Saturday, October 9, 2010

the true owner 4136

magandang araw po sa lahat

nais ko pong ipakita ang PIADECO OWNERSHIP
marami ang nagsasabi na noong 1996 daw ay  nadesisyunan
ang 4136 na null in void, tama po pero yun ay desisyon sa
engracio san pedro  claimants  dahil matagal na pong null in void ang 4136
dahil ngayun ay transfer in the name of don ignacio condrado estate na
hindi na po don mariano san pedro ,4136 lang ang mother title ngunit
ngayun ay original certificate title 57, sa pangangalaga ng PIADECO
ang dating pangulong ferdinand ramos ay naniniwala sa PIADECO at
si dating pagulong erap estrada, na sinabi na not just one but two ang
4136), maraming salamat po


The Titulo Propriedad 4136 of Don Mariano E. San Pedro Estate


Dear Philippines, we have found the greater power of truth, but it is against the en banc Decision of the Hon. Supreme Court--[“Legal status of Titulo de Propriedad 4136 of the estate of Don Mariano E. San Pedro in the light of the discovery of the 1910 Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) 374 and TCT No.57” in the name of Don Ignacio Conrado] The Hon. Supreme Court in its 1996 Decision en banc (on San Pedro estate) has made it clear that the huge area of the vast lands under the mysterious Titulo Prop. 4136 is 173,000 hectares. (Pls. see the decision in G.R. No. 103727, Dec. 1996, with sketch plan of Titulo Prop. 4136.) It also made clear that there are two confusing dates (April 25, 1894 and April 29, 1894) involved in the San Pedro controversy, and that for purposes of its 1996 en banc Decision, the Hon. Supreme Court affirmed “April 25, 1894” as the correct and real date, and thus (mistakenly!) declared Titulo Prop. 4136 issued on April 25, 1894 as null and void, contrary to the declaration of DENR that Titulo De Propeidad 4136 is valid and Authentic on its report conducted under Secretary Antonio Cerilles on the Land Classification of Quezon City in 1999 where all 7 OCT’s that allegedly covered the land of Quezon City was declared by DENR as Null and Void for there were no records that would prove the existence of these titles .It was only Titulo de Propeidad 4136 which is recognized by DENR to be authentic and with records and was certified by the NBI under questioned document report in 1963 that the signature of Miguel Lopez Delgado and Alehandro Garcia appearing on the last page of Titulo 4136 are authentic.The opinion of Judge Fernandez stating that it was the signature certified by the NBI as authentic and not the titulo itself is illogical and misleading, and therefore attacking collaterally the integrity of the Titulo and the persons who signed it, how could an authentic signature could appear on a fake document,when the signature found in a document is authentic it follows that the document is authentic for there was no xerox machine nor any sophisticated gadget during the Spanish time. Would Judge Fernandez sign a fake document if he were Miguel Lopez Delgado or Alejandro Garcia of known integrity at that time ?. The Hon. Supreme Court further clarified: “The heirs of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban laid claim and have been laying claim to the ownership of, against third persons and the Government itself, a total land area of approximately 173,000 hectares or “214,047 quiniones,” on the basis of a Spanish title, entitled “Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136” dated April 25, 1894. The claim, according to the San Pedro heirs, appears to cover lands in the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna and Quezon; and such Metro Manila cities as Quezon City, Caloocan City, Pasay City, City of Pasig and City of Manila, thus affecting in general lands extending from Malolos, Bulacan to the City Hall of Quezon City and the land area between Dingalan Bay in the north and Tayabas Bay in the south.” The Hon. Supreme Court made it clear: “….The heirs or successors-in-interest of Mariano San Pedro y Esteban are not without recourse. Presidential Decree No. 892, xx, grants all holders of Spanish Titles the right to apply for registration of their lands underAct No. 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act, within six (6) months from the effectivity of the Decree.” xxx “We are in accord with the appellate courts’ holding xxx that since the Titulo was not registered under Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act, said Titulo is inferior to the registered titles of the private respondents Ocampo, Buhain and Dela Cruz (i.e. of the notorious OCT 614 and OCT 333). xxx “This Court can only surmise that the reason for the non-registration of the Titulo under the Torrens system is the lack of the necessary documents to be presented in order to comply with the provisions of P.D. 892. We do not discount the possibility that the Spanish title in question is not genuine, especially since its genuineness and due execution have not been proven. In both cases, the petitioners-heirs were not able to present the original of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 nor a genuine copy thereof.”The genuine