MANOTOK vs. BARQUE[1]
(G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605; August 24, 2010; VILLARAMA, JR., J.)
FACTS:
·
Piedad
Estate originally owned by Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company, Ltd.,
La Sociedad Agricola de Ultramar, the British-Manila Estate Company, Ltd., and
the Recoleto Order of the Philippine Islands. (It is a Friar Land.)
o
The
subject parcel “Lot No. 823” is part of the Piedad Estate and is located in QC.
·
On
23 December 1903, Piedad Estate was acquired by the Philippine Government
pursuant to the Friar Lands Act. The certificate of title in the name of the
government was OCT No. 614. The Estate was placed under the administration of
the Director of Lands.
·
Controversy
arising from conflicting claims over Lot 823 began after a fire gutted portions
of the Quezon City Hall on June 11, 1988 which destroyed records stored in the
Office of the Register of Deeds.
·
In
1990, Manotoks filed a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution
of TCT No. 372302 covering Lot No. 823 with an area of 342,945 square meters à GRANTED à TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) was issued in
1991.
·
In
1996, 8 years after the fire the Barques filed a petition with the LRA for
administrative reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 in the name of Homer Barque also
covering Lot 823. In support of their
petition, the Barques submitted copies of the alleged owner’s duplicate of the
TCT, real estate tax receipts, tax declarations and a Plan Fls 3168-D covering
the property.
o
MANOTOKs
opposed alleging that TCT No. 210177 was spurious.
·
Although
both titles of the Manotoks and the Barques refer to land belonging to Lot No.
823, TCT No. 210177 actually involves 2 parcels with an aggregate area of
342,945 square meters, while TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) pertains only to a 1 parcel
of land, with a similar area of 342,945 square meters.
·
1997
– Barques’ petition was DENIED. à Lot. No. 823 already
registered in the name of the Manotoks. -->
Barques MR was denied à They appealed to the
LRA à LRA Reversed.
o
LRA
found that the reconstitution of the Manotok title was fraudulent. Hence, it
ordered the Barque title to be reconstituted. BUT cancellation must 1st
be sought in a court of competent jurisdiction of the 1991 Manotok TCT.
·
The
LRA denied the Manotoks’ MR and the Barques’ prayer for immediate
reconstitution. Both the Manotoks and
the Barques appealed the LRA decision to the CA.
§ In the CA, Felicitas
Manahan filed a motion to intervene and sought the dismissal of the cases claiming
ownership of the subject property.
·
2002
and 2003 à 2 separate divisions
of the CA both directed the RD of QC to cancel the Reconstituted Manotok Title
and to reconstitute the Barques’ “valid, genuine and existing” TCT No. 210177.
o
Hence,
the Manotoks filed the present separate petitions which were ordered consolidated
on August 2, 2004.
·
December
12, 2005, SC First Division à affirmed both decisions of the CA. à Manotoks filed MR à Denied in April 2006 Resolution.
o
Thereafter,
the Manotoks filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second MR with their MR
attached. à Denied in June 2006
Resolution. Eventually entry of judgment was made in the Book of Entries of
Judgment on May 2, 2006. In the
meantime, the Barques filed multiple motions with the First Division for
execution of the judgment, while the Manotoks filed an Urgent Motion to Refer
Motion for Possession to the SC En Banc (with prayer to set motion for oral
arguments). à Case was referred to the En Banc in
July 2006.
·
On
September 7, 2006, Felicitas Manahan and Rosendo Manahan filed a motion to
intervene, to which was attached their petition in intervention. They alleged
that their predecessor-in-interest, Valentin Manahan, was issued Sale
Certificate No. 511 covering Lot No. 823 and attached the findings of the NBI
that the documents of the Manotoks were not as old as they were purported to
be. Consequently, the Director of the
Legal Division of the LMB recommended to the Director of the LMB the
reconstituted Manotok Title should be reverted to the state.
o
Oral
arguments were held on July 24, 2007.
·
2008
- En Banc set aside the December 2005 1st division decision and
entry of judgment recalled and the CA’s Amended Decisions in CA-G.R. SP Nos.
66642 and 66700 were reversed and set aside. The En Banc remanded the case to
the CA.
o
The
CA was directed to receive evidence of and focus on the issue of WON 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. PURPOSE: to decide
WON the title of the Maotoks should be annulled.
