Geodetic Surveys
Division, LMB National Office. TCT No. 210177, purportedly a transfer from TCT
No. 13900[295]
-- which title until now the Barques said
they could no longer find a copy despite diligent search -- is itself questionable, considering that TCT
No. 13900 was not issued in the name of Emiliano Setosta but Manotok Realty,
Inc.[296] We recall that the evidence of the Barques in
support of their claim over Lot 823 was found by this Court to be “exceedingly
weak”, but which nonetheless was erroneously accorded credence by the First
Division in its December 12, 2005 Decision.
We quote from our Resolution dated
The
Barque title, or TCT No. 210177, under which the Barques assert title to
The
Barques hinge their claim on a purported subdivision plan, FLS-3168-D, made in
favor of Setosta. However, based on the
records, it appears that there is a conflict as to its actual existence in the
files of the government. Revelatory is
the exchange of correspondence between the LMB and the LRA. The LMB did not have any copy of FLS-3168-D
in the EDP listing, nor did the LMB have a record of the plan. However, a microfilm copy of FLS-3168-D was
on file in the Technical Records and Statistical Section of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources – National Capital Region – (DENR-NCR). The
copy with the Technical Records and Statistical Section, which bore the stamp
of the LMB, was denied by the LMB as having emanated from its office.
Further,
the letter dated
There are
significant differences between the technical description of Lot 823 of the
Piedad Estate as stated in FLS-3168-D, the subdivision plan relied on by the
Barques, and the technical description provided by the DENR.…
x
x x x
The
Barques offered no credible explanation for the discrepancy... They also do not
contradict the finding of the National Archives that there is no copy in its files of the deed of sale allegedly executed
between Setosta and Barque.
Lastly, in
the 1st Indorsement issued by the Land Projection Section of the LRA
dated
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.[297]
The
Barques’ Exh. 6, Fls-3168-D dated
x
x x x
Sometime
in October 1996, when I was still Chief of the Geodetic Surveys Division of the
LMB, I received a letter requesting a certified true copy of Subdivision Plan
Fls-3168-D (“Fls-3168-D”) in connection with the examination/verification of a
petition for administrative reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 allegedly
registered in the name of Homer L. Barque, Sr.
The
letter came from Atty. Benjamin M. Bustos, who was then the Reconstituting
Officer and Chief of the Reconstitution Division of the Land Registration
Authority (“LRA”).
A
copy of Atty. Bustos’s
2.
In my reply, I informed Atty. Bustos that the LMB has no record of Fls-3168-D.
A
copy of my
Atty.
Bustos later wrote me again, seeking clarification as to why the Land
Management Services, DENR-National Capital Region (“LMS-DENR-NCR”) apparently
had a microfilm copy of Fls-3168-D while the LMB does not have a record of the
same.
Atty.
Bustos’ letter (dated
I
then wrote the Regional Technical Director of the LMS-DENR-NCR , stating that
the LMB had no record of Fls-3168-D and requesting a copy of the alleged
Fls-3168-D on file with the LMS-DENR-NCR for LMB’s evaluation.
A
copy of my letter (dated
3. LMS-DENR-NCR did not respond to my letter,
Annex D, so I wrote them again on
A
copy of the letter dated
4. On
In
the same letter, I advised the LRA
Administrator that, based on the LMB’s examination of the machine copy of
Fls-3168-D (which was attached to Atty. Bustos’ letter of December 2, 1996),
“it is certain that the source of the copy [of Fls-3168-D] is a spurious plan
which may have been inserted in the file[s].” I also stated that “until
this writing, NCR [referring to LMS-DENR-NCR] has not sent to us the copy [of
Fls-3168-D] for authentication as required by DENR Administrative Order.” I
likewise confirmed that the copy of Fls-3168-D, which I received from Atty.
Bustos, did not emanate from the LMB for the following reasons:
“a. Our inventory of approved plans enrolled in
our file, our Microfilm Computer list of plans available for decentralization
all show that we do not have this plan Fls-3168-D, logically we cannot issue
any copy.
b. The copy
of the plan Fls-3168-D shows visible signs that it is a spurious copy.
1) The certification (rubber stamp) serves a
two piece stamp. The certification and
the signing official are separate. Ours
is one-piece.
2) The alignment of: Lands, GEODETIC, this,
Privadi, and Chief in the syndicates (sic) stamp differ from our stamp. Chief, Geodetic Surveys Division is our
stamp, their (sic) is Survey without the ‘s’ plural.
3) We do not stamp the plan twice as the
syndicate did on the copy.
4) The size of the lettering in the rubber
stamp ‘Not for Registration/Titling For Reference Only’ is smaller than our
stamp. It is also incomplete as an (sic)
Stamp, in addition to the above is ‘of ____________’.
5) The copy bears forged initials of my section
officer and myself. I sign completely
certification.
6) The name of the claimant is very visible to
have been tampered in the master copy.
7) Again, it is certified that this Bureau does
not have copy of Fls-3168-D.”
A
copy of my letter dated
5. On
The
Copies
of Atty. Bustos’ letter dated
I replied to
Atty. Bustos, reiterating that Fls-3168-D does not exist in the files of
LMB. I also stressed that the letter
dated
A
copy of my letter (dated
6. On
“1) We have no copy of Fls-3168-D on file so how
can we issue a copy of plan that is non-existing?
