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:

March 6, 2012

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

DISSENTING OPINION

CARPIO, J.:

In its 24 August 2010 Decision, the Court held:

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 are 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 Quezon City are hereby ordered to CANCEL the said titles. The Court hereby DECLARES that 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 the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

The Manotoks, the Barques and the Manahans filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Decision.

I reiterate my dissent to the majority opinion.

In their motion for reconsideration, the Manotoks submitted the Affidavit, dated 11 November 2010, of former DENR Secretary Michael T. Defensor who issued DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05.¹ The Affidavit states:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF MAKATI ) s.s.

AFFIDAVIT

I, MICHAEL T. DEFENSOR, Filipino, of legal age, with residence at 10 Ifugao St., La Vista Subdivision, Quezon City, after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. I was the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) form July 2004 to February 2006.

2. Sometime in the third quarter of 2005, His Eminence Ricardo J. Cardinal Vidal, Archbishop of Cebu, brought to the attention of the DENR that several land owners whose properties formed part of the friar lands sold by the government pursuant to Act No. 1120 or the Friar Lands Act including a property of the Roman Catholic Church, situated in the Banilad Estates have raised concerns on the continuing validity of their Torrens titles over these lots in view of the Supreme Courts resolution in Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, G.R. No. 130876, December 5, 2003, which held that:

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.

3. Cardinal Vidal, together with several land owners whose properties were contiguous to the disputed parcel of land in Alonso, informed the DENR that available copies of the Governments deeds of conveyance over the friar lots sold to them lacked the signature of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as the case may be. These title holders expressed concern about the effect of the Alonso decision on their ownership of those lots.

4. I then ordered the personnel of the Land Management Bureau (LMB) to look into these concerns, and, in particular, to examine the records on file with the LMB, CENRO or National Archives and verify if the deeds of conveyance of friar lands in their custody bear the signature of the Secretary. It was determined that all of the deeds they examined did not have the signature of the Secretary.

5. In view of these, and of the implications of the Alonso decision on the Torrens titles issued to buyers of friar lands, for which the full purchase price had already been acknowledged received by the government, the DENR, on October 27, 2005, issued Memorandum Order No. 16-05, which declared that

[A]ll Deeds of Conveyance that do not bear the signature of the Secretary are deemed signed or otherwise ratified by Memorandum Order [No. 16-05,] 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.

6. DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 was intended to remove doubts or dispel objections as to the validity of all Torrens transfer certificates of title issued over friar lands, where such doubts or objections arise either from the lack of signature of then Secretary of Interior or then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources on the deeds of conveyance that have led to the issuance of the said titles, or because of the loss or unavailability of such deeds or of the records from which the Secretarys signature or approval may be verified.

7. DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 was intended to preserve the integrity of the Torrens system and affirm the Governments obligation as seller, by ratifying the deeds of conveyance to the friar land buyers who have fully paid the purchase price, and are otherwise not shown to have committed any wrong or illegality in acquiring such lands.

Further I say none.

I hereby attest to the truth of the foregoing and hereunto set my hand this [11th] day of November 2010.

MICHAEL T. DEFENSOR

Affiant²

In short, the former DENR Secretary states in his Affidavit that all the deeds examined by LMB personnel on file with the LMB, CENRO and the National Archives do not have the signature of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. To repeat, former DENR Secretary Defensor states that upon examination, all deeds of conveyance involving friar lands did not have the signature of the Secretary.

Hence, DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 was issued precisely to remove doubts or dispel objections as to the validity of all Torrens transfer certificates of title issued over friar lands, where such doubts or objections arise either from the lack of signature of then Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources on the deed of conveyance that have led to the issuance of said titles, or because of the loss or unavailability of such deeds or of the records from which the Secretarys signature or approval may be verified. DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 was not limited to the Banilad Estate but applied to all friar lands in the Philippines because all deeds of conveyance, regardless of where located, did not have the signature of the Secretary.