copy thereof cannot be produced by the pretending petioner heirs for they are not the real owner ,the true story about this matter is that Don Mariano San pedro Y Esteban mortgaged the land in 1894 to his friend Don Ignacio Conrado for the sum of P8,000.00 under Pacto de Retro redeemable within ten years but Don Mariano San Pedro Esteban failed to redeem such land thereby Don Ignacio Conrado foreclosed the said land in 1904 and registered the same under Act 496 in 1909 and was issued Torrens title OCT 374 and TCT no.57 covered by Plan II-668 with decree no. recorded in Malolos Bulacan during the American Period. Now Maria Socorro Conrado the daughter and sole heir of Don Ignacio Conrado adjudicated the land to herself upon the death of her father Don Ignacio Conrado and sold the land to Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development Corporation PIADECO for short, and now PIADECO being the successor in interest of Don Ignacio Conrado is the legal anf legitimate owner of the subject estate under Civil case no. 3035-M which upheld the ownership of PIADECO over the land and not its oppositor the Bureau of Forestry in the sala of Judge Emmanuel Monuz of CFI Bulacan in 1964.Such being the case OCT4136 being already a torrens title could no longer be subjected to PD 892. The declaration of Supreme Court that Titulo De Propeidad 4136 as null and void and no rights could be drived therefrom is already moot and academic for the titulo itself was already cancelled in 1910 by virtue of OCT 374 and TCT No.57 in the name of Don Ignacio Conrado. Now, beloved Philippines, and dear Portia, goddess of justice, what if, contrary to the belief and findings of the Hon. Supreme Court, the Titulo Propriedad 4136 of April 25, 1894 has already been submitted to, and has passed the rigid examination of, National Bureau of Investigation in 1963 when Director of Forestry J.L. Utleg submitted to NBI the Titulo 4136 for examination , and the findings of the NBI was the titulo is authentic thereby the Director of Forestry awarded Private Woodland Registration (PWR- No. 2065-New) certificate to PIADECO for logging operation . Should the NBI found that the titulo is fake the director of forestry would no issue a permit to PIADECO for its logging operation .Now PIADECO who is a holder of legal title to San Pedro Estate which is now the Don Ignacio Corado estate was viciously maligned and ruthlessly assailed by the combined forces of the unscrupulous rich and the dark political powers of the government . The Titulo Propriedad 4136 has now gone back
to life to save and give justice to the disadvantaged and the oppressed and to help bring the Philippines to Golden Age! God bless the Philippines!………There is really such a Torrens title (or an Original Certificate of Title) that was issued out of Titulo Propriedad 4136 of April 25, 1894, and it is OCT 4136 as declared by the DENR in its report in 1999 entitled Land Classification of Quezon City during the incumbency of president Erap Estrada not just one, but two! (Pls. see the orderly Land Registration Case No. N-1861 and N-1876. See also the Partial Decision of Judge Emmanuel Munoz in Oct. 12, 1970 thereon. Pls. also see the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 374 and TCT No.57 of the Hon. Register of Deeds of Malolos, Bulacan. The Torrens Title have long been existing since 1910 but was not known to many , and have become the object of complaint of Quieting of Title filed in Bulacan Regional Trial Court against the false heirs, all 42 of them with San Pedro surnames. The titles have been hidden by them false San Pedro heirs presumably because confirmation of Don Ignacio Conrado as the “next of kin and true legal heir" of Don Mariano E. San Pedro--with his most authentic Spanish documents, discovered from the 400 year-old church of Sta. Ana in Taguig. Titulo Propriedad 4136 issued in April 25, 1894 had, indeed, been submitted in a Land Registration Case under Act 496. The original of the Titulo Propriedad 4136 was necessarily shown, and examined (as indicated in the records), and found in order, so that in 1972, after due notice and hearing with all concerned, the Hon. fact-finding and jurisdictional court, which is a Court “in rem”, whose decision is final and against the whole world, (after the lapse of certain number of years), issued forth a decree for the issuance of Torrens Titles, namely, Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) No. 0-5617 and OCT No. 0-5797. A number of Transfer Certificates of Title have also been issued from the OCTs, (they) were transferred to innocent purchasers for value, and have become valid and perfect titles. The Partial Decision of Judge Emmanuel Munoz in Civil Case No. 3035-M in Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development Coporation(PIADECO) Vs. Director of Forestry the judge affirmed the ownership of PIADECO under OCT 4136 and the decision of the judge has become final and executory for failure of the director of forestry to appeal therefrom, and in the long court battle which ended in 1968 as acknowledged by the decision