2) The copy of plan bears two
‘Certifications’ at the top and at lower half.
This is not our practice;
3) The rubber-stamp shows there are two
pieces; one for the certification and another for the signing official. We use one piece rubber stamp. The alignment of the letters/words of one
rubber stamp is different from this marking on this spurious plan;
4) The plan shows only initial. 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;
5) The letter size of the rubber stamp ‘NOT
FOR REGISTRATION/TITLING, FOR REFERENCE ONLY’ is smaller than our rubber stamp;
6)
The spurious copy of plan you
furnished us does not carry our rubber stamp ‘GOVERNMENT PROPERTY NOT TO BE
SOLD: FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY OF ___________________’ This is stamped on all microfilm copies we
issue because all microfilm copies are for official use only of our LMS. We
have shown you our rubber stamps to prove that the copy of Fls-3168-D in your
possession is a spurious plan.”
A
copy of my
7. I hereby affirm under oath that I did not
prepare, write, sign and/or send the
8.
The LMB’s Geodetic Surveys Division is the depositary of vital records
containing information on survey plans.
These records consist of, inter
alia, (1) the Logbooks for Psu, Psd, Fls, and survey plans containing the survey
number, the location, the surveyor, the condition of all plans salvaged after
World War II; (2) the Locator Card prepared for each plan contained in the
Logbooks (The Locator Card indicates the location of the land, the Survey
Number and the Accession Number. The
Accession Number stamped on the Locator Card is also stamped on the survey plan
before microfilming so that authentic microfilm copies of plans should indicate
an Accession Number); (3) the Microfilms of microfilmed survey plans; and (4)
the EDP Listing of plans which were salvaged, inventoried, accession numbered
and microfilmed (The EDP listing was made before the decentralization of the
survey plans to the various offices of the LMS.
Hence, if a particular survey plan
is not included in the EDP Listing, it simply means that no such plan was
decentralized/forwarded to the LMS.)
9. All these records, which I have thoroughly
scrutinized while I was Chief of the Geodetic Surveys Division, revealed that
no such Fls-3168-D exists. The Logbook of Fls surveys, more specifically page
351 thereof (attached as Annex K), shows that the portion for Fls-3168-D was
left blank. This simply means no
Fls-3168-D was salvaged, inventoried and microfilmed by the LMB after World War
II. Consequently, no such Fls-3168-D could have been decentralized/forwarded by the LMB
to LMS-DENR-NCR and therefore, it is impossible for LMS-DENR-NCR to have a
microfilmed copy thereof. Moreover,
the deck of Locator Cards does not contain a Locator Card pertaining to
Fls-3168-D. Again, this shows that
Fls-3168-D was not salvaged after World War II.
It should be emphasized that the Locator Card indicates the Accession
Number for a particular survey plan so that without the Locator Card, the roll
of microfilm containing the survey plan cannot be located.
10. Previously, I prepared a report which
discusses in greater detail why the LMB and the LMS-DENR-NCR did not have, and
until now could not have, any genuine microfilm copy or any other genuine copy
of Fls-3168-D. A copy of this report is
attached as Annex L and forms an integral part of this affidavit. I hereby
confirm the truthfulness of the contents of the report.
x
x x x[301]
As pointed out by Engr. Dalire, the
forwarding of the copy of Fls-3168-D to their office for validation is
mandatory under DENR Administrative Order No. 49, series of 1991, and for the
repeated failure of LMS-DENR-NCR to comply with the request of Engr. Dalire to
forward to the Geodetic Surveys Division their purported copy of Fls-3168-D,
the inescapable conclusion is that said plan is spurious and void.[302]
To
cure this anomaly, the Barques presented before the CA another purported copy
of Fls-3168-D containing an alleged certification of more recent date (Exhs. 3
and 4[303]). But still, the CA found no probative value in
their additional evidence, further noting that the Barques, since their filing
of a petition for administrative reconstitution on
Also,
in a desperate attempt to cure the absence of a certified true copy of
Subdivision Plan Fls-3168-D validated by the Chief of the Geodetic Surveys
Division, the BARQUES offered as their Exhibits 3 and 4 an alleged copy of
Subdivision Plan Fls-3168-D covering Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, allegedly
surveyed on June 21, 1940 by Deputy Public Land Surveyor Tomas Colmenar and
approved on January 30, 1941 by the Director of Lands Jose P. Dans, purportedly
authenticated on June 8, 2009 by Ignacio G. Almira, Chief, Regional Surveys
Division. A visual comparison of Exhibits 3 and 4 will readily show that both are
reproduction of the same Subdivision Plan.
Although, it appears to be an exact reproduction of the same
Subdivision Plan, nonetheless, it is perplexing to note the existence of
different notations on the same Subdivision Plan.
In
Exhibit 4, below the stamp “FOR OFFICIAL USE”, marked as Exhibit 4-A, is the
date
“This
print copy of FLS-3168-D is cross-checked with other records and the microfilm
of the original and it is found the same.”
Exhibit
“3”, on the other hand, below the stamp “FOR OFFICIAL USE”, marked as Exhibit
“3-A” is the “CERTIFICATION” which reads:
“This
is to certify that this is a true and correct reproduction of plan Fls-3168-D(W
P),
Claimant: Emiliano Setosta
Location:
Area/Nos.: 342945 sq.m.