In the motion for reconsideration and subsequent manifestations they submitted, the Manotoks also submitted to the Court some of the Sale Certificates which similarly do not bear the signature of the Director of Lands or the Secretary of Interior. Thus:

1. Sales Certificates involving friar lands from LMB records which do not bear the signatures of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Interior:

Sale Certificate No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
909	Placido Mendoza	Lolomboy/Bulacan
1228	Mario Mateo	Lolomboy/Bulacan^3

2. Sale Certificates involving friar lands obtained from the National Archives which do not bear the signatures of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Interior:

Sale Certificate No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
5411	[Illegible] Cruz	Lolomboy/Bulacan
5412	Pedro Cruz	Lolomboy/Bulacan
5413	[Illegible] Halili	Lolomboy/Bulacan
5414	Monica Urrutia	Lolomboy/Bulacan
5415	Emiliano Lorenzo	Lolomboy/Bulacan^4

3. Sale Certificates from the LMB and the National Archives that do not bear the signatures of both the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources/Interior:

Sale Certificate No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
83	Juan J. Clemente	Tala/Rizal
52	Mariano de la Cruz	Tala/Rizal
144	Sotero Galgana	Piedad/Rizal
704	Ignacio Samson	Piedad/Rizal
1065	Felisa Santos de Guia	Piedad/Rizal
811	Pascual Mateo	Lolomboy/Bulacan
910	Placido Mendoza	Lolomboy/Bulacan
1723	Calixto Mendoza	Lolomboy/Bulacan
1724	Calixto Mendoza	Lolomboy/Bulacan
	Assignment dated 25 June 1912	-same-
	Assignment dated 10 November 1924	-same-
5310	Isabel Marquez	Lolomboy/Bulacan^5

4. Sales Certificates to Friar Lands obtained from the LMB that do do bear the signatures of both the Director of Lands and the Secretary of the Agriculture and Natural Resources/Interior:

Sale Cert. No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
386	Enrique Matos	Piedad/Rizal
	Assignment dated 16 December 1914	-same-
4595	Matea Francisco	Lolomboy/Bulacan
	Assignment dated 1 August 1917	-same-
	Assignment dated 6 February 1920	-same-
	Assignment dated 1 November 1926	-same-
	Assignment dated 6 January 1931	-same-
387	Francisco Diaz	Lolomboy/Bulacan
908	Placido Mendoza	Lolomboy/Bulacan
1220	Maria del Castillo	Lolomboy/Bulacan^6

5. Sale Certificates from the LMB that do not bear the signatures of the Director of Lands and Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources/Interior:

Sale Certificate No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
294	Arcadio Placido	Binagbag/Bulacan
324	Guillermo de la Cruz	Binagbag/Bulacan
333	Pablo Mamos	Binagbag/Bulacan
310	Agustin Placido	Binagbag/Bulacan
2492	Engracio Rojas	Toro-Lolomboy/Bulacan^7

6. Sale Certificates and Assignments of Sale Certificates that do not bear the signatures of the Director of Lands and Department Secretary:

Sale Cert. No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
636 (old)	Francisco Zacarias	Pasolo-Lolomboy
	Assignment dated January 6, 1933	-same-
186	Assignment dated December 29, 1919	Piedad/Rizal
284	Assignment dated December 29, 1919	Piedad/Rizal
5309	Celedonia Dilag	Lolomboy/Bulacan
3340	Felicidad M. De Bagtas	S.C. De Malabon/ Cavite^8

7. Sales Certificates and Assigment of Sale Certificates that do not bear the signatures of the Director of Lands and Department Secretary:

Sale Cert. No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
728	Assignment dated December 29, 1919	Naic/Cavite
1308	Assignment dated December 29, 1919	Malinta/Bulacan^9

8. Deeds of Conveyance in the records of the National Archives that bear the signature of the Director of Lands but not that of the Secretary of Interior:

