G.R. Nos. 162335 and 162605

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. 162335 and 162605 (SEVERINO M. MANOTOK, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE, represented by TERESITA BARQUE HERNANDEZ)

Promulgated:

August 24, 2010

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

DISSENTING OPINION

CARPIO, J.:

In its 18 December 2008 Resolution, this Court remanded these cases to the Court of Appeals, with the following directive:

The primary focus for the Court of Appeals, as an agent of this Court, in receiving and evaluating evidence should be whether the Manotoks can trace their claim of title to a valid alienation by the Government of Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate, which was a Friar Land. On that evidence, this Court may ultimately decide whether annulment of the Manotok title is warranted, similar to the annulment of the Cebu Country Club title in Alonso. At the same time, the court recognizes that the respective claims to title by other parties such as the Barques and the Manahans, and the evidence they may submit on their behalf, may have an impact on the correct determination of the status of the Manotok title. It would thus be prudent, in assuring the accurate evaluation of the question, to allow said parties, along with the OSG, to participate in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals. If the final evidence on record definitely reveals the proper claimant to the subject property, the Court would take such fact into consideration as it adjudicates final relief.

For the purposes above-stated, the Court of Appeals is tasked to hear and receive evidence, conclude the proceedings and submit to this Court a report on its findings and recommended conclusions within three (3) months from notice of this Resolution.

To assist the Court of Appeals in its evaluation of the factual record, the Office of the Solicitor General is directed to secure all the pertinent relevant records from the Land Management Bureau and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and submit the same to the Court of Appeals.

After a series of hearings and after evaluating the documentary evidence submitted by the parties, the Court of Appeals submitted its Commissioners’ Report recommending the following:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended to the Honorable Supreme Court En Banc:

1. To deny the reconstitution of the title of Homer L. Barque and to declare TCT No. 210177 null and void ab initio;

2. To declare reconstituted title TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the names of the Manotok children and grandchildren as well as all other derivative titles null and void ab initio. As such, the Register of Deeds of Quezon be directed to cancel TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) and all its derivative titles;

3. To declare null and void the Deed of Conveyance No. V-200022 dated October 30, 2000 issued to Felicitas B. Manahan;

4. To declare Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate as still part of the patrimonial property of the National Government and for the Solicitor General to take appropriate action to recover the subject lot from the MANOTOKS.

Respectfully submitted.[1]

Acting on the Commissioners’ Report, the Court in its majority opinion denies the petitions of the Manotoks and the interventions of the Manahans, and declares void TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name of Severino Manotok IV, et al. The dispositive portion of the majority opinion states:

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. TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name of Severino Manotok IV, et al. is hereby declared NULL and VOID, and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City is hereby ordered to CANCEL the same. Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, Quezon City, legally belongs to the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, without prejudice to the institution of REVERSION proceedings by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General.

With costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

I dissent from the opinion of the majority insofar as it declares that the absence of approval by the Secretary of the Interior/Agriculture and Natural Resources of Sale Certificate No. 1054 and Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 warrants the annulment of the Manotoks’ title.

The majority opinion is premised on Section 18 of Act No. 1120,[2] which 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.

Under Section 18, any sale of friar land by the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands (now Director of Lands) shall not be valid until approved by the Secretary. This means that the Secretary, under Section 18, approves the sale and thus signs the Deed of Conveyance upon full payment of the purchase price. However, under Section 12 of Act No. 1120, the Director of Lands signs the Sales Certificate upon payment of the first installment.[3] Section 12 of Act No. 1120 provides:

Section 12. It shall be the duty of the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands by proper investigation to ascertain what is the actual value of the parcel of land held by each settler and occupant, taking into consideration the location and quality of each holding of land, and any other circumstances giving its value. The basis of valuation shall likewise be, so far as practicable, such that the aggregate of the values of all the holdings included in each particular tract shall be equal to the cost to the Government to the entire tract, including the cost of surveys, administration and interest upon the purchase money to the time of sale. 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 at the office of the Chief of Bureau of Public Lands, in gold coin of the United States or its equivalent in Philippine currency, 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. The Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall, in each instance where a certificate is given to the settler and occupant of any holding, take his formal receipt showing the delivery of such certificate, signed by said settler and occupant.[4] (Boldfacing and italicization supplied)