of the supreme court in G.R. No. L-24796 and G.R. No. L-25459 in the consolidated case which favor the government petition against the logging operation of PIADECO for the cancellation of its license by some unscrupolous government officials but affirmed the ownership of PIADECO over the land in question. Which decision is twisted by the government as the case that they won over the land but reading carefully such decision it is very clear that the land belongs to PIADECO it was the logs which the Supreme Court awarded to the government and not the subject land because the decision of CFI Bulacan as to the ownership of PIADECO is final for failure of the Director of Forestry to appeal therefrom which decision was not reversed by the Honorable Supreme Court.What the supreme court altered is the order of the CFI bulacan regarding the confiscated logs and not the land and that is very clear if you read the Supreme Court Decision.Determining the Titulo Propriedad 4136 issued on April 25, 1894 to be in order,--as well as his issuance of the judicial decree for registration of the land thereof,
and the final issuance of the Original Certificates of Title to the said lands within Titulo Propriedad 4136 issued on April 25, 1894,--is of "judicial notice" in Philippines jurisdiction, specially to the Hon. Supreme Court. [(Pls. see Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, Rule 129, Sec. 1). Moreover, the said Land was recognized by the American government under the Treaty of Paris in 1898 and continue to recognize the same even after the American period in the Philippines it was only during the Marcos regime that Spanish Title was abolished under PD 892 which was issued under the barrel of the guns, that even President Marcos has no authority to abrogate the Spanish Mortgage Law which is recognized under the Treaty of Paris if that is so then the territory of the Philippines comes from nowhere, because under the 1935 constitution it was declared that the territory of the Philippines was granted under the Treaty of Paris. Presidential Decree 892 not only violated the treaty of Paris but unconstitutional as well, this decree was issued by the dictator at that time hence no legal basis, because it deprives the owner of the land its title without due process of law ,this decree was issued by the late president for selfish motives so that all its political enemies with vast tract of lands under Spanish titles will be deprived of their properties without going through court litigations and therefore violates the very basic rights of the people. The very short six month time given by Marcos to holders of Spanish title to register was designed so that nobody could actually register their title. Even the one hectare lot could not be approved in just six months time how much more if the land is a hudred or thousand hectares. The question of validity of Titulo Propriedad 4136 that was issued on April 25, 1894, after the same has been duly examined and found in order by the Hon. Land Registration Court in its "in rem" proceedings, has become "res judicata". Therefore, the "en banc" Decision of the Honorable Supreme Court, has become “ultra vires” on its part; and, hence, it acquired no jurisdiction on Titulo Prop. 4136. Forcing the issue would result into grave abuse of discretion that would result into lack of jurisdiction. Neither, the Hon. Supreme Court can now Order a new trial to correct its mistake because doing so will result to “double jeopardy” against the judicially confirmed "next of kin” and "true legal heir" of Don Mariano E. San Pedro, Piadeco Thus, how the Hon. Supreme Court speaks with the voice of god, and is infallible, and cannot err. Everything, including its seeming mistake, is part of larger design for the good of all and the country. -- The most logical interpretation of motive in its said controversial 1996 "en banc" Decision is that:--in as much as the land under Titulo Prop. 4136 cannot anymore revert to being “public land” (since the lands under Titulo Propriedad 4136 have since 1894 been owned as private lands, and have actually been registered with the Spanish Mortgage Law, and the Treaty of Paris of 1898; in addition to the fact that it was registered under ACT 496 in 1909 by Don Ignacio Conrado and was issued OCT4136 and most parts of the lands have already been declared “alienable and disposable” by the Bureau of Forestry, and that it has been a time-honored principle that “what has become private land cannot anymore become public (land)”), and since the public-interest nationalist PIADECO has already been prepared and (actually) launched by the judicially confirmed "next of kin” and "true legal heir" of Don Ignacio Conrado (Wilfredo Sumulong Torres)--i.e. which the government branded as large syndicate for they the government was not allowed by Wilfredo Torres to use his legal title to swindle
