SC ruling dispossesses millions of lot owners

April 6, 2012

GOTCHA 
By Jarius Bondoc 
The Philippine Star

Catastrophic is the Supreme Court ruling on the Piedad Estate. On surface, it merely reverts to the State a thousand hectares of Quezon City prime commercial-residential land straddling Commonwealth Avenue. Yet actually upset are the Torrens titling, home financing, and executive-legislative-judicial remediating systems.

That this occurs because an absent justice was made to “cast a tie-breaker” is another blow against impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona. The implications are farther-reaching, though. From the SC’s 8-7 final vote, millions of lot owners nationwide can lose their property if falling within former friar lands like Piedad Estate.

It all began with the Manotok clan, owner of a 34-hectare slice of Piedad near UP-Diliman and posh Ayala Heights, repelling two belated claimants. One group came out to contest the Manotok holding after fire gutted the Quezon City land registry in 1985. Another emerged, as court battle ensued, to say that land tenure had passed on to them. The Court of Appeals deemed the last-minute claimants’ titles and deeds bogus.

Chaos from the city hall fire had given rise to land-grabbing gangs. The Manotoks filed for reconstitution of property documents dating back to 1919. Something odd happened in court: their papers suddenly came under questioning. Two items supposedly were missing from the files. One, the original Sale Certificate from the US colonial government to the Manotok forebears, of the land confiscated from Spanish friars. Two, the Secretary of Interior’s signature in the original Assignment of Sale Certificate. Yet it was the government’s duty, not the landowners’, to protect the deed registry. (Manila had come under invasion and countless calamities in the past century.) As for the lacking signature, landowners should not be faulted for a bureaucrat’s lapse.

The case reached the SC. Upheld in August 2010 was the finding that the two counterclaims were fakes. But in light of supposed flaws in the Manotok deeds, the government must repossess the entire 1,282-hectare Piedad Estate.

The Manotoks and contestants both moved for reconsideration. On March 6, 2012, the SC promulgated a final decision, penned by Justice Martin Villarama. The counterclaims again were denied. So was the Manotok ownership right.

Concurring with Villarama’s ponencia were: CJ Corona, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, and Mariano del Castillo.

Justice Antonio Carpio led the dissent, joined by Justices Presbitero Velasco, Arturo Brion, Roberto Abad, Maria Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

Setting legal circles abuzz was how the majority got eight votes versus the dissenters’ seven. Del Castillo was absent during the March 6 promulgation, having gone on leave starting February 13, for a second heart bypass. He extended the leave on March 21, and returned to work only on March 28, last week. He had not participated in any division or en banc deliberations during his leave, or voted on any case.

Except, curiously, del Castillo voted on this Piedad case; at least, so says Corona. Concurring and dissenting justices all signed above their names. Above del Castillo’s is the handwritten note: “I certify that J. del Castillo sent his vote concurring with Justice Villarama.” Scribbled next is Corona’s signature, same as the one with his name at the top of the list. Del Castillo’s signature does not appear above his name, implying he had not read the ponencia.

In effect, Corona had voted twice in the Piedad case, making his side win by one vote, instead of ending tied. Why he dared do this in the middle of his impeachment trial, only he knows. Some say it has to do with his defense by the Iglesia ni Cristo sect. The lawyers of one of the counterclaimants hold office at the College of Law, New Era University, run by the INC.

Del Castillo’s absentee vote “shows how influential the CJ is over the Supreme Court and the judiciary,” says impeachment prosecution spokesman Rep. Miro Quimbo. “As we’ve been saying, he’s so strong that he played a great part in the issuance of the SC order that almost let former President Gloria Arroyo and husband flee the country.”

Corona reportedly denies signing for del Castillo, or swaying the justices’ votes, or any impropriety in the Piedad ruling. In December 2011 he was impeached by 188 congressmen, almost double the one-third needed from members of the House of Representatives. Del Castillo also is facing impeachment raps for plagiarism in a ponencia against “comfort women” forced into sex slavery by World War II Japanese invaders.

In dissent, Carpio cites scores of other friar land sales in the early 1900s with the Secretary of Interior’s signature also missing. With the majority ruling, he says, all these landholdings would be voided. For, it ignores the fact that the National Archives has copies of the documents. Too, that Congress already had corrected the missing signature via a recent all-encompassing law arising from the Banilad friar estate in Cebu. Lastly, that the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources in 2005 had clarified that the Banilad legislation covered other erstwhile friar lands as well.