Under Section 12, it is only the Director of Land who signs the Sales Certificate. The Sales Certificate operates as a contract to sell which, under the law, the Director of Lands is authorized to sign and thus bind the Government as seller of the friar land. This transaction is a sale of private property because friar lands are patrimonial properties of the Government.[5] In short, the law expressly authorizes the Director of Lands to sell private or patrimonial property of Government under a contract to sell. On the other hand, under Section 18, the Secretary signs the Deed of Conveyance because the Secretary must approve the sale made initially by the Director of Lands. The Deed of Conveyance operates as a deed of absolute sale which the Secretary signs upon full payment of the purchase price. The Deed of Conveyance, when presented, is authority for the Register of Deeds to issue a new title to the buyer as provided in Section 122 of the Land Registration Act.

The majority cite the ruling in Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.[6] and other cases[7] which held that the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale of friar lands. Following the ruling in these cases, the majority hold that Sale Certificate No. 1054 and Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 are void.

Alonso categorically held that “(a)pproval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale.”[8] The majority further cite the resolution of the motion for reconsideration in Alonso, thus:

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 Director of Lands) under the provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the Secretary of 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.[9]

However, the ruling in Alonso was superseded with the issuance by then Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Michael T. Defensor of DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05,[10] which provides:

WHEREAS, it appears that there are uncertainties in the title of the land disposed 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. (Italicization and boldfacing supplied)

Despite the issuance of DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05, the majority still hold that the memorandum order does not apply to the Manotoks’ title. The majority assert that the Manotoks could not benefit from DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 because the memorandum order refers only to deeds of conveyance on file with the records of DENR “field offices.”

I find the majority’s limited application of DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 erroneous.

While the third WHEREAS clause of DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 refers to Deeds of Conveyance on record in the “field offices” of the DENR, the dispositive portion categorically states that “all Deeds of Conveyance that do not bear the signature of the Secretary are deemed signed or otherwise ratified” by the Memorandum Order. The word “all” means everything, without exception. DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 should apply to all Deeds of Conveyance, as declared in its dispositive portion, and should not be limited to those on file in DENR “field offices.”

Assuming, however, that only records on file in the DENR “field offices” are covered by DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05, the DENR has a “field office” in Manila[11] for land titles in the National Capital Region (NCR) region. This “field office” in Manila is the DENR’s Regional Office for the NCR, which is one of the country’s 17 administrative regions. In fact, there is no city or municipality in the Philippines that is not under a “field office” of the DENR. Executive Order No. 192[12] provides:

Section 20. Field Offices of the Department

The field offices of the Department are the Environment and Natural Resources Regional Offices in the thirteen (13) [now seventeen (17)] administrative regions of the country, the Environment and Natural Resources Provincial Office in every province and the Community Office in municipalities whenever deemed necessary.[13] The regional offices of the Bureau of Forest Development, Bureau of Mines and Geo-sciences, and Bureau of Lands in each of the thirteen (13) administrative regions and the research centers of the Forest Research Institute are hereby integrated into the Department-wide Regional Environment and Natural Resources Office of the Department, in accordance with Section 24(e) hereof. A Regional Office shall be headed by a Regional Executive Director (with the rank of Regional Director) and shall be assisted by five (5) Regional Technical Directors (with the rank of Assistant Regional Director) each for Forestry, Land Management, Mines and Geo-sciences, Environmental Management, and Ecosystems Research. The Regional Executive Directors and Regional Technical Directors shall be Career Executive Service Officers. (Boldfacing and italicization supplied)

Clearly, as expressly stated in Section 20 of Executive Order No. 192, all DENR Regional Offices, including the Regional Office in NCR, are “field offices” of the DENR.

Quezon City, where the land in question is situated, is under DENR’s NCR “field office.” In 1919, when the Government sold the subject friar land to the Manotoks’ predecessors-in-interest, the land was part of the province of Rizal,[14] which also has a “field office.” Indisputably, DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 applies to all Deeds of Conveyance of friar lands anywhere in the Philippines without exception. Thus, conveyances of land within the NCR, including the conveyance to the Manotoks, are covered by DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05.

