Verba Legis

Digests. Blurbs. Tips. Random Law school things.

F r i d a y, M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 1 4

[Digest] Manotok vs. Barque (2010)

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 certicate 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 re gutted portions of the Quezon City Hall on
June 11, 1988 which destroyed records stored in the Ofce of the Register of Deeds.
In 1990, Manotoks led a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of TCT No. 372302 covering Lot No.
823 with an area of 342,945 square meters GRANTED TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) was issued in 1991.
In 1996, 8 years after the re the Barques led 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 owners 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. Lot. No. 823 already registered in the name of the Manotoks. -->
Barques MR was denied They appealed to the LRA 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 o
t the CA.
In the CA, Felicitas Manahan led a motion to intervene and sought the dismissal of the cases claiming
ownership of the subject property.
2002 and 2003 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 led the present separate petitions which were ordered consolidated on August 2, 2004.
December 12, 2005, SC First Division afrmed both decisions of the CA. Manotoks led MR Denied in April
2006 Resolution.
o Thereafter, the Manotoks led a Motion for Leave to File a Second MR with their MR attached. 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 led multiple motions with the First Division for execution of the judgment, while
the Manotoks led an Urgent Motion to Refer Motion for Possession to the SC En Banc (with prayer to set
motion for oral arguments). Case was referred to the En Banc in July 2006.
 On September 7, 2006, Felicitas Manahan and Rosendo Manahan led a motion to intervene, to which was attached
their petition in intervention. They alleged that their predecessor-in-interest, Valentin Manahan, was issued Sale
Certicate No. 511 covering Lot No. 823 and attached the ndings 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 CAs
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.
CAs ndings 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 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 Manot
ok Compound.
Barques Teresita claims her father (Homer) bought land fr
om Emiliano Setosta who had a TCT in his name.
Manahans 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
certicate in the name of their predecessors-in-interest, certied by the LMB Records Management Division. In
addition, the Manotoks submitted photocopies of original documents entitled Assignment of Sale Certicate dated
1919, 1920 and 1923.
Sale Certicate No. 1054 was not signed by the Director of Lands nor approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The
Certicates of Assignment of Sale contained only the signature of the Director of Lands. The Manotoks belatedly
secured from the National Archives a certied 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 Secretarys approval.
The Manotoks are invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of the RDs 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 ofcial 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 Cases the absence of approval
by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce in the sale certicate and assignment of sale certicate made the sale
null and void ab initio. Necessarily, there can be no valid titles issued on the basis of suchsale 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 eld ofces of the LMB do not bear the Secretarys signature despite full payment for
the Friar Land. They are deemed signed or otherwise ratied by this Memo provided that the applicant really paid the
purchase price and complied with all the er quirements under the Friar Lands Act.
o The CA opined that the Manotoks cannot benet from the above department issuance because it makes
reference only to those deeds of conveyance on le with the records of the DENR eld ofces. 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, the
conveyance executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser, or the so-called certicate 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 certicate of sale that vests title and ownership to
the purchaser of friar land. Such certicate 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 certicate of sale issued to them
by the Government because their Certicate 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 certication 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 e
r cords, 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 No copy of the alleged Sale Certicate No. 511 can be found in the records of either the DENR-
NCR, LMB or National Archives. Although the OSG submitted a certied copy of Assignment of Sale Certicate 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 Certicate No. 511 and Assignment of Sale
Certicate 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 certicates 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

[1] EN BANC DECISION

[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 encumbr ance made by him shall be invalid as
against the Go vernment of the Philippine Islands and shall be in all r espects subor dinate to its prior claim. Xxx
[3] SECTION 11. Should any person who is the actual and bona de settler upon, and occupant of, any portion of said lands at the time the
same is conveyed to the Government of the Philippin e 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 fteen years from the date of the purchase in which to pay for the same in
equal annual installments, should he so desir e paying inter est at the r ate of four per centum per annum on all def erred 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
Agricultur e and Natur al Resour ces.
[4] SECTION 12. ...When the cost thereof shall have been thus ascer tained, the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall give the said settler
and occupant a certicate 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 xed, payable as provided in this Act. . .and that upon the payment of the nal 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 eff ective in the manner pr ovided in section one hundr ed and twenty-two of the Land Registr ation Act.
[5] SECTION 15. The right of possession and purchase acquired by certicates of sale signed under the provisions hereof by purchasers of
friar lands, pending nal payment and the issuance of title, shall be consider ed as personal property for the purposes of serving as security for
mortgages, and shall be consider ed as such in judicia l proceedings r elative to such security .

verbalegis at 7:35 AM

Share

2 comments:

Anonymous September 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Make your fact straight. One day.. You'll never know..
Reply

Anonymous September 22, 2014 at 9:41 PM

The facts are straight. Learn proper English.
Reply
 Enter your comment...

Comment as: Select prole...

Publish Preview

Home
View web version

Powered by Blogger.