Since the SC ruled otherwise, not only the Manotoks’ 34 and Piedad Estate’s 1,282 hectares in Quezon City are affected. All one-time friar lands are too. In Metro Manila alone, Carpio says, these consist of 35,033 hectares. (Makati, one of the 17 cities, has an area of 2,736 hectares; the whole metropolis, 63,600 hectares.) The SC’s 8-7 ruling imperils over half of Metro Manila. Former friar lands exist elsewhere, as industrial, commercial or residential estates.

“If we do not apply the DENR memo … the SC will be disquieting titles held by generations of landowners since the passage in 1904 of the (Friar Lands Act),” says Carpio. “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.”

* * *

E-mail: jariusbondoc@gmail.com

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=793370&publicationSubCategoryId=64

The people have spoken: “Guilty!”

April 6, 2012

PerryScope

By Perry Diaz

(Photo credit: RAPPLER)

When the Senate impeachment court was going into a six-week recess in observance of Holy Week, two surveys caught a lot of people by surprise.  Pulse Asia and the Social Weather Stations (SWS) – the country’s top pollsters – released their surveys about people’s reaction as the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona concluded the prosecution phase and began the defense phase.

The first was Pulse Asia who released its survey on March 20, two days before the impeachment trial was suspended for the long Holy Week break.  It couldn’t be timelier.  The effect was devastating!

The survey, conducted from February 26 to March 9, showed Corona’s approval rating at 14% while his disapproval rating went up to 58%, a 34% increase since November 2011 before the House of Representatives impeached him.   It also showed his trust rating drop to 11% from 29% last November while his distrust rating drastically increased to 60% from 27% last November.

And here’s the stinger: The survey showed that nearly half (47%) of the respondents view Corona as guilty while only 5% said that he is innocent of the charges.  The rest of the respondents (43%) were undecided.

A week after the Pulse Asia survey came out SWS released the results of its own survey: 73% of the respondents believe that Corona is guilty of the impeachment charges while only 25% believe he is innocent.

It’s interesting to note that the survey was conducted on March 10-13 just when the defense started its presentation of witnesses and evidence.  When the respondents were asked if it was important for Corona to testify personally at the trial, 73% answered “Yes” while 26% said “No.”

Damage control

In an attempt to downplay the impact of the surveys, Corona’s defense lawyers said that the decision of the Senate should be based only on law and evidence.  At a news briefing, Corona’s lawyers said that the survey results “should not be used in propaganda (against Corona) and sway public opinion because what the people have heard so far is only the side of the prosecution.”  They expressed optimism that the “results of future surveys would eventually favor the Chief Justice and the defense panel as it continued to offer documentary and testimonial evidence to debunk the impeachment articles against Corona.”  They reiterated that the impeachment trial was “not a popularity contest,” saying, “the public should focus more on the evidence presented by both the defense and prosecution panels in court than the issues being discussed in the media.”

And in a display of naiveté, Supreme Court administrator and spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said that the survey was premature for anybody to conduct opinion polls because the impeachment trial was ongoing.  “We don’t know the basis of the respondents in saying that (the Chief Justice) is guilty or innocent. The defense isn’t through yet,” he said.  Well, Mr. Marquez, it’s all about perception.  And in politics, perception is reality  — you are what you’re perceived to be.

Moral fitness

What Corona’s lawyers and spokespersons don’t seem to realize is that the impeachment trial is not a judicial process that relies purely and solely on evidence.   It is a search for the truth to determine if the impeached public official had betrayed the public office that he was entrusted with by the people.  It is not about trying the case on legal technicalities.  It is not about proving that he is the most qualified person for the job.  It is not about having the best educational credentials and honors in his curriculum vitae.

It is about whether corona is morally fit for the job and whether he possesses the wisdom to pass judgment not on a narrow interpretation of the law but on a fair and balanced adjudication of the case.  In other words, the Chief Justice is the linchpin of judicial authority and should – nay, must — therefore be at the apex of moral purity and the epitome of judicial wisdom.