the people under the guise of the government program such as CMP (community mortgage program)to fool the underprevelige filipino citizens.Further to democratize the base of oligarchic power in the Philippines, assert the interest of the people, and to preempt the lands from getting to fall in the hands of crafty landgrabbers-developers, (and as well as to the false heirs and fraudulent San Pedro claimants),--the Hon. Supreme Court in a stroke of statesmanship, with its mighty pen of activist judicial wisdom, (although not easily understood and particularly discernible to most people), has forever wrote finish to the celebrated San Pedro controversy, (but not without a happy ending, and with ultimate poetic justice dispensed in favor of judicially confirmed "next of kin” and "true legal heir" of Don Mariano E. San Pedro--no other than, Don Ignacio Conrado, he who has become the last "San Pedro Patriarch"). And, thus how our faith in the Hon. Supreme Court has been strengthened even more, but only after we have fully understood the whole intent and ramifications of their 1996 "en banc" Decision on the San Pedro controversy. Indeed, the Hon. Supreme Court dispenses justice to all but ultimately (and mercifully) sides with the disadvantaged people, and that, today, all rejoice because the people themselves will be served and benefited by the dramatic resolution on the ownership of the vast tracts of land in question. On the side of the judicially confirmed next of kin and true legal heirs, we know of the great sacrifices they have made for the country, and they are always like today serving as mere instruments for greater cause and of social justice. It is befitting to remember now that Don Ignacio Conrado died a decent man; he was poor, but he served the country well, during World War II . In the manner of seeking justice from the Courts of law, Don Ignacio Conrado was honest and was above-board in his petitions with the Hon. Courts. Don Ignacio Conrado did not have the advantage of service of top law firms that require high compensation, he signed his own petitions to government, but he had the original and authentic Spanish documents of heirship with Don Mariano E. San Pedro, which he submitted to the Hon. Courts of law, under Judge Pedro Concepcion hues auxillar of Manila—the case being ‘res judicata’ and the truth won the day for him. In regard to the trial on appeal in the Hon. Supreme Court that was initiated by Pedro Ignacio, alias Engracio F. San Pedro, PIADECO being not a party prevy to the case has lauded the decision to finish the controversy of San Pedro Estate being mis represented by Don Engracio San Pedro the pretending heir of Don Mariano San Pedro Esteban. Who is well known of selling the land to innocent buyer. For it is not the program of PIADECO to sell the land but to give the land to the land less under its legal title OCT 4136 a torrens title and not a Spanish Title claim by San Pedro heirs. The ownership of PIADECO was already recognized by the Honorable Supreme Court in 1968 in GR No. L-24796 and therefore ‘res judicata’.Piadeco being the successor in interest of Don Ignacio Conrado who foreclosed the San Pedro Estate in 1904 was the real and lawful owner of the intestate. This was Guaranteed by the government itself when the Central Bank through the Land Bank of the Philippines issued the Capital bonds to San Pedro Estate and its successor Piadeco.
Rewards in the fight against unscrupulous land syndicates and as well as against false heirs and fraudulent claimants. As a result, Don Ignacio Conrado kinship and heirship with Don Mariano San Pedro Y Esteban had been fully established and confirmed. Being the one who foreclosed the San Pedro Estate, Don Ignacio Conrado the lawful owner and its successor Pinagcamaligan Indo Agro Development Corporation(PIADECO) is the legitimate owner of the subject estate under torrens titles OCT 374 and TCT 57 derived from Spanish Title when the said land was registered in 1909 under Act 496 by Don Ignacio Conrado. Wilfredo Torres being the Chairman and President of PIADECO being the defender of the poor against unlawful ejectment and demolition fought the unscrupulous governement officials not with arms but with his legal title to the land in his battle in the court of justice but the poor people who depends on him were many times deprived of their rights by the hoodloms in robe , using the En Banc Decision of the Supreme Court to mislead the justice system .The En Banc Decision of the Supreme Court in 1996 declaring Titulo De Propeidad 4136 as null and void cannot be applied to Torrens title derived from such Spanish Title. In fact its declaration is just moot and academic why ? because Titulo De Propeidad 4136 was already cancelled as early as 1909 by virtue of OCT 374 and TCT no. 57 so that no rights could be derived therefrom because all its rights was already transfered to Torrens title of Don Ignacio Conrado.In the said decision also the Supreme Court declared that proof of compliance with PD 892 is the Certificate of Title which is again moot and academic because certificate of titles were already issued in 1910 out of the Spanish Title 4136, and the Decision of the Supreme court in 1996 cannot defeat the decision of the Land Registration Court in 1909 because those justices that renders