Deed of Conveyance No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
5800	Gabriel Lazaro	Tala/Rizal
5865	The Roman Catholic Archbishop	Muntinlupa/Rizal
26345	Juan Arciaga Estole	Muntinlupa/Rizal
27648	Salud A. Yatco	Muntinlupa/Rizal
28779	Juan Claridad	Muntinlupa/Rizal
29164	Juliana Barizo	Imus/Cavite
29163	Rufina Jose	Imus/Cavite
29162	Luisa Sabater	Imus/Cavite
29161	Lina Octavo	Imus/Cavite
29212	Gregoria Alcantara	Imus/Cavite
29225	Alejandro Vasquez	Naic/Cavite
29226	Alejandra Merlan	Naic/Cavite
29227	Jovita Manalaysay	Naic/Cavite
29228	Alejandra Poblete	Naic/Cavite
29229	Marcela Garcia	Naic/Cavite
29230	Andres Fortuno	S.F. De Malabon/ Cavite
29180	Mariano Paradina	Bian/Laguna
29179	Pascual Marquina	Bian/Laguna
29178	Sps. Belisario	Bian/Laguna
29177	Julio Casamata	Bian/Laguna
29176	Sps. Belisario	Bian/Laguna
29175	Macario Presbitero	Bian/Laguna
29213	Felicidad Luzada	Malinta/Bulacan
19308	Agustin Placido	Binagbag/Bulacan
8906	Pablo Ramos	Binagbag/Bulacan
7616	Guillermo de la Cruz	Binagbag/Bulacan
29211	Adriano de Guzman	Binagbag/Bulacan
25110	Andres Avendao	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34305	Francisco Mendoza	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34473	Antonio Mendoza, et al.	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34569	Clotilde Mendoza	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34374	Pedro Mendoza, et al.	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34484	Exequiel Mendoza	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34485	Matias Alberto	Lolomboy/Bulacan
29214	Apolonio Yamco	Lolomboy/Bulacan^10

9. Deed of Conveyance from the National Archives that bears the signature of the Director of Lands but not of the Secretary of Interior:

Deed of Conveyance No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
5867	The Roman Catholic Archbishop	Muntinlupa/Rizal^11

10. Deeds of Conveyance that bear the signature of the Director of Lands but not the Department Secretary:

Deed of Conveyance No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
5864	Filomena Yatco	Bian/Laguna
5866	The Roman Catholic Archbishop	Muntinlupa/Rizal
5868	Faustino Arciaga	Muntinlupa/Rizal
5869	Faustino Arciaga	Muntinlupa/Rizal
5870	G. Chalmers	Muntinlupa/Rizal
5871	G. Chalmers	Muntinlupa/Rizal
5872	Juana Duque	Tala/Rizal
5873	Vicente Pascual	Tala/Rizal
5874	Primo Susano	Tala/Rizal
5875	Eustaquio Bordador	Tala/Rizal
5876	Gregorio Mauricio	Tala/Rizal
5883	Eusebio Evangelista	Tala/Rizal
5884	Anastasia Unabia	Talisay-Minglanilla/Cebu
5885	Andres Velez	Talisay-Minglanilla/Cebu
5886	Epifanio V. Caares	Talisay-Minglanilla/Cebu
5887	Lope Zafra	Talisay-Minglanilla/Cebu
7140	Cornelio Lazaro	Piedad/Rizal
7141	Fabian Franco	Piedad/Rizal
7142	Manuel de Guia	Piedad/Rizal
7613	Evaristo de la Cruz	Binagbag/Bulacan
7614	Jose Illescas	Binagbag/Bulacan
7615	Doroteo Marcelo	Binagbag/Bulacan
7617	Cosme Filoteo	Binagbag/Bulacan
19307	Agustin Placido	Binagbag/Bulacan
19309	Petra Sombillo	Binagbag/Bulacan
19310	Emiterio S. Cruza	Binagbag/Bulacan
19311	Alfonso Marcelo	Binagbag/Bulacan
24865	Leoncio Seneca	S.C. De Malabon/Cavite
26341	Leoncio Lantaca	Calamba/Laguna
26342	Susana T. de Gana	Calamba/Laguna
26343	Vicente Q. Gana	Bian/Laguna
26344	Vicente Q. Gana	Bian/Laguna
26346	Juan Arciaga Estole	Muntinlupa/Rizal
27585	Maria Dias	Muntinlupa/Rizal
27646	Vicente Tensuan	Muntinlupa/Rizal
27647	Legal Heirs of Leoncia Gaurico	Muntinlupa/Rizal
27649	Mariano Gaurico	Muntinlupa/Rizal
27650	Esteban Aquino	S.C. De Malabon/Cavite
27721	Engracia Claudel, et al.	Muntinlupa/Rizal
27750	Bartola Ramos	S.M. De Pandi/Bulacan
28511	Basilio Nifuente	Muntinlupa/Rizal
28780	Teodoro Almera, et al.	Santa Rosa/Laguna
28681	Francisco Rubio	Banilad/Cebu
28682	Felipa del Mar	Banilad/Cebu
28683	Ines Jose	Imus/Cavite
28774	Benita Disonglo	Bian/Laguna
28891	Rufina de Mesa, et al.	Muntinlupa/Rizal
34306	Luis Fernando	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34307	Dionisio Villanueva	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34308	Legal Heirs of Anacleta Zambra	Sta. Rosa/Laguna
34309	Legal Heirs of Franciso Arambulo	Sta. Rosa/Laguna
34372	Miguel Lim-Aco	Bian/Laguna
34373	Miguel Lim-Aco	Bian/Laguna
34375	Candido Bintol	Naic/Cavite
34376	Luis dela Cruz	S.M. de Pandi/Bulacan
34471	P.A. Roldan, et al.	Isabela
34472	Oliva Manela	Imus/Cavite
34486	Legal Heirs of Justo Herrera	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34487	Gonzalo P. Dane	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34488	Ambrocio Trinidad	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34565	Diego Bartolome, et al.	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34567	Juana Lorenzo	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34568	Marcelino de Jesus	Lolomboy/Bulacan
34645	Maxima Garcia	Muntinlupa/Rizal^12