Controversial ruling

Recently, the Supreme Court made a controversial ruling when it reverted to the government the 1,282-hectare Piedad Estate in Quezon City.   The Piedad Estate was one of hundreds of Friar Lands confiscated during the American colonial period and sold to private individuals or groups with the passage of the Friar Lands Act of 1904.  At about that time the Manotok family purchased a 34-hectare slice of Piedad Estate.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on the failure of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to sign the deed of conveyance.  For this bureaucratic oversight, the high court ruled that the government repossesses the entire Piedad Estate.

But what is strange with the Supreme Court’s ruling was the way a majority vote was reached on March 6, 2012.  Justice Martin Villarama, who penned theponencia, could only muster seven votes to concur with his ponencia while seven votes were lined up to vote against it.  A tie wouldn’t cut it.   He needed another vote to make it happen.

The 15th justice, Mariano del Castillo, who was on sick leave since February 13 — due to a heart bypass operation — was not expected to be back to work until March 28.  While he was on sick leave, he did not participate in any Supreme Court deliberation nor vote in any case… except once, the Piedad Estate case, in absentia.

But what appeared above Del Castillo’s name on the ponencia was a handwritten note, which said: “I certify that J. del Castillo sent his vote concurring with Justice Villarama,” and signed, Renato C. Corona.  Del Castillo’s signature did not appear above his name, which would be indicative that he did not peruse the ponencia.

With Corona’s handwritten note and signature in lieu of Del Castillo’s signature, the Piedad Estate ruling was passed on a razor-thin 8-7 vote.  Those who concurred were:  CJ Corona signing twice (for himself and Del Castillo), Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Perez, and Jose Mendoza.  Those who dissented were:  Justices Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco, Arturo Brion, Roberto Abad, Maria Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

The question is: Was Corona morally right in signing for Del Castillo who was on sick leave and who apparently did not read or review Villarama’s ponencia?

Given the importance of this ruling, which could affect millions of Filipinos owning former Friar lands, and which are estimated to encompass a large area of Metro Manila, the effect could be catastrophic!

Why did Corona act in a manner that could have far-reaching consequences and could potentially trigger tens of thousands of lawsuits against the government, which doesn’t have any vested interest in the Friar Lands?  What did he gain by doing it?  Is it in any way linked to the impeachment trial?

Is it any wonder then why the “court of public opinion” deems Corona not trustworthy?   If he is not worthy of the people’s trust, should he then be removed from office?

As the two surveys show, the people have spoken: “Guilty!”

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

# # #

 “The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!” – Napoleon  

Prosecution: SWS survey tells CJ lawyers to do better

March 31, 2012

By Jess Diaz 
The Philippine Star

MANILA, Philippines – The Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey on the Senate impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona suggests that his lawyers should do better than “beating around the bush,” a prosecution spokesman said yesterday.

“The message of the survey to them is that they should present a more credible defense and answer the charges directly. The first two weeks of presentation of their case was full of holes,” Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara said.

According to the survey, 73 percent of Filipinos want the Senate impeachment court to hand down a guilty verdict on Corona.

Angara said the opinion poll was conducted from March 10 to 13, more than a week after the prosecution had rested its case and two days into the presentation of evidence by the defense.

“They spent their first two days by questioning the impeachment process in the House of Representatives, an issue that the impeachment tribunal had resolved on Day One of the trial,” he said.

He noted that no less than widely respected constitutionalist and law lecturer Fr. Joaquin Bernas had criticized defense lawyers for “beating a dead horse” by resurrecting the issue.

Angara said failing to assail the impeachment process, Corona’s lawyers then proceeded to present testimonies which hardly explained the impeachment charges against the Chief Justice.

“There is no explanation yet on the P31 million found in three bank accounts of CJ Corona as of Dec. 31, 2010,” he said. “That huge amount was not declared in his 2010 statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).”

The defense said the P31 million belonged to Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. (BGEI), the family corporation of Corona’s wife Cristina.

It has offered evidence showing the Manila city government paid P34.7 million for a property the corporation had sold to it.

While the defense was able to show that payment was made, it failed to prove that the money was entrusted to Corona and went to his personal bank accounts, he added.

Angara said no explanation was made on why Corona was years late in declaring in his SALN four condominium units he and his wife had acquired.