The first WHEREAS clause clearly states that what DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 seeks to cure are the “uncertainties in the title of the land disposed by the Government under Act 1120 or the Friar Lands Act due to the lack of signature of the Secretary on the Deeds of Conveyance.” If we apply DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 only to Deeds of Conveyance on record in the “field offices” outside of NCR, the purpose of the issuance of DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 will not be fully accomplished.

The total number of areas covered by friar lands is 396,690.20 acres[15] divided as follows:

Estate Area (in acres)

Banilad 4,812.50

Binagbag 736.88

Biñan 9,147.50

Calamba 34,182.50

Dampol 2,322.33

Guiguinto 2,364.21

Imus 45,607.50

Isabela 49,727.50

Lolomboy 12,943.73

Malinta 8,935.00

Matamo 29.50

Muntinlupa 7,067.50

Naic 19,060.00

Orion 2,290.00

Piedad 9,650.00

San Francisco de Malabon 28,622.50

San Jose 58,165.00

San Marcos 218.55

Santa Cruz de Malabon 24,487.50

Santa Maria de Pandi 25,855.00

Santa Rosa 13,675.00

Tala 16,740.00

Talisay-Minglanilla 20,050.00[16]

Total 396,690.20

The total area of friar lands in NCR, specifically in Muntinlupa, Piedad, San Francisco de Malabon, Santa Cruz de Malabon, and Tala is 86,567.50 acres or 35,032.624 hectares. If DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 will not be applied to these areas, the Court will be disquieting the titles held by generations of landowners since the passage in 1904 of Act No. 1120. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of landowners could be dispossessed of their lands in these areas.

The majority opinion’s limited application of DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution which requires, for valid classification, the following:

(1) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;

(2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law;

(3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and

(4) It must apply equally to all members of the class.[17]

The groupings must be characterized by substantial distinctions that make for real differences so that one class may be treated and regulated differently from another.[18] To limit the application of DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 to Deeds of Conveyance in the “field offices” outside of NCR would be discriminatory as there is no substantial distinction between the files on record in the DENR “field offices” outside of NCR and the files on record in the DENR “field office” in NCR.

More importantly, the Manotoks became owners of the land upon their full payment of the purchase price to the Government on 7 December 1932. Upon such full payment, the Manotoks had the right to demand conveyance of the land and issuance of the corresponding title to them. This is the law and jurisprudence on friar lands.

Thus, the Court has held that in cases of sale of friar lands, the only recognized resolutory condition is non-payment of the full purchase price.[19] Pursuant to Section 12 of Act No. 1120, “upon payment of the last installment together with all accrued interest[,] the Government will convey to [the] 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.” Once it is shown that the full purchase price had been paid, the issuance of the proper certificate of conveyance necessarily follows. There is nothing more that is required to be done as the title already passes to the purchaser.

The Court has ruled that equitable and beneficial title to the friar land passes to the purchaser from the time the first installment is paid and a certificate of sale is issued.[20] 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.[21] The sequence then is that a certificate of sale is issued upon payment of the first installment. Upon payment of the final installment, the deed of conveyance is issued.

It is the Deed of Conveyance that must bear the signature of the Secretary of Interior/Agriculture because it is only when the final installment is paid that the Secretary can approve the sale, the purchase price having been fully paid. This is why DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 refers only to the Deed of Conveyance, and not to the Sale Certificate, as the document that is “deemed signed” by the Secretary. In short, Section 18 of Act No. 1120 which states that “(n)o xxx sale xxx shall be valid until approved by the Secretary of Interior” refers to the approval by the Secretary of the Deed of Conveyance.

DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 expressly acknowledges that “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.” The majority expressly admit in their Reply to the Dissenting Opinion that Memorandum Order No. 16-05:

x x x correctly stated that it is only a ministerial duty on the part of the Secretary to sign the Deed of Conveyance once the applicant had made full payment on the purchase price of the land. Jurisprudence teaches us that notwithstanding the failure of the government to issue the proper instrument of conveyance when the purchaser finally pays the final installment of the purchase price, the purchaser of friar land still acquired ownership over the subject land. (Italicization supplied)

To repeat, the majority expressly admit that it is the ministerial duty of the Secretary to sign the Deed of Conveyance once the purchaser of friar land, like the Manotoks, pays in full the purchase price. The majority also expressly admit that upon such full payment the purchaser acquires ownership of the land “notwithstanding the failure” of the Secretary to sign the Deed of Conveyance.