Requested
by: Castor Viernes
Address: 55 Quirino Hi Way Talipapa, Novaliches,
Q. City
Purpose: Reference
Date
issued:
O.R.# 6437394-A
(Sgd.)
Prepared by: Norma C. trs
(Sgd.)
MAMERTO L. INFANTE
OIC,
Regional Technical Director”
Under
it, marked as Exhibit 3-B. are the following notations, “AUTHENTICATE”
“Sir:
According to the verification of
FLS-3168-D, situated in
(Sgd.)
IGNACIO G. ALMIRA
Chief, Regional Surveys
Division”
The
mere existence of different notations on the same Subdivision Plan creates
serious doubt on the existence and veracity of the said Subdivision Plan. On record, from the testimonies of Teresita
Barque Hernandez and Engr. Castor Viernes, no explanation was offered in their
Judicial Affidavits and when they testified in Court on the above divergent
notations on the same Subdivision Plan.
As such, without an acceptable
explanation, the only logical conclusion is that the different notations on the
same Subdivision Plan was a result of tampering of documents. This is so
because common experience will tell us that if one and the same document is
reproduced several times, even a million times, it would still reflect or
replicate the same notations. Certainly,
the tampering of documents not only affect the probative value thereof, but
also subject the malefactor to criminal liability.
x x x x[304]
The
CA observed that the Barques should have presented Mamerto L. Infante and
Ignacio G. Almira to identify their signatures on Exhs. 3 and 4. Such failure on their part to present said
witnesses, according to the appellate court, could be considered eloquent
evidence of the absence of Fls-3168-D in the name of Emiliano Setosta duly
approved by the Director of Lands and authenticated by the Chief of the
Geodetic Surveys Division of the LMB.
Lastly, the CA cited the following letter-reply dated
This
pertains to your letter dated 22 September 2005 requesting for a duly certified
copy of the original approved plan Fls-3168-D which, as per letter dated 08
August 2005 of the Regional Technical Director for Land Management Services,
Atty. Crizaldy M. Barcelo was verified to be on file in the Technical Records
Section, Land Management Sector of the DENR-National Capital Region.
In
connection thereto, may we inform you that, contrary to the claim of Atty.
Crizaldy M. Barcelo in his letter of
In addition,
Lot 823, Piedad Estate is covered by approved plans Sp-00-000360 and
Sp-00-000779 are likewise on-file in the Technical Records Section, Land
Surveys Division, certified on 28 November 2000 by then Chief, Regional Surveys
Division and on 04 June 2005 by then Regional Technical Director for Lands
Management Services, NCR, Atty. Crizaldy M. Barcelo, respectively.
Further, verification revealed that there is no record of receipt of the
original copy of plan Fls-3168-D. In view thereof, we regret to inform you
that your request cannot be granted.
x x x x[305]
(Emphasis supplied.)
The Barques’ claim being anchored on a
spurious, fake and non-existent sale certificate or deed of conveyance, the CA
concluded that no valid transfer or assignment can be used by them as basis for
the reconstitution of title over the subject lot. And in the absence of a duly approved
subdivision plan, the Barques’ title, TCT No. 210177, is also null and void.
Manahans’
Claim
From the existing records in the DENR
and LMB, it appears that the original claimant/applicant over Lot 823 of Piedad
Estate was Valentin Manahan who supposedly had the lot surveyed on
...There is no competent evidence showing that
Felicitas Manahan and/or her predecessor-in-interest have ever been in actual
possession of the subject lot. The
Investigation Report of Land Investigator Evelyn de la Rosa (Evelyn G. Celzo)
that Valentin Manahan, as a farmer, took possession of the subject lot in 1908
is not supported by credible evidence.
Evelyn de la Rosa conducted the ocular inspection only on
x
x x x
...the
claim of actual possession in 1908 up to about 1948 when allegedly armed men
forcibly wrested possession from the caretakers of Lucio Manahan is negated by
the absence of tax declarations and receipts showing that the MANAHANS who
claimed to be owners of the subject lot declared the subject lot for taxation
and paid the real property tax during the said period. One who claim to be the
owner of a parcel of land should declare it and pay the corresponding real
property tax. Possession of a tax
declaration and payment of real property tax will certainly bolster the claim
of possession and ownership over a parcel of land. No
evidence was even formally offered by the MANAHANS showing that they declared
the subject lot for taxation purposes in 1948. The only documentary evidence offered by the
MANAHANS is Real Property Tax Bill Receipt No. 712650 (Exhibit IX, Manahans)
showing payment of real property tax only for the taxable year 1990-1991 in the
sum of P102,319.22. On the other
hand, Severino Manotok declared the subject lot for taxation, as shown in various
tax declarations (Exhibits 26-A to 26-N, Manotoks), the earliest of which was
dated July 28, 1933 per Tax Declaration No. 12265 (Exhibit 26, Manotoks) and
paid the real property tax as evidenced by tax bill receipts (Exhibits 27 to
27-KKKKKKK, Manotoks). Thirdly, the
Court entertains serious doubt on the existence of “Sale Certificate No. 511”
allegedly issued to Valentin Manahan after paying the purchase price of P2,140.00
stated in the Investigation Report of Evelyn de la Rosa. Although, Sale Certificate No. 511 was
mentioned as one of the documents attached to the Investigation Report,
nonetheless, no certified copy of
The
CA thus assailed the adoption by Attys. Rogelio Mandar and Manuel Tacorda of
the unsubstantiated findings of Evelyn dela Rosa regarding the claim of the
Manahans in their Memorandum dated April 3, 2000[307] addressed to the Chief of the Legal Division
Alberto R. Recalde, who in turn adopted the same unsupported findings in his
Memorandum dated April 17, 2000[308]
addressed to the LMB OIC-Director. On
the basis of Memorandum dated
As
to the Deed of Conveyance No. V-200022 dated October 30, 2000, the CA held that
its validity cannot be sustained considering that it lacked the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (now Secretary of Environment
and Natural Resources) and was signed only by LMB OIC-Director Ernesto Adobo,
Jr. In any event, according to the appellate court, Sale Certificate No. 511 in
the name of Valentin Manahan would be considered stale at the time of issuance
of Deed of Conveyance No. V-200022 as more than eighty six (86) years had
passed from the execution of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511 dated
As
to DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 issued by then Secretary Michael T.