11. Deeds of Conveyance that bear the signature of the Director of Lands but not the Department Secretary:

Deed of Conveyance No.	Name of Vendee	Estate/Province
7143	Jose de la Cruz	Piedad Estate/Rizal
23407	Marcelino Salcedo	Naic/Cavite
23408	Juan de Ocampo	S.C. de Malabon/Cavite
24862	Buenaventura Alarca	S.C. de Malabon/Cavite
24863	Rufino P. Garcia	S.C. de Malabon/Cavite
24864	Santiago Resus	S.C. de Malabon/Cavite
27748	Nemecio Principe	S.M. de Pandi/Bulacan
28775	Leon Guico	Bian/Laguna
28776	Guido Yaptinchay	Bian/Laguna
28777	Diego Alunas	Bian/Cavite
28778	Lazaro Gonzales	Bian/Laguna
29165	Maximiana Monzon	Imus/Cavite
34566	Juana Lorenzo	Lolomboy/Bulacan
5882	Gabriel Lazaro	Tala/Rizal^13

These are only some of the titles that could also be declared void under the majority decision. The Manotoks are still examining the other records of the LMB and the National Archives.

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. For comparison, Makati City has an area of 2,736 hectares,¹⁴ and the entire Metro Manila has an area of 63,600 hectares.¹⁵ Thus, in terms of area, the former friar lands in Metro Manila comprise more than one-half of Metro Manila. If we do not apply DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 to these areas, the Court will be disquieting titles held by generations of landowners since the passage in 1904 of Act No. 1120. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of landowners would surely be dispossessed of their lands in these areas. This is a disaster waiting to happen a blow to the integrity of our Torrens system and the stability of land titles in this country.

The majority stated that subsequent to the promulgation of the Court decision in Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.,¹⁶ Congress passed Republic Act No. 9443 confirming and declaring, subject to certain exceptions, the validity of existing TCTs and reconstituted certificates of title covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate situated in Cebu. The majority added that [t]he enactment of RA 9443 signifies the Legislatures 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 lands.