“His lawyers tried to justify his failure to declare his Ayala Avenue condominium, acquired in 2004, in his SALNs for 2004 up to 2009 by presenting testimonies that Mrs. Corona had complaints about their unit and that she accepted it only in August 2009,” he said.

However, Angara said some senator-judges, including presiding officer Juan Ponce Enrile expressed the view that the Corona should have included the Ayala condominium in his SALNs because there was “value transferred” and that he and his wife already owned it as of December 2004.

“They have not likewise explained the dollar deposits in Philippine Savings Bank. We think those are so substantial as to prompt the Chief Justice to ask the Supreme Court to stop their examination,” he said.

Corona and his bank had petitioned the SC to stop the impeachment court from scrutinizing his dollar deposits. The SC issued a restraining order on the basis of PSBank’s petition.

PSBank president Pascual Garcia III had confirmed the existence of Corona’s five dollar accounts with the bank’s Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City branch.

The prosecution claims that one account holds “$700k,” which it interprets to mean $700,000.

Angara said the defense presented witnesses who claimed Corona earned as much as P26 million in salaries and allowances in 10 years beginning in 2002, apparently in an effort to show that he had the means to buy at least four condominium units in Global City, Taguig, Makati and Quezon City.

However, he said the defense has not shown if the Chief Justice used such income to purchase his properties.

“They left the issue hanging. They are in effect telling the people to make their own conclusion,” he said.

He also pointed out that if Corona is claiming he earned P26 million, he failed to declare such income in his SALN as he reported “cash and investments” amounting only to P2.5 million to P3.5 million.

“The defense is claiming that CJ Corona and his wife had as much as P90 million over a 10-year period. Where is that huge amount in his SALN?” he asked.

Surveys to continue

Pulse Asia will continue to conduct impeachment surveys despite the threat of Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago to have its officers cited for contempt of the impeachment court if they do another public opinion poll.

Santiago made the threat after Pulse Asia revealed that its recent survey showed that 47 percent of Filipinos were of the view that Corona was guilty of the charges the House of Representatives has filed against him.

A subsequent opinion poll taken by Social Weather Stations showed that 73 percent of the people want the Senate impeachment court to convict Corona.

In a radio interview, Pulse Asia president Ronald Holmes said his company would continue doing public opinion surveys on Corona’s impeachment.

“The way we understand it, a contemptuous act is committed if one violates an order of a court, and in this case, the Senate impeachment court. But there is no order from the Senate stopping us from conducting surveys on the ongoing impeachment,” he said.

Santiago urged Pulse Asia to reveal who commissioned its recent survey on Corona and who are its owners.

Holmes said no one commissioned its recent impeachment poll, since it was part of the company’s quarterly Ulat ng Bayan public service, he added.

As for his company’s owners, he said 60 percent of the shares “belong to academics, including myself.”

He admitted though that billionaire businessman Antonio “Tonyboy” Cojuangco, a relative of President Aquino, remains a stockholder of Pulse Asia.

“He was one of those who founded the company in 1999, together with another relative of the President, Rafa Lopa, who quit as company president in 2008 and turned the position over to me,” he said.

He said he did not think that politics was part of the founders’ motivation in organizing Pulse Asia.

“In 1999, no one thought that Mr. Aquino would become our president,” he said.

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=793178&publicationSubCategoryId=63

Corona risks conviction by not testifying, prosecutors say

March 31, 2012

By TJ Burgonio
Philippine Daily Inquirer 

MANILA, Philippines—Chief Justice Renato Corona would be risking conviction if he opts not to take the stand at his impeachment trial, House prosecutors said Saturday.

Only Corona, not indirect witnesses, could shed light on his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs), dollar accounts, the sale of properties to his daughter, and his vote on key cases, prosecutor Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Neri Colmenares said.

“All this he has to testify on. Otherwise, they’re courting conviction especially since many senator-judges think he has to testify. That means they’re not satisfied with defense evidence so far presented. I don’t think the defense has a choice,’’ Colmenares said in a telephone interview.

Besides, Corona’s failure to testify would be taken against him, said Marikina Rep. Romero Federico Quimbo, the prosecution’s official spokesperson.

The defense panel has balked at presenting Corona and his wife Cristina as witnesses when the trial resumes on May 7 to shield them supposedly from intense grilling and ridicule.