Defensor, the CA ruled that the Manahans, just like the Manotoks, may not
invoke it to cure the lack of approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce
in their respective sale certificate/deed of conveyance, the same being
inconsistent with Act No. 1120.
The
Court’s Ruling
The
core issue presented is whether the absence of approval of the Secretary of the
Interior/Agriculture and Natural Resources in Sale Certificate No. 1054 and
Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 warrants the annulment of the Manotok title.
From the
proceedings in the CA, it was established that while records of the DENR-LMB
indicate the original claimant/applicant of
Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated
Section 18 of Act
No. 1120 provides:
SECTION
18. No lease or sale made by Chief of
the Bureau of Public Lands under the provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the Secretary of the
Interior. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear from
the foregoing provision that the sale of friar lands shall be valid only if
approved by the Secretary of the Interior (later the Secretary of Agriculture
and Commerce). In Solid State Multi-Products Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[312]
this Court categorically declared that the approval by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale of friar
lands. This was reiterated in Liao v. Court of Appeals,[313]
where sales certificates issued by
the Director of Lands in 1913 were held to be void in the absence of approval
by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
In
their Memorandum, the Manotoks pointed out that their photocopy of the original
Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 (Exh. 51-A), sourced from the National Archives,
shows on the second page a poorly imprinted typewritten name over the words
“Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources”, which name is illegible, and
above it an even more poorly imprinted impression of what may be a stamp of the
Secretary’s approval. Considering that
the particular copy of said deed of conveyance on which the transfer
certificate of title was issued by the Register of Deeds in the name of the
buyer Severino Manotok is required by law to be filed with and retained in the
custody of the Register of Deeds in accordance with Sec. 56 of Act No. 496 and
Sec. 56 of P.D. No. 1529, the Manotoks contend that “we can assume that the
Manotok deed of conveyance was in fact approved by the Department Secretary
because the register of deeds did issue
TCT No. 22813 in the name of the buyer Severino Manotok.” It is also argued that since the Bureau of
Lands was required by law to transmit the deed of conveyance directly to the Register of Deeds, said
office is legally presumed to have observed the law’s requirements for issuing
that deed. The presumption of regularity
therefore stands as uncontradicted proof, in this case, that “all...requirements
for the issuance of” that deed of conveyance had been obeyed. In any event, the Manotoks assert that even
if we were to ignore the presumption of validity in the performance of official
duty, Department Memorandum Order No. 16-05 issued on
These
arguments fail.
Applying the rule laid down in Solid State Multi-Products Corporation v.
Court of Appeals and Liao v. Court of
Appeals, we held in Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.,[314]
that the absence of approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce in
the sale certificate and assignment of sale certificate made the sale null and void ab initio. Necessarily, there can be no valid titles
issued on the basis of such sale or assignment.
The Manotoks’ reliance on the presumption of regularity in the
statutorily prescribed transmittal by the Bureau of Lands to the Register of
Deeds of their deed of conveyance is untenable.
In our Resolution[315]
denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners in Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., we
underscored the mandatory requirement
in Section 18, as follows:
Section
18 of Act No. 1120 or the Friar Lands Act unequivocally provides: “No lease or
sale made by the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands (now the Director of
Lands) under the provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the
Secretary of the Interior (now, the Secretary of Natural Resources). Thus, petitioners’ claim of ownership must
fail in the absence of positive evidence showing the approval of the Secretary
of Interior. Approval of the Secretary of the Interior cannot simply be presumed or
inferred from certain acts since the law is explicit in its mandate. This is the settled rule as enunciated in Solid State Multi-Products Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and
reiterated in Liao vs. Court of Appeals. Petitioners have not offered any cogent
reason that would justify a deviation from this rule.