The Manotoks proved beyond any doubt that they purchased, and paid for in full, the land. Deed of Conveyance No. 29204, dated 7 December 1932, on its face expressly acknowledged receipt by the Government of the amount of P2,363.00 in consideration for Lot 823 granted and conveyed to Severino Manotok.[22] Thus, Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 states:

I, the Acting DIRECTOR OF LANDS, acting for an on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, in consideration of TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY THREE AND 00/100 pesos (P2,363.00), receipt whereof is acknowledged, do hereby grant and convey to SEVERINO MANOTOK, Filipino, of legal age, married to Maria Ramos, residing at 2318 J. Luna, Tondo, Manila in the City of Manila and his heirs and assigns, Lot No. 823 of the PIEDAD Friar Lands Estate, situated in the Municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal, Philippine Islands, containing 34 hectares, 29 ares and 45 centares, according to subdivision plan No. A-6 as approved by the Court of Land Registration on the 25^th day of July, 1913 and described On the back hereof of which land the government OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS is the registered owner in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act, title thereto being evidenced by Certificate No. 614 of the land records of the province.[23] (Emphasis supplied)

To repeat, Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 expressly and unequivocally acknowledged that Severino Manotok had fully paid the purchase price to the Government. Since the majority expressly admit that upon full payment of the purchase price it becomes the ministerial duty of the Secretary to approve the sale, then the majority must also necessarily admit that the approval of the Secretary is a mere formality that has been complied with by the issuance of Memorandum Order No. 16-05. Since the majority further expressly admit that upon full payment of the purchase price ownership of the friar land passes to the purchaser, despite the failure of the Secretary to sign the Deed of Conveyance, then the majority must also necessarily admit that the Manotoks became the absolute owners of the land upon their full payment of the purchase price on 7 December 1932.

In short, the majority categorically admit that upon full payment of the purchase price, the buyer ipso facto becomes the absolute owner of the friar land, and it becomes the ministerial duty of the Secretary, who cannot otherwise refuse, to sign the Deed of Conveyance. As absolute owners of the land who have fully paid the purchase price to the Government, and whose ownership retroacted to 10 March 1919,[24] the Manotoks have the right to compel the Secretary, and the Secretary has the ministerial duty, to sign Deed of Conveyance No. 29204. In fact, the Manotoks have been paying the real estate taxes on the land since at least 1933. The Office of the Provincial Assessor declared the title in Severino Manotok’s name for tax purposes on 9 August 1933[25] and assessed Severino Manotok “beginning with the year 1933.

Indisputably, upon full payment of the purchase price, full and absolute ownership passes to the purchaser of friar land. In the case of the Manotoks’ title, the Deed of Conveyance was issued except that it lacked the signature of the Secretary which the majority erroneously hold is still indispensable pursuant to Alonso. However, Alonso should not be applied to the Manotoks’ title because DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 was not yet issued when the Court decided Alonso. The absence of the Secretary’s signature in the Deed of Conveyance in Alonso was never cured and hence the Court in Alonso voided the Deed of Conveyance. Besides, in Alonso the corresponding torrens title was never issued even after a lapse of 66 years from the date of the Deed of Conveyance.[26] In sharp contrast, here the lack of the Secretary’s signature in the Manotoks’ Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 was cured by the issuance of DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05, which expressly states that “all Deeds of Conveyance that do not bear the signature of the Secretary are deemed signed or ratified x x x.” Moreover, the Manotoks have been issued their torrens title way back in 1933.

Section 122 of Act No. 496[27] states that “[i]t shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such instrument, before its delivery to the grantee, to be filed with the register of deeds for the province where the land lies and to be there registered like other deeds and conveyances, whereupon a certificate shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an owner’s duplicate certificate issued to the grantee.” TCT No. 22813 would not have been issued in the name of Severino Manotok if Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 had not been delivered to the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal to which the land covered by the Manotoks’ title then belonged. The Manotoks should not be punished if the documents leading to the issuance of TCT No. 22813 could no longer be found in the files of the government office, considering that these were pre-war documents and considering further the lack of proper preservation of documents in some government agencies.

