CSW REPORT

SUBJECT: Complaint of Ruth Aguilar and Marites Aguilar lodged in the Presidential
Complaint Center on alleged land grabbing over a parcel of land located
at Barangay Bapor, Masbate.

l. FACTS/BACKGROUND
Said lot was first the subject of DLO CLAIM NO. 278 where a certain Salvador
Villarante stands as the claimant - protestant and Eduardo M. Marcaida Jr. as the applicant-
respondent over MSA (IV-3) 12 applied on August 16, 1966 wherein claimant-protestant filed
his protest on April 18, 1972.
On May 2 of the same year, applicant-respondent answered the said protest with prayer
for its dismissal denying allegations content on the protest. Subsequently, on June 16, 1972,
an Order of Investigation was issued and on 10 August of 1972, a subpoena was served to both
parties to appear before the office of the Bureau of Lands Masbate on September 26, 1972 to
testify for the said investigation. A hearing was set on September 26 1972 but Applicant-
respondent on September 22, 1972 filed a motion for its postponement which was granted and
said hearing was set on October 16, 1972.On October 13, 1972, again applicant-respondent
filed a postponement of the said hearing. (no further available document in relation to the
said hearing).
On April 4, 1974 a letter from the Director of the Bureau of Lands addressed to the
District Land Officer requesting it to expedite the investigation over the said conflict and
submit report without delay for appropriate disposition. Then on May 23,1974, the District
Land Officer on a letter informed the Director of the Bureau of Lands that said investigation
could not be conducted due to lack of necessary personnel and that claimant had been informed
that formal investigation may be scheduled in July or as soon as the office shall have been
adequately staffed. (no further available document in relation to the said investigation)
On January 17, 1979 a subpoena was issued inviting both parties to appear before the
office of the Bureau of Lands Masbate on January 22, 1979 to testify on investigation
conducted by the said office and on January 22, 1979 Atty. Jaime R. Alegre Hearing Officer I
of the District Land Office of Masbate dismissed the claim of herein subject Salvador
Villarante for lack of interest, for the said claimant-protestant did not appear on scheduled
hearing being informed thru subpoena.
A Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the said dismissal was filed by the
claimant-respondent on January 24,1979 for ground of lack of notice. This motion was opposed
thru letter on February 5,1979 by the applicant-respondent on the ground that it is not the first
time that claimant-protestant failed to appear during the investigation and was allegedly seen
at the pier of Masbate on the night of the hearing and that it is not true that applicant-respondent
was never in possession of the land in question for applicant-respondent has his overseer
staying on the land in question in the name of Leonardo Aguilar.
On February 9, 1979, Atty. Jaime R. Alegre, Hearing Officer I of the District Land
Office Denied the said Motion for Reconsideration citing that the Supreme Court had stated in
their rulings that “When cases had been set for hearing and that the same had been pending for
quite a long time for such case in 1972, the natural course of justice must be respected”. Stating
further that “Claimant-protestant failed to appear whereas applicant-respondent appeared on
the day set for the hearing”. It has been noted that this Bureau has been hampered by the non-
appearance of parties and counsels and postponement as they do have to make. In this event,
considering that the Bureau must exact performance per the instruction of the President, that
therefore there being an opposition to the motion for reconsideration, thus the motion for
reconsideration was denied”.
Within the reglamentary period, an appeal was filed by the claimant-protestant citing
that the Honorable Hearing Officer committed grave abuse or discretion in denying the motion
for reconsideration, that he did not observe due process of law in rejecting the claim of the
claimant-protestant, that the Honorable Hearing Officer seriously erred in not considering that
the claimant-protestant is actually residing and has introduced improvements in the conflicted
area and that the Honorable Hearing Office finally erred in not allowing the claimant protestant
to introduce his evidence to determine the merit of the latter’s claim thus depriving him
procedural and substantial justice. Said appeal respectfully prayed that the whole record of the
said case be forwarded to the Honorable Regional Director, Regional Land Office No. V,
Bureau of Lands, Legazpi City for review in order that the order on February 9, 1979 denying
the Motion for Reconsideration or the order dated January 22, 1979 be reversed and finally to
give due course to the said appeal.
On March 6, 1979, a letter addressed to the District Land Officer was received from
the Regional Director with the instruction for the forward of the records of the case together
with the comments and recommendation in order that the Office can resolve the grounds raised
in the “Appeal”.
On March 27, 1979 a letter addressed to the District Land Officer was received from
the Regional Director instructing for the immediate forward of the records of the said case
together with the folder of the application involved, subject of the appeal filed by the counsel
for the claimant-protestant dated February 28, 1979. Said documents were sent July 9,1979.
On July 17, 1979 Regional Director of Lands Pedro N. Calimlim, CESO IV issued an
ORDER declaring the ORDER of Hearing Officer I Atty. Jaime R. Alegre dismissing the claim
of protestant Salvador Villarante, dated January 22, 1979 as being “ISSUED WITHOUT
AUTHORITY, AND THEREFORE ILLEGAL “, the same was also set aside and declared
null and void. For the same reasons, no reason was necessary on the points of issue raised in
protestant’s appeal from the aforementioned order, the same being moot and academic. The
records of the case were returned to the District Land Officer concerned for continuation of the
formal investigation and was referred to Land Investigator Regolo A. Atibagos on July 19,
1979.
On February 25, 1982 Chief, Claims and Conflicts Section Rodolfo SJ. Flores called
the attention of the District Land Officer of the Bureau of Lands directing for the investigation
of the said case which until the said time has not been accomplished. Citing the length of time
elapsed, requested the office to expedite the investigation and terminate the same as soon as
possible and submit thereafter the corresponding report to the Regional Land Director
concerned for appropriate dispositive action.
On February 25, 1983, both parties were informed by notice re: the continuation of the
formal investigation of the said case and that it was scheduled on March 15, 1983 at the District
Land Office Masbate with the intention to work for the early termination of the case.
On March 15,1983, The District Land Officer on a letter as a Progress Report informed
the Bureau of Lands Regional Director that when the case was called for formal investigation
during the same day, both parties and their counsels appeared and upon verification from the
available survey records, for lot identification, as the poblacion proper of Masbate had been
cadastrated under Cad-627-D, it was found out that the land in question is within a road –
Aguilar Road. Such being the case, it was agreed in open session that the hearing of the case
be temporarily suspended and that the matter be referred to the Masbate Municipal Planning
Board for comment.
On March 16, 1983, Actg. Hearing Officer Edgar M. Revil wrote to the Chairman of
the Municipal Planning Board asking for information thru comment in relation to the said lot
subject of the litigation pending before its office for disposition. (no further available
document in relation to the said letter)
On June 22, 2005, claiming to have all the qualifications, Leonardo J. Aguilar filed
before the RTC Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 45 Masbate City an application for registration
of title over the lot subject of the litigation on DLO CLAIM NO. 278 this time identified as
Lot 532-A, of Plan Csd-627-D (Masbate Cadastre), as surveyed for in the names of Leonardo
J. Aguilar and Heirs of Naida N. Serrano.
On July 29, 2005, the RTC issued an Order setting the initial hearing of the case on
January 18, 2006.Notice of Initial Hearing were sent to the adjoining owners of the subject
land and all government agencies concerned, and posted in a conspicuous place in the parcel
 of land as well as on the bulletin board of the City Hall of Masbate City. The notice relative to
the Application was likewise published in the 21 November 2005 issue of the Official Gazette
and in the 12 – 18 December 2005 issue of Publiko Express, in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Province of Masbate.
On January 26, 2006, oppositors-appellees Heirs of Eduardo Marcaida, Jr., represented
by Milagros JB. Marcaida, filed their opposition to the application claiming that their
predecessor-in-interest, Eduardo Marcaida, Jr. filed on August 18,1966 before the Bureau of
Lands in Masbate a Miscellaneous Sales Application over a parcel of land with an area of seven
hundred twenty (720) square meters of which the lot subject of the application of Mr. Leonardo
J. Aguilar is a portion thereto. The heirs averred that spouses Eduardo Marcaida, Jr. and
Milagros JB. Marcaida possessed the subject lot and introduced improvements thereon and
that Aguilar had no registrable title over the said lot subject of his application for which he is
an overseer which he had in fact executed an affidavit on January 21,1972 relative thereto.
After due process and after hearing both sides, the trial court on October 4, 2010
rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, for lack of registrable title on the part of the applicant over Lot
532-A, of Plan Csd-05-015362-D, (Masbate Cadastre) situated at Barangay Bapor, City
of Masbate, Island of Masbate, the application is denied.