x
x x x[316]
DENR
Memorandum Order No. 16,[317]
invoked by both the Manotoks and the Manahans, states:
WHEREAS,
it appears that there are uncertainties in the title of the land disposed of by
the Government under Act 1120 or the Friar Lands Act due to the lack of the
signature of the Secretary on the Deeds of Conveyance;
WHEREAS,
said Deeds of Conveyance were only issued by the then Bureau of Lands (now the
Land Management Bureau) after full payment had been made by the applicants
thereon subject to the approval of the Secretary of the then Department of
Interior, then Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and presently
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, in accordance with Act
1120;
WHEREAS,
some of these Deeds of Conveyance on record in the field offices of the
Department and the Land Management Bureau do not bear the signature of the
Secretary despite full payment by the friar land applicant as can be gleaned in
the Friar Lands Registry Book;
WHEREAS,
it is only a ministerial duty on the part of the Secretary to sign the Deed of
Conveyance once the applicant had already made full payment on the purchase
price of the land;
WHEREFORE,
for and in consideration of the above premises, and in order to remove all
clouds of doubt regarding the validity of these instruments, it is hereby declared that all Deeds of
Conveyance that do not bear the signature of the Secretary are deemed signed or
otherwise ratified by this Memorandum Order, provided, however, that full payment of the purchase price of
the land and compliance with all the other requirements for the issuance of the
Deed of Conveyance under Act 1120 have been accomplished by the applicant;
This
Memorandum Order, however, does not modify, alter or otherwise affect any
subsequent assignments, transfers and/or transactions made by the applicant or
his successors-in-interest or any rights arising therefrom after the issuance
of a Transfer Certificate of Title by the concerned Registry of Deeds.
The CA opined that the Manotoks cannot
benefit from the above department issuance because it makes reference only to
those deeds of conveyance on file with the records of the DENR field
offices. The Manotoks’ copy of the alleged
Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 issued in 1932, was sourced from the National
Archives. Apparently, for the Manotoks,
Memorandum Order No. 16 provides the
remedy for an inequitable situation where a deed of conveyance “unsigned” by
the Department Secretary could defeat their right to the subject lot after having fully paid for it. They point out that the Friar Lands Act
itself states that the Government ceases reservation of its title once the
buyer had fully paid the price.
The first paragraph of Section 15
states:
SECTION
15. The Government hereby reserves the
title to each and every parcel of land sold under the provisions of this Act until the full payment of all installments
or purchase money and interest by the purchaser has been made, and any sale
or encumbrance made by him shall be invalid as against the Government of the
Philippine Islands and shall be in all respects subordinate to its prior claim.
x
x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
Indeed, in the early case of Director of Lands v. Rizal,[318]
this Court ruled that in the sale of friar lands under Act No. 1120,
“the purchaser, even before the payment of the full price and before the
execution of the final deed of conveyance is considered by the law as the
actual owner of the lot purchased, under obligation to pay in full the purchase
price, the role or position of the Government being that of a mere lien holder
or mortgagee.” Subsequently, in Pugeda v. Trias,[319]
we declared that “the conveyance executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser, or
the so-called certificate of sale,
is a conveyance of the ownership of the property, subject only to the
resolutory condition that the sale may be cancelled if the price agreed upon is
not paid for in full.
In Dela Torre v. Court of Appeals,[320]
we held:
This
is well-supported in jurisprudence, which has consistently held that under Act
No. 1120, the equitable and beneficial
title to the land passes to the purchaser the moment the first installment is
paid and a certificate of sale is issued. Furthermore, when the purchaser finally pays
the final installment on the purchase price and is given a deed of conveyance
and a certificate of title, the title, at least in equity, retroacts to the
time he first occupied the land, paid the first installment and was issued the
corresponding certificate of sale.
All
told, notwithstanding the failure of the
government to issue the proper instrument of conveyance in favor of Mamerto or
his heirs, the latter still acquired ownership over the subject land.[321] (Emphasis supplied.)
Clearly, it is
the execution of the contract to sell and delivery of the certificate of sale that vests title and ownership to the
purchaser of friar land.[322] Such certificate of sale must, of course, be
signed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as evident from
Sections 11, 12 and the second paragraph of Section 15, in relation to Section
18, of Act No. 1120:
SECTION
11. Should any person who is the actual
and bona fide settler upon, and occupant of, any portion of said lands at the
time the same is conveyed to the Government of the Philippine Islands desire to
purchase the land so occupied by him, he shall be entitled to do so at the
actual cost thereof to the Government, and shall be granted fifteen years from the
date of the purchase in which to pay for the same in equal annual installments,
should he so desire paying interest at the rate of four per centum per annum on
all deferred payments.
…The terms of purchase shall be agreed upon between
the purchaser and the Director of Lands, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources.
SECTION
12. ...When the cost thereof shall have
been thus ascertained, the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall give the
said settler and occupant a certificate
which shall set forth in detail that the Government has agreed to sell to such
settler and occupant the amount of land so held by him, at the price so fixed,
payable as provided in this Act. . .and that upon the payment of the final
installment together with all accrued interest the Government will convey to
such settler and occupant the said land so held by him by proper instrument of
conveyance, which shall be issued and become effective in the manner provided in
section one hundred and twenty-two of the
Land Registration Act….
SECTION
15. …
The
right of possession and purchase acquired
by certificates of sale signed under the provisions hereof by purchasers of
friar lands, pending final payment and the issuance of title, shall be
considered as personal property for the purposes of serving as security for
mortgages, and shall be considered as such in judicial proceedings relative to
such security. (Emphasis supplied.)
In
the light of the foregoing, we hold that the Manotoks could not have acquired
ownership of the subject lot as they had no valid certificate of sale issued to
them by the Government in the first place.
Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated
The decades-long occupation by the
Manotoks of Lot 823, their payment of real property taxes and construction of
buildings, are of no moment. It must be
noted that the Manotoks miserably failed to prove the existence of the title
allegedly issued in the name of Severino Mantotok after the latter had paid in
full the purchase price. The Manotoks
did not offer any explanation as to why the only copy of TCT No. 22813 was torn
in half and no record of documents leading to its issuance can be found in the
registry of deeds. As to the
certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Caloocan, it simply described
the copy presented (Exh. 5-A) as “DILAPIDATED” without stating if the original
copy of TCT No. 22813 actually existed in their records, nor any information on
the year of issuance and name of registered owner. While TCT No. 22813 was mentioned in certain
documents such as the deed of donation executed in 1946 by Severino Manotok in
favor of his children and the first tax declaration (Exh. 26), these do not
stand as secondary evidence of an alleged transfer from OCT No. 614. This hiatus in the evidence of the Manotoks
further cast doubts on the veracity of their claim.
As we stressed
in Alonso:
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 “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.”[324] (Emphasis supplied.)
With respect to
the claim of the Manahans, we concur with the finding of the CA that no copy of
the alleged Sale Certificate No. 511can be found in the records of either the
DENR-NCR, LMB or National Archives.
Although the OSG submitted a certified copy of Assignment of Sale
Certificate No. 511 allegedly executed by Valentin Manahan in favor of Hilaria
de Guzman, there is no competent evidence to show that the claimant Valentin
Manahan or his successors-in-interest actually occupied
Even assuming arguendo the existence and validity of
the alleged Sale Certificate No. 511 and Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511
presented by the Manahans, the CA correctly observed that the claim had become
stale after the lapse of eighty six (86) years from the date of its alleged
issuance. As this Court held in Liao v. Court of Appeals, “the
certificates of sale x x x became stale after ten (10) years from its issuance”
and hence “can not be the source documents for issuance of title more than
seventy (70) years later.”[325]
Considering
that none of the parties has established a valid acquisition under the
provisions of Act No. 1120, as amended, we therefore adopt the
recommendation of the CA declaring the Manotok title as null and void ab initio, and
WHEREFORE,
the petitions filed by the Manotoks under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, as well as the petition-in-intervention of the
Manahans, are DENIED. The
petition for reconstitution of title filed by the Barques is likewise DENIED.
TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name of Severino Manotok IV, et al., TCT No.
210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque and Deed of Conveyance No. V-200022
issued to Felicitas B. Manahan, are all hereby declared NULL and VOID. The Register of Deeds of Caloocan City
and/or
With costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
|
WE
CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
||
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
|
|
MARIA Associate Justice |
||
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief
Justice |
[1] Manotok
IV v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque, G.R.
Nos. 162335 & 162605, 574 SCRA 468.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Consuelo
Ynares-Santiago and concurred in by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and
Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing and Adolfo S. Azcuna. Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio
dissented.
[3] G.R. No. 130876,
[4] Supra note 1, at 508-509.
[5] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato,
Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Normandie B.
Pizarro.
[6] See Manotok
Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, G.R. Nos. 123346 &
134385,
[7] See Liao
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 102961-62, 107625 and 108759,
[8] Manotok
IV v. Heirs of Homer L.Barque, supra note 1, at 484.
[9] Exhibits 1 and 31 –
[10] Manotok
IV v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque, supra note 1, at 485.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J.
Guerrero and concurred in by Associate Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr., Edgardo P.
Cruz and Danilo B. Pine. Associate
Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. dissented.
[16] Manotok
IV v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque, supra note 1, at 488-489.
[17] Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G.
Verzola and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and
Edgardo F. Sundiam.
[18] Manotok
IV v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque, supra note 1, at 489.
[19]
[20] TSN, July 27, 2009, pp. 8, 11-21 (CA rollo, Vol. V, pp. 1909, 1912-1922); CA rollo,
Vol. VI, pp. 2686, 2695-2697.
[21] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 1462.
[22] TSN, July 27, 2009, pp. 29-37, 44-60, 73-85, 98-108 (CA rollo, Vol. V, pp. 1930-1938, 1945-1961, 1974-1986, 1999-2009); CA rollo, Vol. VI, pp. 2686-2688, 2689-2694.
[23] TSN,
[24]
[25] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, pp. 1463-1464.
[26] TSN,
[27] CA rollo,
Vol. VIII, pp. 4265-4274.
[28] TSN,
[29] Id., pp. 52-62, 64-73, 85-91, 100-104,
116-121 (5514-5524, 5526-5535, 5547-5553, 5562-5566, 5578-5583).
[30] TSN,
[31]
[32]
[33] CA rollo,
Vol. VII, p. 3428.
[34]
[35] CA Commissioners’ Report, pp. 18-19
(Judicial Affidavit of Jose Marie P. Bernabe [Exh. 52], CA rollo, Vol. V, pp. 1655-1670).
[36] CA rollo,
Vol. VII, p. 3432.
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43] CA Commissioners’ Report, pp. 19-20.
[44]
[45] CA rollo,
Vol. VII, pp. 3489-3490.
[46] Judicial Affidavit of Milagros Manotok
Dormido, CA rollo, Vol. VI, pp. 2560-2579; TSN, October 28, 2009 p.m.,
pp. 3-14 (CA rollo, Vol. IX, pp.
4526-4537); Revised/Amended Pre-Trial Brief with attached documents marked as
Exhibits 1 to 51-A, CA rollo, Vol.
VII, pp. 2986-3490.