The fact remains that the Manotoks were able to present a certified true copy of Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 secured from the National Archives which is the official repository of government and public documents. This Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 was signed by the Director of Lands and lacked only the signature of the Secretary of Interior/Agriculture. Memorandum Order No. 16-05 speaks of “all Deeds of Conveyance that do not bear the signature of the Secretary” and thus includes Deed of Conveyance No. 29204. Under Memorandum Order No. 16-05, such Deeds of Conveyance “are deemed signed” by the Secretary. Clearly, Memorandum Order No. 16-05 applies squarely to the Manotoks’ title for two reasons. First, Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 was signed by the Director of Lands but lacked only the signature of the Secretary. Second, the purchase price for the land subject of Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 had been fully paid on 7 December 1932, more than 77 years ago.

The majority argue that Memorandum Order No. 16-05 cannot supersede or amend Section 18 of Act 1120. The majority likewise state that administrative issuances such as Memorandum Order No. 16-05 must conform to and must not contravene existing laws.

There is no conflict between Memorandum Order No. 16-05 and Section 18 of Act No. 1120. Memorandum Order No. 16-05 recognizes the formality of the signature of the Secretary of Interior/Agriculture on Deeds on Conveyances. Memorandum Order No. 16-05 complies with Section 18 of Act No. 1120 by ratifying the Deeds of Conveyances that were not signed, for one reason or another, by the Secretary. Memorandum Order No. 16-05 only supplies a formality because as the majority expressly admit, the signature of the Secretary is merely a ministerial act upon full payment of the purchase price. Memorandum Order No. 16-05 does not dispense with the Secretary’s signature bur rather cures the absence of such signature by stating that “all Deeds of Conveyance that do not bear the signature of the Secretary are deemed signed.” It is as if the DENR Secretary signed each and every Deed of Conveyance that lacked the signature of the Secretary, provided of course that the purchase price had been fully paid. To repeat, Memorandum Order No. 16-05 applies to Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 because the land was already fully paid and the Deed of Conveyance was signed by the Director of Lands but only lacked the signature of the Secretary of Interior/Agriculture.

The majority assert that Section 18 of Act No. 1120 should be read in conjunction with Section 15 and that “[w]here there is no valid certificate of sale in the first place, the purchaser does not acquire any right of possession and purchase.” The majority state that “the existence of a valid certificate of sale must first be established with clear and convincing evidence before a purchaser is deemed to have acquired ownership over a friar land notwithstanding the non-issuance by the Government, for some reason or another, of a deed of conveyance after completing the installment payments.” The majority grossly misappreciate the facts. Here, the Government issued Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 to the Manotoks, the existence of which the Government does not dispute. Moreover, the existence of the Manotoks’ Sale Certificate No. 1054 has been established beyond any doubt by the existence of three succeeding Deeds of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054.

While the Land Management Bureau (LMB) has no copy of the original Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated 10 March 1919 in the names of Regina Geronimo, Modesto Zacarias and Felicisimo Villanueva (the original grantees),[28] the LMB has on its file the original of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 between Regina Geronimo, Zacarias Modesto and Felicisimo Villanueva as assignors and Zacarias Modesto as assignee, dated 11 March 1919,[29] and approved by the Director of Lands on 22 March 1919.[30] The National Archives has a copy of the Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated 7 June 1920[31] between Zacarias Modesto as assignor and Severino Manotok and M. Teodoro as assignees. The LMB also has on its file the original of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated 4 May 1923[32] between M. Teodoro and Severino Manotok as assignors and Severino Manotok as assignee and approved on 23 June 1923 by the Acting Director of Lands.[33]

The Assignment of Sale Certificate, which is an official form document of the Bureau of Lands, Friar Lands Division, states:

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources

Bureau of Lands

Friar Lands Division

PIEDAD ESTATE }

RIZAL PROVINCE} ASSIGNMENT OF SALE CERTIFICATE 1054

This Assignment, made in duplicate, between M. Teodoro and Severino Manotok as ASSIGNOR, and SEVERINO MANOTOK as ASSIGNEE.

Witnesseth: That the Assignor, for and in consideration of the sum P receipt whereof is acknowledged, hereby sells, assigns and transfers to the said ASSIGNEE all right, title, and interest in and to lot 823 of the said Estate, acquired under and by the terms of sale certificate numbered 1054 dated March 10, 1919, together with all buildings and improvements on the said lot belonging to the said ASSIGNOR.