·
CA’s
findings à None of the parties were able to prove a
valid alienation of Lot 823 from the government in accordance with the
provisions of Act No. 1120 otherwise known as the “Friar Lands Act”. Notably lacking in the deed of conveyance of
the Manotoks is the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce as
required by Section 18 of the said law. Upon close scrutiny, the factual
allegations and voluminous documentary exhibits relating to the purchase of Lot
823 by the predecessors-in-interest of the claimants revealed badges of fraud
and irregularity.
BASIS
FOR THEIR CLAIMS FOR OWNERSHIP:
Manotoks à Their grandfather
bought Lot 823 from the Government in 1919. They have since occupied the land,
built their houses and buildings on it. The subject land is now known as
Manotok Compound.
Barques à Teresita claims her
father (Homer) bought land from Emiliano Setosta who had a TCT in his name.
Manahans à The lot originally
belonged to his parents but was subsequently bought by his wife. They had a
caretaker on the property but she was ousted by armed men in 1950s so they just
declared the property for taxation to protect their rights.
ISSUE: Who has the
better right over Lot No. 823? NO ONE! It belongs to the National Government.
RATIO:
·
From
the proceedings in the CA, it was established that while records of the
DENR-LMB indicate the original claimant/applicant of Lot 823 as a certain
Valentin Manahan, only the Manotoks were able to produce a sale certificate in
the name of their predecessors-in-interest, certified by the LMB Records
Management Division. In addition, the Manotoks submitted photocopies of
original documents entitled Assignment of Sale Certificate dated 1919, 1920 and
1923.
·
Sale
Certificate No. 1054 was not signed by the Director of Lands nor approved by
the Secretary of the Interior. The
Certificates of Assignment of Sale contained only the signature of the Director
of Lands. The Manotoks belatedly secured from the National Archives a certified
copy of Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 dated December 7, 1932, which likewise
lacks the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as it
was signed only by the Director of Lands.
Act No. 1120 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.
·
It
is clear from the foregoing provision and from jurisprudence that the sale of
friar lands shall be valid only if approved by the Secretary of the Interior
(later the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce).
·
In
their Memorandum, the Manotoks pointed out that their photocopy of the original
Deed of Conveyance No. 29204, sourced from the National Archives, shows on the
second page a poorly imprinted typewritten name over the words “Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources”, which name is illegible, and above it an
even more poorly imprinted impression of what may be a stamp of the Secretary’s
approval.
·
The
Manotoks are invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of the
RD’s task in issuing the TCT in the Manotok name. The Manotoks contend that “we
can assume that the Manotok deed of conveyance was in fact approved by the
Department Secretary because the register of deeds did issue TCT No. 22813 in
the name of the buyer Severino Manotok.” FURTHER, the Manotoks assert that even
if we were to ignore the presumption of validity in the performance of official
duty, Department Memorandum Order No. 16-05 issued on October 27, 2005 by then
DENR Secretary Michael T. Defensor, supplies the omission of approval by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in deeds of conveyances over
friar lands.
o
NO!
These arguments fail.
·
Citing
Alonso v. Cebu Country Club which applied the rule in the Solid State and Liao
Casesà the absence of approval by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce in the sale certificate and assignment of sale
certificate made the sale null and void ab initio. Necessarily, there can be no valid titles
issued on the basis of such sale or assignment.
o
SC
in the MR of the Alonso case underscored that the approval is a MADATORY
requirement. Approval of the
Secretary of the Interior cannot simply be presumed or inferred from certain
acts since the law is explicit in its mandate. Petitioners have not offered any cogent
reason that would justify a deviation from this rule.
·
DENR
Memorandum Order No. 16, invoked by both the Manotoks and the Manahans, states
that some Deeds of Conveyance on record in the field offices of the LMB do not
bear the Secretary’s signature despite full payment for the Friar Land. They
are deemed signed or otherwise ratified by this Memo provided that the
applicant really paid the purchase price and complied with all the requirements
under the Friar Lands Act.
o
The
CA opined that the Manotoks cannot benefit from the above department issuance
because it makes reference only to those deeds of conveyance on file with the
records of the DENR field offices. The
Manotoks’ copy of the alleged Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 issued in 1932, was
sourced from the National Archives.
·
Manotoks
also point out that the Friar Lands Act itself states that the Government
ceases reservation of its title once the buyer had fully paid the price. (They
were claiming that they fully paid!) Their basis is SECTION 15[2] of the Friar Lands Act.