[47] TSN,
[48] TSN, October 29, 2009 a.m., pp. 40-46,
48-53, 57-69, 72-78 (Id. at 4640-4646, 4648-4653, 4657-4669, 4672-4678).
[49]
[50] CA Commissioners’ Report, p. 27; Judicial
Affidavit of Susana M. Culiao (Exh. 54), CA
rollo, Vol. V, pp. 1635-1641.
[51] CA rollo,
Vol. VII, p. 3313.
[52]
[53] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, p. 5275.
[54] CA rollo,
Vol. VII, p. 3315.
[55] CA rollo,
Vol. IX., pp. 5277-5279.
[56] CA Commissioners’ Report, pp. 28-29.
[57] CA rollo,
Vol. VII, p. 3149.
[58]
[59] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, p. 5280.
[60] CA Commissioners’ Report, p. 29.
[61] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, p. 5273.
[62]
[63] CA Commissioners’ Report, pp. 29-30; During
the December 15, 2009 hearing, Luisa Padora confirmed the rebuttal judicial
affidavit she executed (Exh. 126) and
was cross-examined on the documents referred to therein.
[64] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, pp. 5304-5305.
[65] TSN, December 16, 2009 a.m., pp. 14-23,
38-44, 61-63, 75-86, 95-100, 105-107 (CA
rollo, Vol. XIV, pp. 9866-9875,
9890-9896, 9913-9915, 9927-9938, 9947-9952, 9957-9959).
[66] TSN, December 16, 2009 p.m., pp. 15-21, 68-70, 88-91, 95-104 (CA rollo, Vol. XIV, pp.
9976-9982, 10029-10031, 10049-10052,
10056-10065); Exhibits 138-A to 138-I, 139, CA rollo, Vol. XI, pp. 7224-7242.
[67] TSN, December 16, 2009 p.m., pp. 33-37, 151-154 (CA rollo, XIV, pp. 9994-9998, 10112-10115).
[68] Exhibit 140, CA rollo, Vol. IX, pp. 5162-5171.
[69] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, pp. 5260-5263.
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73] TSN,
[74] CA rollo, Vol. IX, pp. 5173-5188.
[75] Rebuttal Judicial Affidavit, CA rollo, Vol. IX, p. 5163, 5172-5188,
5194-5229.
[76] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, p. 5190.
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83] CA rollo,
Vol. VII, p. 3313.
[84] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, pp. 5243-5244.
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89] Rebuttal Judicial Affidavit, CA rollo, Vol. IX, pp. 5167-5169;
5144-5157, 5232 -5255.
[90] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, pp. 5173-5176.
[91] TSN,
[92]
[93] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, p. 5154.
[94] TSN,
[95] CA rollo,
Vol. VII, pp. 3125-3126.
[96]
[97] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, p. 5307.
[98]
[99]
[100] CA rollo,
Vol. XII, pp. 8588-8589.
[101]
[102]
[103] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, pp. 920-921.
[104]
[105]
[106]
[107]
[108]
[109]
[110] CA rollo,
Vol. V, pp. 1793-1803; TSN, November 12, 2009, pp. 64-66 (CA rollo, Vol.
X, pp. 5877-5879).
[111] TSN,
[112] CA rollo, Vol. IV, p. 901.
[113]
[114] CA rollo,
Vol. V, pp. 117-133, 145-152; TSN, November 13, 2009 a.m., pp. 10-11, 15-17,
44-51, 56-58, 74-75 (CA rollo, Vol.
X, pp. 6024-6025, 6029-6031, 6058-6065, 6070-6072, 6088-6089).
[115] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, pp. 901.
[116]
[117]
[118] TSN, November 13, 2009 a.m., pp. 77-103,
128-129 (CA rollo, Vol. X, pp.
6091-6116, 6141-6142); CA rollo,Vol. IV,
pp.
901-902, 961.
[119]
[120]
[121]
[122]
[123]
[124]
[125]
[126]
[127]
[128]
[129]
[130]
[131]
[132] Judicial Affidavit of Castor C. Viernes, CA rollo, Vol. V, pp. 1804-1812.
[133] CA rollo,
Vol. VIII, pp. 4068-4079.
[134] TSN,
[135]
[136] TSN,
[137] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, p. 5436.
[138] TSN, December 14, 2009 p.m., pp. 136-149,
152-160, 176, 179-186, 194-207 (CA rollo,
Vol. XIII, pp. 9570-9583, 9586-9594, 9610, 9613-9620, 9628-9641).
[139] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, pp. 5429-5431.
[140]
[141]
[142] TSN,
[143] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, pp. 5421-5423.
[144]
[145]
[146]
[147]
[148] TSN,
[149] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 911.
[150]
[151]
[152]
[153]
[154]
[155]
[156]
[157]
[158]
[159]
[160]
[161]
[162]
[163]
[164]
[165] CA rollo,
Vol. VIII, p. 4066.
[166]
[167] CA rollo,
Vol. XII, p. 8577.
[168] CA rollo, Vol. IX, p. 5419.
[169]
[170] See CA Commissioners’ Report, p. 144.
[171] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 1073.
[172] CA rollo,
Vol. V, pp. 1766-1771.
[173] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, pp. 1065-1072.
[174] TSN,
[175]
[176] CA rollo,
Vol. VIII, p. 4099.