Applicant is further ordered to deliver said lot 532-A to the oppositors.

SO ORDERED.

Hence, the instant Appeal with imputed assignment of errors, but said appeal declared
to be bereft of merit, and on January 28, 2015, the Court of Appeals release its promulgation on a
decision DENYING the said instant appeal and AFFIRMING the Decision dated October 4,2010
of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate City, Branch 45, in LRC No. N-458, denying the
application for registration of title filed by appellant Leonardo Aguilar.

On February 24, 2015, Leonardo J. Aguilar filed at the CENRO Office of the DENR
Masbate a Residential Free Patent application and was subsequently issued an OCT No.
2016000054 with Residential Free Patent No.05411115-1162 on May 25, 2015 which was
transcribed in the “Registration Book “in the Province of Masbate pursuant to the provisions of
Section 103 of P. D. No. 1529, on the 9th day of February two thousand and sixteen.

On February 26, 2018, Marites S. Aguilar wrote to the Office of the President asking
for help citing that their lot, ( the lot subject of the decided case) over which they are occupying is
being forcibly claimed by land grabber (“pilit inaangkin ng mga taong land grabber “) and that
they are fighting for it in court until the date of the letter ( ipinaglalaban po naming ito sa korte
mapa sa hanggang ngayon.). Said letter was transmitted to the office of the Secretary ROY A.
CIMATU, Department of Environment and Natural Resources for appropriate action.