·
Court
found that the old rule would support the Manotoks contention however, the new
rule Pugeda v. Trias, à “the conveyance
executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser, or the so-called certificate of
sale, is a conveyance of the ownership of the property, subject only to the
resolutory condition that the sale may be cancelled if the price agreed upon is
not paid for in full.
·
Clearly,
it is the execution of the contract to sell and delivery of the certificate of
sale that vests title and ownership to the purchaser of friar land. Such
certificate of sale must, of course, be signed by the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, as evident from Sections 11[3], 12[4] and the 2nd paragraph of
Section 15[5], in relation to Section 18.
CONCLUSIONS
·
Manotoks
could not have acquired ownership of the subject lot as they had no valid
certificate of sale issued to them by the Government because their Certificate
lacks the signature of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources
·
The
decades-long occupation by the Manotoks of Lot 823, their payment of real
property taxes and construction of buildings, are of no moment. It must be noted that the Manotoks miserably
failed to prove the existence of the title allegedly issued in the name of
Severino Mantotok after the latter had paid in full the purchase price. The Manotoks did not offer any explanation as
to why the only copy of TCT No. 22813 was torn in half and no record of
documents leading to its issuance can be found in the registry of deeds. As to the certification issued by the
Register of Deeds of Caloocan, it simply described the copy presented as
“DILAPIDATED” without stating if the original copy of TCT No. 22813 actually
existed in their records, nor any information on the year of issuance and name
of registered owner.
o
As
we stressed in Alonso: Prescription can never lie against the Government.
·
RE:
MANAHANS àNo copy of the alleged Sale Certificate No.
511 can be found in the records of either the DENR-NCR, LMB or National
Archives. Although the OSG submitted a
certified copy of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511 allegedly executed by
Valentin Manahan in favor of Hilaria de Guzman, there is no competent evidence
to show that the claimant Valentin Manahan or his successors-in-interest
actually occupied Lot 823, declared the land for tax purposes, or paid the
taxes due thereon.
·
Even
assuming arguendo the existence and validity of the alleged Sale Certificate
No. 511 and Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511 presented by the Manahans,
the CA correctly observed that the claim had become stale after the lapse of
86 years from the date of its alleged issuance. Citing Liao v. CA “the certificates of sale x
x x became stale after 10 years from its issuance” and hence cannot be the
source documents for issuance of title more than 70 years later.”
Dispositive:
Manotok
Appeal denied
Manahan
Petition for intervention denied
Petition
for reconstitution of the Barque title denied
All
the TCTs in the name of Manotoks, Manahans and Barque, are NULL and VOID. The
Register of Deeds of Caloocan City and/or Quezon City are hereby ordered to CANCEL
the said titles.
Lot
No. 823 is property of the National Government of the Philippines w/o prejudice
to Reversion proceedings
[2]
The Government hereby reserves the title to each and every parcel of
land sold under the provisions of this Act until the full payment of all
installments or purchase money and interest by the purchaser has been made, and
any sale or encumbrance made by him shall be invalid as against the Government
of the Philippine Islands and shall be in all respects subordinate to its prior
claim. Xxx
[3] SECTION
11. Should any person who is the actual
and bona fide settler upon, and occupant of, any portion of said lands at the
time the same is conveyed to the Government of the Philippine Islands desire to
purchase the land so occupied by him, he shall be entitled to do so at the
actual cost thereof to the Government, and shall be granted fifteen years from
the date of the purchase in which to pay for the same in equal annual
installments, should he so desire paying interest at the rate of four per
centum per annum on all deferred payments.
…The terms of purchase shall be agreed upon
between the purchaser and the Director of Lands, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
[4] SECTION
12. ...When the cost thereof shall have
been thus ascertained, the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall give the
said settler and occupant a certificate which shall set forth in detail that
the Government has agreed to sell to such settler and occupant the amount of
land so held by him, at the price so fixed, payable as provided in this Act. .
.and that upon the payment of the final installment together with all accrued
interest the Government will convey to such settler and occupant the said land
so held by him by proper instrument of conveyance, which shall be issued and
become effective in the manner provided in section one hundred and twenty-two
of the Land Registration Act….
[5] SECTION
15. …The right of possession and purchase acquired by certificates of sale
signed under the provisions hereof by purchasers of friar lands, pending final
payment and the issuance of title, shall be considered as personal property for
the purposes of serving as security for mortgages, and shall be considered as
such in judicial proceedings relative to such security.