While RA 9443 refers only to the Banilad Estate, to limit its application solely to the Banilad Estate will result in class legislation. RA 9443 should be extended to lands similarly situated; otherwise, there will be violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In Central Bank Employees Assoc., Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,¹⁷ 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 latters right to equal protection. In that case, the Court sated that [a]likes are being treated as unalikes without any rational basis.¹⁸ That is the situation in the present case if RA 9443 will apply only to the Banilad Estate. There is no substantial distinction between the lands in the Banilad Estate and the other friar lands all over the country except for their location. The Court further stated in the BSP case:

[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.¹⁹

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

Significantly, in BSP, the Court did not annul the provisions in the charters of Land Bank of the Philippines, Development Bank of the Philippines, Social Security System, and Government Service Insurance System, Home Guaranty Corporation and Small Business Guarantee, Finance Corporation, and Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation exempting their employees from the Salary Standardization Law but extended the same exemption to the Bangko Sentral employees to place them in equal footing with employees of other government financial institutions even if they did not question the law. In the present case, the Court should similarly extend the benefits of RA 9443 to all conveyances of friar lands all over the country.

In denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the Manotoks, the majority also maintain that the existence of Sale Certificate No. 1054 in the records of the DENR-LMB was not duly established.

It is unfortunate that the LMB no longer has a 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. However, the Manotoks presented three incontrovertible documents to establish the existence of Sale Certificate No. 1054. First, the original Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated 11 March 1919 between Regina Geronimo, Zacarias Modesto and Felicisimo Villanueva as assignors and Zacarias Modesto as assignee, which is on file with the LMB,²⁰ showing that the Assignment was approved by the Director of Lands on 22 March 1919;²¹ second, a copy of the Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated 7 June 1920 between Zacarias Modesto as assignor and Severino Manotok and M. Teodoro as assignees which is on file with the National Archives;²² and third, the original of the Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated 4 May 1923 between M. Teodoro and Severino Manotok as assignors and Severino Manotok as assignee²³ and approved by the Acting Director of Lands on 23 June 1923, which is on file with the LMB.²⁴ The existence of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated 4 May 1923 on file with the LMB was confirmed by Atty. Fe T. Tuanda, OIC of the LMB Records Management Division, in a letter dated 1 December 2009.²⁵

The majority assert that the dissent suggests that Memorandum Order No. 16-05 would apply even to those deeds of conveyance not found in the records of DENR or its field offices, such as the Manotoks Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 sourced from the National Archives. It would then cover cases of claimants who have not been issued any certificate of sale but were able to produce a deed of conveyance in their names.

The majority mistakenly denigrate the records of the National Archives. It cannot be disputed that the National Archives is the official repository of government and public documents. Republic Act No. 9470 (RA 9470),²⁶ which seeks to strengthen and establish the National Archives of the Philippines, covers all public records with archival value, held by either government offices or private collections, and shall also cover archival and records management programs and activities in all branches of government, whether national or local, constitutional offices, GOCCs, government financial institutions, state universities and colleges, Philippine embassies, consulate and other Philippine offices abroad. RA 9470 mandates the National Archives to [a]ccept, store, preserve and conserve any public archive transferred to the National Archives.²⁷ RA 9470 also mandates the National Archives to [o]btain, recover, transfer and have custody and management of all the public archives not in the custody of the National Archives.²⁸ Section 6(8) of RA 9470 specifies, as one of the functions of the National Archives, that it shall [i]ssue, transmit and authenticate reproduced copies, certified true copies or certifications on public archives and for extracts thereof.

Jurisprudence is replete with cases showing that the Court gives great weight to the presence or absence of documents in the National Archives. In Department of Education, Culture & Sports v. Del Rosario,²⁹ the Court held that petitioner failed to prove the due execution or existence of the Deed of Donation because there was no evidence that petitioner looked for a copy of the Deed of Donation from the Clerk of Court concerned or from the National Archives. In Fernandez v. Fernandez,³⁰ the Court ruled that filiation was not proved citing a certification from the Records Management and Archives Office of the non-availability of information about petitioners birth certificate because the Register of Births was not on file with the National Archives. In Heirs of Dela Cruz v. CA,³¹ the Court rejected the claim that copies of a deed of sale were lost or could not be found in the National Archives due to lack of certification from the said office. In Premier Development Bank v. Court of Appeals,³² the Court cited the trial courts finding based on a certification from the Bureau of National Archives that there was no notarial records of Atty. Armando Pulgado in Manila. In short, the Court recognizes that documents from the National Archives have the same evidentiary value as public documents from government offices which, after all, are the source of the archived documents.