“We completely disagree,” defense lawyer Tranquil Salvador III said in a text message. “The manner by which we present evidence is what we think is the best way to defend the chief justice. The ploy of the prosecution now is to push us to follow their dictates on how we should present our evidence.’’

The defense panel refuted the prosecution’s initial claim that Corona had 45 properties through the testimony of various government officials, without the need for Corona’s testimony, he said.

Corona is accused of betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, and culpable violation of the Constitution stemming from non-disclosure and inaccurate preparation of his SALNs; bias in a decision favoring Philippine Airlines on the retrenchment of flight attendants and in a ruling favoring former President Macapagal-Arroyo.

Colmenares said he understood the defense lawyers’ concerns that Corona would be grilled by the senator-judges on Articles 2, 3 and 7, but this was the only way the issues could be clarified.

“All this is damaging to the chief justice. If he testifies, the chances that he will survive are small. He has to admit to one thing, like how much is his income, and how did he manage to buy this property of this cost. He’ll crack during the cross-examination,’’ he said.

“He’s forced to good. He has to do it. All this could not be explained by indirect witnesses,’’ Colmenares added. “It would look bad if he allows his wife to testify, but he himself won’t testify.’’

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and other senators have said it would be wise for Corona to take the stand.

Quimbo said that the trial, being political in nature, demands that the accused take the witness stand and answer questions from the senator-judges, “otherwise this will be taken against him.’’

“If he doesn’t show up, people will take this against him and think that he’s hiding something. They have no choice but to present him,’’ Quimbo said.

Quimbo agreed that only Corona could testify on the entries in his SALNs, including the acquisition costs of his various properties, and source of the P32.6 million withdrawn from his account on Dec. 12, 2011; and the sale of their properties to a daughter, among others.

“He has spoken in public. All the more the public expects him to testify under oath,’’ he said.

Colmenares said he believed that there was no need for the impeachment court to define whether non-disclosure of SALN and wealth constituted betrayal of public trust.

“For me betrayal of public trust is very clear. Your oath of office is to follow the law, follow the Constitution and serve the public. Any act which is in violation of the law is betrayal of public trust,’’ he said.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/170207/corona-risks-conviction-by-not-testifying-prosecutors-say

‘SC ruling on prime Quezon City land blow to land titles’

March 31, 2012

By Marlon Ramos
Philippine Daily Inquirer 

Registered owners of more than half of the land in Metro Manila may lose their properties as a result of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the “sale certificates” of former friar lands that lacked the signatures of prewar government officials should be deemed void, a senior justice of the court said.

In a 23-page dissenting opinion, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said the Supreme Court’s March 6 decision in the ownership dispute involving the Manotoks and Barques over the P4-billion Piedad Estate in Quezon City would render millions of residents homeless.

“This is a disaster waiting to happen—a blow to the integrity of our Torrens system [of titles] and the stability of land titles in this country,” Carpio said.

“Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of landowners would surely be dispossessed of their lands in these areas,” he said.

With a split vote of 8-7, the tribunal upheld its Aug. 24, 2010, decision that awarded the ownership of the 1,282-hectare of lands to the national government.

Chief Justice Renato Corona, who is facing impeachment in the Senate, agreed with the majority ruling written by Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr.

Corona votes twice

Curiously, Corona virtually participated twice in the decision as he also voted with the winning bloc on behalf of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, who was supposed to be on sick leave when the court voted on the matter.

On the signature page of the 32-page decision, Corona wrote on top of Del Castillo’s name, “I certify that J. del Castillo sent his vote concurring with Justice Villarama.”

Like the Chief Justice, Del Castillo is also facing impeachment in the House of Representatives for allegedly plagiarizing the works of two international legal scholars in a ruling he wrote in 2010 junking the claims suit of World War II comfort women.

Sought for comment on Friday, Corona said there was nothing irregular in his signing for Del Castillo, who reported back to work only this week after he went under the knife for a heart ailment last month.

Corona dismissed speculations that he could have influenced his fellow justice in voting for the majority, saying he “never [discussed] cases with justices outside our sessions.”

He said he did not really sign the ruling for Del Castillo. “That’s not true,” the Chief Justice told reporters after attending the daily noon Mass at the Supreme Court. “I did not sign for him. I only certified what his vote was.”

Corona added: “He sent [in] his vote. That’s a long-standing practice [on] the court.”