The said ASSIGNEE hereby accepts the said assignment and transfer and expressly agrees to be bound by and to keep and perform all the covenants and conditions expressed in the said sale certificate to be kept and performed by the VENDEE therein.

In Testimony Whereof, we hereunto set our hands.

Manila Manila Province, May 4, 1923.

(Sgd.) M. Teodoro

(Sgd.) Severino Manotok

Assignor

Manila Manila Province, May 4, 1923.

(Sgd.) Severino Manotok

Assignee

Signed in the presence of:

(Sgd.) no printed name

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS}

Province of Manila }ss. May 5, 1923

Before me, on the date and at the place above written, personally appeared the ASSIGNOR executing the foregoing instrument, who acknowledged it to be his free act and deed and exhibited his certificate of registration numbered F-87330 & F-30510 issued at Manila, & Manila, and dated March 12, 1923 & Feb. 28, 1923.

(Sgd.) no printed name

Page 34. Commission expires on Dec. 31, 1924

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS}

Province of Manila }ss. May 5, 1923

Before me, on the date and at the place above written, personally appeared the ASSIGNEE executing the foregoing instrument, who acknowledged it to be his free act and deed and exhibited his certificate of registration numbered F-30510 issued at Manila, and dated February 28, 1923.

(Sgd.) no printed name

Page 34. Commission expires on Dec. 31, 1924

APPROVED: JUN 23 1923

(Sgd.) no printed name

Acting Director of Lands[34]

The original of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated 4 May 1923 to Severino Manotok is on file with the Land Management Bureau as confirmed in the letter dated 1 December 2009 of Atty. Fe T. Tuanda, OIC of the Records Management Division.[35]

The Manotoks also submitted the original of Official Receipt No. 675257 dated 20 February 1929[36] issued by the Special Collecting Officer/Friar Lands Agent to Severino Manotok “For certified copy of Assignment of S. C. No. 1054 for lot no. 823.” These documents indubitably show that, contrary to the majority’s view, the Manotoks proved bayond any doubt the existence of Sale Certificate No. 1054 and the valid alienation by the Government of Lot No. 823.

The majority state that after the ruling of this Court in Alonso, Congress passed Republic Act No. 9443[37] (RA 9443) which provides:

Section 1. All existing Transfer Certificates of Title and Reconstituted Certificates of Title duly issued by the Register of Deeds of Cebu Province and/or Cebu City covering any portions of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, notwithstanding the lack of signatures and/or approval of the then Secretary of the Interior (later Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources) and/or the then Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands (later Director of Public Lands) in the copies of the duly executed Sale Certificates and Assignments of Sales Certificates, as the case may be, now on file with the Community Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO), Cebu City, are hereby confirmed and declared as valid titles and the registered owners recognized as absolute owners thereof.

This confirmation and declaration of validity shall in all respects be entitled to like effect and credit as a decree of regisration, binding the land and quieting the title thereto and shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the national government and all branches thereof; except when, in a given case involving a certificate of title or reconstituted certificate of title, there is clear evidence that such certificate of title or reconstituted certificate of title was obtained through fraud, in which case the solicitor general or his duly designated representative shall institute the necessary judicial proceeding to cancel the certificate of title or reconstituted certificate of title as the case may be, obtained through such fraud.

The majority declare that “[t]he enactment of RA 9443 signifies the legislature’s recognition of the statutory basis of the Alonso ruling to the effect that in the absence of signature and/or approval of the Secretary of Interior/Natural Resources in the Certificates of Sale on file with the CENRO, the sale is not valid and the purchaser has not acquired ownership of the friar land. Indeed, Congress found it imperative to pass a new law in order to exempt the already titled portions of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate from the operation of Sec. 18.”