The records of the National Archives on the existence of Sale Certificate No. 1054 are supported and confirmed by the records of the LMB. The LMB has on its file the original of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054 dated 4 May 1923 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 LMB has also on its file the other documents mentioned above that prove the existence of the succeeding Certificates of Sale except that the Certificate of Sale to the original assignors is not on file with the LMB for reasons that could not be attributed to the Manotoks fault.

In addition, the Manotoks were able to present certified true copies of the following: (1) the Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 secured from the National Archives which is the repository of government and official documents; (2) the original of Official Receipt No. 675257 dated 20 February 1929³⁴ issued by the Special Collecting Office/Friar Lands Agent to Severino Manotok For certified copy of Assignment of C.S. No. 1054 for lot no. 823; and (3) the original of the Provincial Assessors declaration of title in Severino Manotoks name for tax purposes on 9 August 1933³⁵ assessing Severino Manotok beginning with the year 1933.

Contrary to the majority opinion, the Manotoks incontrovertible proof of existence of the three Assignments of Sale Certificate, as well as the existence of the other supporting documents, clearly and convincingly establishes beyond any doubt the existence of Sale Certificate No. 1054.

I further reiterate that 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. Under Section 18 of Act No. 1120,³⁶ 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, only the Director of Lands signs the Sales Certificate upon payment of the first installment.³⁷ 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.³⁸ (Boldfacing and italicization supplied)

Under Section 12, it is only the Director of Lands 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.³⁹ The law expressly authorizes the Director of Lands to sell private or patrimonial property of the Government under a contract to sell. Under Section 18, the Secretary signs the Deed of Conveyance because the Secretary must verify if full payment has been made, and if so, must approve the sale initially made 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 insist that where there is no certificate of sale issued, the purchaser does not acquire any right of possession and purchase.

Section 12 of Act No. 1120 provided that 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. The Manotoks paid the full purchase price to the Government on 7 December 1932. Deed of Conveyance No. 29204, dated 7 December 1932, on its face acknowledged receipt by the Government of the amount of P2,362 in consideration for Lot 823 granted and conveyed to Severino Manotok.⁴⁰ Thus, the Manotoks had already acquired ownership of Lot 823. The only resolutory condition, which is the non-payment of the full purchase price⁴¹ which results in the cancellation of the contract to sell, can no longer happen because the full purchase price had already been paid. 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 majority cite the ruling in Alonso⁴² that approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce of the sale of friar lands is indispensable for its validity. However, DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 superseded the Alonso ruling. DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 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[.] DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 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 of the purchase price of the land.

The majority in their Reply to the Dissenting Opinion expressly admit 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)

The majority expressly admit that it is the ministerial duty of the Secretary to sign the Deed of Conveyance once the purchaser of the friar land pays in full the purchase price. This is the situation of the Manotoks. 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. 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 by 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.

The majority states that it is the primary duty of the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands to record all deeds and instruments in a sales registry books which shall be retained in the Bureau of Public Lands. However, the LMB could no longer produce the sales registry book because it was no longer with the Records Management Division of the LMB. The majority states:

It is thus the primary duty of the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands to record all these deeds and instruments in sales registry books which shall be retained in the Bureau of Public Lands. Unfortunately, the LMB failed to produce the sales registry book in court, which could have clearly shown the names of the claimants, the particular lots and areas applied for, the sale certificates issued and other pertinent information on the sale of friar lands within the Piedad Estate. Witness Teresita J. Reyes, a retired Assistant Chief of the Records Management Division (RMD), LMB who was presented by the Manahans, testified that when the LMB was decentralized, the sales registry books pertaining to friar lands were supposedly turned over to the regional offices. These consisted of copies of the appropriate pages of the sales registry books in the LMB RMD main office which has an inventory of lots subject of deeds of conveyance and sales certificates. However, Reyes said that the sales registry book itself is no longer with the RMD. On the other hand, the alleged affidavit of Secretary Defensor dated November 11, 2010 states that MO 16-05 was intended to address situations when deeds of conveyance lack the signature of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce or such deed or records from which the Secretary's signature or approval may be verified were lost or unavailable.