the decision were not yet born during that time. Mr. Wilfredo Torres because he was look upon by the poor as Robin Hood the defender of their rights was branded by Mr. Marcos as Land grabber and syndicate which until now was continued by the corrupt government officials in our present time. Final justice is poetic justice. And lastly, since the syndicates and the unscrupulous malefactors of the Titulo Propriedad 4136 have greatly abused and exploited the name of our beloved Don Mariano E. San Pedro, i.e. in amassing hundred thousand hectares, and in adversely occupying vast tracts of land (as inventoried in the 1976 Order of Judge Fernandez), and in the collection of double II plans in the name of Don Conrado Ignacio: it is the stand of this representation and of the Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development Corporation Inc., in regard to ownership of those lands, that: The law on agency holds! And we declare, that, howsoever much they have acquired and however far they have gone to exploit the name of Don Mariano San Pedro, there will we come over to prosecute the interest of the San Pedro estate—which is now owned, administered and held in trust by the Pinagcamaligan Indo Agro Development Corporation. —- Sharing a legacy dedicated to Philippines progress and world understanding .PIADECO whose
program aims for the poor and under privilege filipino citizens to distribute the land to the land less and the land is not for sale but to be given, this is the reason why some of the government officials has tried many times to destroy Wilfredo Torres being the chairman of PIADECO, because many unscrupulous high ranking government officials could not manipulate him to advance their selfish motives to sell the lands at staggering prices to the corrupt developers, And therefore branded him as syndicate just like Mr. Marcos did when Wilfredo Torres refused to sell the San Pedro estate to Marcos in 1968.
_____________
In this connection: the 50,000 has. lands in the provinces of Quezon, Rizal and Laguna could not have been validly acquired by Green Square Properties Corporation from any supposed seller it transacted that only misrepresented the San Pedro estate. (Pls. see G.R. No. 139274, Oct. 2001.) The original Tax Declaration issued in favor of the successors of Don Mariano San Pedro is, and remains, valid. We must bear in mind that such Tax Declaration for the 50,000 has. property in Quezon Rizal and Laguna provinces are in the name of successors of Don Mariano E. San Pedro. They are here alive, judicially confirmed as “next of kin” and “true legal heirs” of Don Mariano, and vested with power to succeed the deceased and to administer the San Pedro estate. Now that the provincial government of Quezon has received mandate from Hon. Supreme Court in refusing to honor tax payments by Green Square, then,--the real, original and legal right and privilege of ownership remain with the said true owners of the property, or of the San Pedro estate,—whose present institutional judicial administrator is the Pinagcamaligan Indo- Agro Development Corporation Inc. The provincial government (in violation of the Constitutional right to property of the judicially confirmed next of kin and true legal heirs of Don Mariano San Pedro) cannot invalidate it now in the aftermath of the criminal sales transactions between said fraudulent parties. The fraudulent alleged-administrator, who is supposedly an officer of the Court, but does not have any legal mandate on record (or whose mandate has expired on the date of salestransaction with Green Square, in August 1996), together with the Hon. Court who approved the transaction, must bear full responsibility of the criminal act of large-scale estafa. (The legal San Pedro estate, much less the Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development Corporation, is innocent and clean on this sales-transaction, they are the victims here, and should not be visited by the consequences of guilt of the fraudulent parties in the said criminal sales-transaction.) For its part, Green Square, a company involved in realty business as it is, if it is not a colluding co-conspirator in the criminal transaction, must have exercised caution and should always bear in mind the adage of “Caveat emptor”, even as (particularly) because of its greed, it chose not to transact with the rightful owner, Don Alejandro P. San Pedro, Sr., who, at the right time, had just been determined as next of kin and true legal heir of
Don Mariano E. San Pedro, in addition to being appointed by the jurisdictional and factfinding Hon. Court as the new Special Administrator of the “estate of Don Mariano E. San Pedro”. [(Pls. see Bulacan RTC, Br. 15, Spec. Proc. Case No. 312-B, Pres. Judge Carlos Ofilada, Court Order, dated Jan. 31, 1996, with bond posted, and issued Letters of Special Administration dated April 15, 1996. Pls. compare said dates with Green Square’s date of fraudulent-acquisition--August 1996, but from one only misrepresenting the legal estate of Don Mariano E. San Pedro.)] Retrieved from

No comments:

Post a Comment