In denying with finality the opposing appeals of the Manotok and Barque families, the court argued that its previous ruling in the case of Alonso vs Cebu Country Club Inc. would best settle the issue.

Absence of signatures

Reiterating its decision in the Alonso case, which covered the sprawling Banilad Estates in Cebu, the tribunal argued that documents showing purchase and ownership of former friar lands must have the “approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce.”

It said that “no valid titles can be issued … due to the absence of the signatures of the [then] Director of Lands and the Secretary of the Interior.”

The court said that these signatures were “indispensable” proof of the authenticity of the land titles and that the “absence of such approval” made the sale void from the start.

“The prospect of litigants losing friar lands they have possessed for years or decades had never deterred courts from upholding the stringent requirements of the law for a valid acquisition of these lands,” the court said, adding:

“The court’s duty is to apply the law. Petitioner’s concern for other landowners [who] may be similarly affected by our ruling is, without doubt, a legitimate one.”

The court said the solution for the concern of the Manotoks “lies … in the legislature” as in the Alonso case, which, it noted, resulted in the enactment of Republic Act No. 9443.

Equal protection clause

That law upheld the validity of the land titles of former friar lands covered by the Banilad Estates that did not bear the signature of the prewar secretary of the interior.

But Carpio said it was wrong for the court to apply RA 9443 only to the Banilad Estates since it would “result in class legislation.”

“RA 9443 should be extended to lands similarly situated. [O]therwise, there will be violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” Carpio said.

Save for their location, Carpio insisted that “there is no substantial distinction between the lands in the Banilad Estates and the other friar lands all over the country.”

“Since the lack of signatures and absence of approval … were cured with the passage of RA 9443, the benefits of the law should also apply to other lands similarly situated,” he said.

Carpio also noted that former Environment Secretary Michael Defensor signed an affidavit on Nov. 11, 2010, stating that he had issued Memorandum Order 1605 on Oct. 27, 2005, to deal with the question of the authenticity of land titles of former friar lands.

To preserve Torrens’ integrity

In his order, Defensor said all deeds of conveyance of friar estates that did not have the signatures of concerned prewar government officials “are deemed signed or otherwise ratified.”

Defensor said the order was “intended to preserve the integrity of the Torrens system and affirm the government’s obligation” as seller of the vast tracts of land.

The former environment secretary also attested that all documents pertaining to the sale of friar estates in the records of the Land Management Bureau (LMB), the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office and the National Archives “did not have the signature” of the secretary of the interior.

“To repeat, [Defensor] states that upon examination, all deeds of conveyance involving friar lands did not have the signature of the secretary [of the interior],” Carpio said.

If the majority ruling would be implemented, Carpio said, more than half of Metro Manila’s 63,600-hectare area may be affected since these used to be friar estates.

“If the Torrens titles to these lands are declared void … then hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of landowners would be rendered homeless or propertyless by the majority decision,” he said.

Gov’t’s responsibility

He said the court should not fault the Manotoks for their failure to present the original copy of the “assignment of sale certificate” since the safekeeping of those documents “is the responsibility of the government.”

“It is only the option for the landowners to keep them. How many landowners can present copies of their original sale certificates?” he said.

“As long as landowners can show other evidence to prove their ownership, they should not be dispossessed of their titles,” he said.

Carpio said that while the Manotoks failed to present the original sale certificate of the property, the petitioners were able to provide “three incontrovertible documents” pertaining to their ancestors’ purchase of the lands.

These included the original copy of the March 11, 1919, “Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 1054” from the records of the LMB, a subsequent sale certificate dated June 7, 1920, culled from the National Archives and another similar document dated June 23, 1923.

The third document, which Carpio noted was verified to be authentic by LMB records divisions chief Fe Tuanda in 2009, showed that the Manotoks had acquired the former friar lands.

He said the petitioners were able to prove that their family settled the full payment of P2,362 to the government on Dec. 7, 1932, as shown in the “acknowledged receipt” to Severino Manotok.

“Thus, the Manotoks had already acquired ownership [of the lot]. The only resolutory condition … can no longer happen because the full purchase price had already been paid,” Carpio said.

“There is nothing more that is required to be done as the title already passes to the purchaser.”

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/169895/sc-ruling-on-prime-quezon-city-land-blow-to-land-titles