Whether the friar lands registry book is still available in the LMB or properly turned over to the regional offices remains unclear. With the statutorily prescribed record-keeping of sales of friar lands apparently in disarray, it behooves on the courts to be more judicious in settling conflicting claims over friar lands. Titles with serious flaws must still be carefully scrutinized in each case. Thus, we find that the approach in Alonso remains as the more rational and prudent course than the wholesale ratification introduced by MO 16-05.

I reiterate that 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 offices. The Certificate of Sale to the original assignors is not on file with the LMB for reasons that could not be attributed to the Manotoks fault. While the Court must exercise prudence in settling claims over friar lands, it should not set aside documents which establish the existence of Sale Certificate No. 1054 considering that these documents were sourced from the National Archives and, as earlier stated, these documents have the same evidentiary value as public documents from government offices. Again, more than half of Metro Manila used to be part of friar lands. If the torrens titles to these former friar lands are declared void because their current owners could not present the original certificates of sale, or because the original certificates of sale or deeds of conveyance do not bear the signature of the Secretary, then hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of landowners would be rendered homeless or propertyless by the majority decision.

Further, the Court could not insist on the presentation of the original sale certificate from the Manotoks. The safekeeping of the original sale certificates is the responsibility of the government. It is only optional for the landowners to keep them. How many landowners can present copies of their original sale certificates? These landowners should not be blamed if the government fails to properly preserve these documents. As long as landowners can show other evidence to prove their ownership, they should not be dispossessed of their titles. Here, the Manotoks were able to present copies of the Assignments of Sale Certificate No. 1054, which are government-issued documents, from the records of the National Archives and the LMB itself. There would be nothing to assign if the original Sale Certificate No. 1054 was not conveyed by the government to the original assignors. The Manotoks were able to prove full payment of the purchase price and they thus acquired full ownership of Lot No. 823 from the time of full payment. Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 on its face acknowledges this. The title to Lot No. 823 already passed to the Manotoks who became the absolute owners of the land on 7 December 1932, the date the Manotoks fully paid Lot No. 823.

Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the motion for reconsideration of the Manotoks, sustain the validity of Deed of Conveyance No. 29204, and DECLARE the Manotoks title, namely TCT No. RT-22481 (372302), VALID.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

1 Dated 27 October 2005.

2 Emphasis supplied.

3 Manifestation dated 5 November 2010.

4 Id.

5 Manifestation dated 11 November 2010.

6 Manifestation dated 26 November 2010.

7 Supplemental Manifestation dated 16 December 2010.

8 Supplemental Manifestation dated 14 January 2011.

9 Supplemental Manifestation dated 9 February 2011.

10 Manifestation dated 5 November 2010.

11 Manifestation dated 11 November 2010.

12 Supplemental Manifestation dated 14 January 2011.

13 Supplemental Manifestation dated 9 February 2011.

14 http://www.makati.gov.ph/portal/index.jsp (Accessed on 19 July 2011).

15 Id.

16 Resolution, 462 Phil. 546 (2003).

17 487 Phil. 531 (2004).

18 Italicization in the original.

19 Id. at 583. Italicization in the original.

20 CA rollo, Vol. 11, p. 7226.

21 Id. at 7227.

22 CA rollo, Vol. 12, p. 8590.

23 CA rollo, Vol. 11, p. 7230.

24 Id. at 7231.

25 Id. at 7224.

26 National Archives of the Philippines Act of 2007. Dated 21 May 2007.

27 Section 6(11).

28 Section 6(10).

29 490 Phil. 193 (2005).

30 416 Phil. 322 (2001).

31 358 Phil. 652 (1998).

32 493 Phil. 752 (2005).

33 CA rollo, Vol. 11, p. 7231.

34 CA rollo, Vol. 7, p. 3150.

35 Id. at 3191.

36 Friar Lands Act. Section 18 provides: 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.

37 See Dela Torre v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 819 (2000).

38 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 owners 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 owners duplicate such land shall be registered land for all purposes under this Act.

39 Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., supra note 16, citing Jacinto v. Director of Lands, 49 Phil. 853 (1926).

40 CA rollo, Vol. 7, p. 3489.

41 Dela Torre v. Court of Appeals, supra note 37.

42 Supra note 16.