[177] TSN, November 19, 2009 p.m., pp. 20-38, 42-47,
73-79, 85-86, 154-159 (CA rollo, Vol. XIII, pp. 8840-8859, 8862-8867,
8893-8899, 8905-8906, 8974-8979).
[178] CA rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 1013-1017.
[179] TSN,
[180] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 997.
[181]
[182]
[183]
[184]
[185] CA rollo,
Vol. V, pp. 1773-1778.
[186] CA rollo,
Vol. VIII, pp. 4100-4105.
[187]
[188]
[189] TSN,
[190] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 1008.
[191] TSN, November 23, 2009 a.m., pp. 56-62,
69-79, 86-104, 107-108, 114-127, 129-133 (CA rollo, Vol. XII, pp. 8255-8261, 8268-8278, 8285-8303, 8306-8307,
8313-8326, 8328-8332).
[192] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, pp. 1031-1035.
[193] Judicial Affidavit of Undersecretary Roseller
de la Peña, CA rollo, Vol. V, pp.
1562-1572.
[194] Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Rogelio Mandar,
CA rollo, Vol. V, pp. 1753-1760.
[195] CA rollo,Vol.
IV, pp. 1023-1030.
[196]
[197] Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Rogelio Mandar,
CA rollo, Vol. V, pp. 1753-1760.
[198] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, pp. 1021-1022.
[199] Judicial Affidavit of Evelyn G. Celzo nee
Evelyn C. de la Rosa, CA rollo, Vol.
V, pp. 1746-1750; TSN, November 18, 2009 p.m., pp. 24-30 (CA rollo, Vol.
X, pp. 6887-6893).
[200] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 1001.
[201] TSN,
[202] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, p. 4820.
[203] TSN,
[204]
[205] CA rollo,
Vol. VIII, p. 4100.
[206]
[207] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, pp. 912-914, 952.
[208] TSN,
[209] CA rollo,
Vol. VIII, p. 4097.
[210] TSN,
[211] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 1062.
[212] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, p. 4790.
[213]
[214]
[215]
[216]
[217]
[218]
[219]
[220]
[221]
[222]
[223]
[224]
[225]
[226] TSN,
[227]
[228] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, p. 4792.
[229]
[230]
[231]
[232]
[233]
[234]
[235]
[236]
[237]
[238]
[239]
[240]
[241]
[242]
[243]
[244] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 1062.
[245] TSN,
[246]
[247] TSN, November 25, 2009 p.m., pp. 6-9, 14-19,
33-39, 57-59, 62-69, 91-96 (CA rollo, Vol. XIII, pp. 8992-8995,
9000-9005, 9019-9025, 9043-9045, 9048-9055, 9077-9082).
[248]
[249]
[250]
[251] CA rollo,
Vol. XV, p. 10544.
[252]
[253]
[254]
[255]
[256] CA rollo,
Vol. XII, pp. 8639-8640.
[257] CA rollo,
Vol. XV, p. 10550.
[258]
[259]
[260]
[261]
[262]
[263]
[264]
[265]
[266]
[267] CA rollo,
Vol. XII, pp. 8458-8463; CA rollo, Vol.
XV, pp. 10552-10553.
[268]
[269]
[270]
[271] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, pp. 991-995.
[272]
[273]
[274]
[275]
[276]
[277]
[278]
[279]
[280]
[281]
[282]
[283]
[284]
[285] CA rollo,
Vol. VIII, p. 4097.
[286]
[287]
[288] Manotok IV v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque,
supra note 1, at 502-504.
[289] CA Commissioners’ Report, pp. 188-189.
[290]
[291] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 901.
[292] CA Commissioners’ Report, pp. 193-194.
[293] CA rollo,
Vol. IX, pp. 5419-5420.
[294] CA Commissioners’ Report, pp. 196-197.
[295] Exh. 18-Barques, CA rollo, Vol. IV, p. 926.
[296] Exh. 6-Manotoks, CA rollo, Vol. VII, pp. 3086-3087.
[297] Manotok IV v. Heirs of Homer L.
Barque, supra note 1, at 500-502.
[298] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 908.
[299] Exh. 49-Manotoks, CA rollo, Vol. VII, pp. 3437-3450.
[300] Exh. 50-Manotoks, id. at 3451-3487.
[301]
[302] Id. at 3474; CA Commissioners’ Report, pp.
197, 200-204, citing the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice
Antonio T. Carpio in Manotok IV v. Heirs
of Homer L. Barque, supra note 1.
[303] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, pp. 903-904.
[304] CA Commissioners’ Report, pp. 206-208.
[305] CA rollo,
Vol. IV, p. 1074.
[306] CA Commissioners’ Report, pp. 211, 215-216.
[307] Exh.
[308] Exh.
[309] Exh. XVII-Manahans, id. at 1031-1035.
[310] Exh. XVIII-Manahans, id. at 1036-1037.
[311] CA Commissioners’ Report, pp. 214-215.
[312] G.R. No. 83383,
[313] G.R. Nos. 102961-62, 107625 and 108759,
[314] Supra note 3 at 404-405.
[315] G.R. No. 130876,
[316]
[317] CA rollo, Vol. VII, p. 3365.
[318] 87 Phil. 806, 813 (1950).
[319] No. L-16925,
[320] G.R. No. 113095,
[321]
[322] See Jovellanos
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100728,
[323] Alonso
v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., supra note 315, at 126.
[324]
[325] Supra note 313, at 442.