On March 03, 2018, as Heirs of the late Leonardo Aguilar, Marites S. Aguilar and
Ruth S. Aguilar wrote to the Clerk of Court and Ex-Office Sheriff Hon. Leomar R. Lanuza calling
the attention of Enforcing Sheriff Mr. Enrique Logronio citing that the execution should not be
enforced against them and the Original Certificate of Title No. 2016000054 in the name of their
deceased father upon the following grounds.

1. That they have the Original Certificate of Title No. 2016000054 which is valid
and never cancelled.
2. That the said title was never an issue or subject of the LRC No. 548 and was never
touched but only on the LRC application and opposition.
3. That the title has attained its legal integrity and indefeasibility and cannot be
cancelled or assailed unless a case is filed in proper forum, questioning the title
issued by the government or Land Registration Authority.
 4. That the oppositors have filed their application way back in 1966 but was not
pursued or acted upon by the DENR or LRA up to the present and is considered
abandoned.
5. That per decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 28, 2015, specifically
pages 12 and 13 it ruled and quoted as follows: “This is however without
prejudice to whatever action the DENR will ultimately take on the pending
miscellaneous sales application filed by Eduardo Marcaida Sr.”

Hence, it therefore follows that the oppositors are but mere applicants on the MSA
with DENR, which has not so far achieved any favorable action, but as shown by
evidence, DENR did so only in favor of Leonardo Aguilar, now with inherent rights
into and among the Heirs, by reason of approved DENR application and issuance of
title.

6. That the tax Declarations of oppositors are, by law, not a proof of ownership but
made so for tax purposes only.

In light of the above-mentioned citations, the letter sender respectfully asks that the
execution be held in abeyance until said urgent legal issues be resolved by the court. In the interest
of truth, justice and/or the principle of indefeasibility of title.

On March 27, 2018, the PENRO Office of Masbate received from the office of the
Regional Director of the DENR the Memorandum dated March 19, 2018 which directs the PENRO
office to act on the complaint letter of Ruth Aguilar and Marites Aguilar lodge in the Presidential
Complaint Center. On same date the PENRO Office forwarded the matter to the CENRO office of
Masbate City which subsequently on April 23, 2018 endorsed the matter to the undersigned.

On April 24, 2018, the undersigned inquired from the Regional Trial Court of
Masbate Branch 45 and acquired a copy of the decision of the trial court, the decision of the Court
of Appeals pertaining to this case at hand and a copy of the Writ of Execution, thus this Complete
Staff Work.

ll. FINDINGS
1. Based on the records available in this office in relation to District Land Office
Claim No. 278, there was no availability of information as to the finality of decision
of the said conflict since the last document available was only the letter of the office
dated March 16, 1983, addressed to the Chairman of the Municipal Planning Board
asking for information thru comment in relation to the said lot subject of the
litigation pending before its office for disposition.

2. The contention of the Heirs of Eduardo M. Marcaida, established by the affidavit

executed by Leonardo J. Aguilar citing that he is just an overseer of the lot subject
of this case cannot be ignored.

3. The fact that barely a month after the decision of the Court of Appeals, Mr.
Leonardo J. Aguilar filed at the CENRO office, Masbate City a Residential Free
Patent application over the lot subject of the decided case cannot be ignored.

4. While it is true that the said Title was never an issue or subject of the LRC No. 548
and was never touched but only on the LRC application and opposition but it is so
because LRC No. 548 transpired before the said lot was applied for a Residential
Free Patent Application at the DENR CENRO office of Masbate City and the fact
remains that the subject lot of LRC No. 548 and the lot applied for Residential Free
Patent Application which ripened into an OCT numbered 2016000054 is one and
the same lot.
 5. LRC No.548 is already a decided case with finality and with a writ of execution of
which the letter sender wanted to be held in abeyance such matter this office cannot
interfere.

III. RECOMMENDATION
It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as
evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein. A title once registered cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and
notorious possession; neither can it be defeated by prescription. It is a notice to the whole world
and as such all persons are bound by it and no one can plead ignorance of the registration. The real
purpose of land registration is to quiet title to land and stop forever any question as to its legality.
Once a title is registered the owner may rest secure without the necessity of waiting in the portals
of the court, or sitting on the mirador de su casa, to avoid the possibility of losing his land. Indeed,
titles over lands should be given stability. This does not mean, however, that the landowner whose
property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name is without remedy in
law. When a person obtains a certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he has full
knowledge of the rights of the true owner, he is considered guilty of fraud. He may then be
compelled to transfer the land to the defrauded owner so long as the property has not passed to the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value. In the case at hand, the said lot is still in the hand of the
heirs of Leonardo J. Aguilar and not transferred to any purchaser of value and in good faith and
that the said lot is being the subject of a case decided with finality by a competent court, the
undersigned recommends that the matter be brought up to the legal division of the regional office
for possible reversion of the title or other remedies available to the real and true owner of the said
lot.

KAAMIÑO, FRANCO A.
Land Management Inspector