While RA 9443 refers only to the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, to limit its application solely to the Banilad Friar Lands Estate will result in class legislation. RA 9443 should be extended to lands similarly situated. In Central Bank Employees Assoc., Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[38] the Court ruled that the grant of a privilege to rank-and-file employees of seven government financial institutions and its denial to BSP rank-and-file employees breached the latter’s equal protection. In that case, the Court stated that “[a]likes are being treated as unalikes without any rational basis.”[39] That is the situation in the present case if RA 9443 shall apply only to the Banilad Friar Lands Estate. There is no substantial distinction between the sale of friar lands in Banilad and the sale of friar lands in other places except for their location. The Court further stated in Central Bank Employees Assoc., Inc.:

[I]t must be emphasized that the equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality but it requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. Favoritism and undue preference cannot be allowed. For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to every person under circumstances which, if not identical, are analogous. If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges, those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion; whatever restrictions cast on some in the group is equally binding on the rest.[40]

As such, if the lack of signatures and approval of the Secretary of Interior/Agriculture and the Director of Lands were cured with the passage of RA 9443, the benefits of the law should apply to other lands similarly situated.

Accordingly, I vote to (1) sustain the validity of Deed of Conveyance No. 29204, and DECLARE the Manotoks’ title, namely, TCT No. RT-22481 (372302), VALID; (2) DENY the reconstitution of the title of Homer L. Barque and DECLARE TCT No. 210177 VOID; and (3) DECLARE Deed of Conveyance No. V-20022 issued to Felicitas B. Manahan VOID.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

[2] Friar Lands Act.

[3] See Dela Torre v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 819 (2002).

[4] Section 122 of the Land Registration Act provides:

Sec. 122. Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands belonging to the Government of the United States or to the Government of the Philippine Islands are alienated, granted, or conveyed to persons or to public or private corporations, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Act and shall become registered lands. It shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such instrument, before its delivery to the grantee, to be filed with the register of deeds for the province where the land lies and to be there registered like other deeds and conveyances, whereupon a certificate shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an owner’s duplicate certificate issued to the grantee. The deed, grant, or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate as a contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the clerk or register of deeds to make registration. The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey and affect the lands, and in all cases under this Act registration shall be made in the office of the register of deeds for the province where the land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due registration and issue of the certificate and owner’s duplicate such land shall be registered land for all purposes under this Act.

[5] Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., Resolution, 462 Phil. 546 (2003) citing Jacinto v. Director of Lands, 49 Phil. 853 (1926).

[6] 426 Phil. 61 (2002).

[7] The ponente also cited Solid State Multi-Products Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 274 Phil. 30 (1991) and Liao v. Court of Appeals, 380 Phil. 400 (2000).

[8] Supra note 6 at 81-82.

[9] Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., Resolution, supra note 5.

[10] Dated 27 October 2005.

[11] The field office for NCR is located at L & S Building, Roxas Boulevard, Manila.

[12] Order Providing for Reorganization of the Department of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, Renaming it as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and For Other Purposes. Dated 10 June 1987.

[13] There are now 17 Administrative Regions. See http://www.philippines_archipelago.com/

[14] CA rollo, vol. 11, p. 7226.

[15] 160,535.828 hectares.

[16] THE FRIAR-LAND INQUIRY PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT [Reports by W. Cameron Forbes, Governor-General, Dean C. Worcester, Secretary of the Interior, and Frank W. Carpenter, Executive Secretary], p. 177 (1910).

[17] See Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, 1 December 2009, 606 SCRA 258.

[18] See Central Bank Employees Assoc., Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 487 Phil. 531 (2004).

[19] Dela Torre v. Court of Appeals, supra note 3.

[22] CA rollo, vol. 7, p. 3489.

[24] Date of Sale Certificate No. 1054.

[25] CA rollo, vol. 7, p. 3191.

[26] From the time the final deed of sale was issued in 1926 until the filing of the complaint in 1992.

[27] The Land Registration Act.

[28] CA rollo, vol. 11, p. 7224 as per the letter, dated 1 December 2009, of Atty. Fe T. Tuanda, OIC of the Records Management Division.

[31] CA rollo, vol. 12, p. 8590.

[32] CA rollo, vol. 11, p. 7230.

[34] Id. at 7230-7231.

[36] CA rollo, vol. 7, p. 3150.

[37] An Act Confirming and Declaring, Subject to Certain Exceptions, the Validity of Existing Transfer Certificates of Title and Reconstituted Certificates of Title Covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, Situated in the First District of the City of Cebu. Approved on 9 May 2007.

[39] Italicization in the original.

[40] Id. at p. 583. Italicization in the original.