THE TRUE own

Kategorya: Other Iba pang
COPS SAY THEY BUSTED LAND GRABBING SYNDICATE Cops SABIHIN NILA busted LAND daklot Syndicate

By Delfin T. Mallari, Jr. By Delfin T. Mallari, Jr
Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer (8/20/06) Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer (8/20/06)

Lucena City- Police said they busted the operations of a big-time professional land grabbing and squatting syndicate planning to dupe thousands of landless residents in Guinayangan, Quezon, some 255 kms south of Manila. Lucena City-Police sinabi nila busted ang operasyon ng isang malaking-time professional lupain daklot at squatting syndicate pagpaplano upang mandaya libo ng walang lupain residente sa Guinayangan, Quezon, ang ilang mga 255 kms timog ng Manila.

In a report submitted August 12 to the Quezon police headquarters here in Camp Nakar, Insp. Sa isang ulat na isinumite Agosto 12 sa punong himpilan ng Quezon pulis dito sa Camp Nakar, Insp. Moreno Batibot, Guinayangan police chief, identified the syndicate as the Wilfredo Sumulong Torres group, known in national police files as one of the biggest gangs of professional land grabbers in the country. Moreno Batibot, Guinayangan pulis chief, nakilala ang mga sindikato bilang ang Wilfredo group Sumulong Torres, na kilala sa pambansang mga file pulis bilang isa sa mga pinakamalaking gangs ng propesyonal grabbers lupain sa bansa.

Reports said one Andree Lagdameo, owned a parcel of land in the village of Calimpak, filed a complaint at the local police station about unidentified persons who illegally installed several billboards inside her lot. Ulat na sinabi ng isa Andrée Lagdameo, owned ang bahagi ng lupa sa village ng Calimpak, na reklamo sa mga lokal na istasyon ng pulis tungkol sa unidentified tao na bawal ang naka-install ng ilang mga billboard sa loob ng kaniyang pulutong.

Lagdameo presented TCT-T-3020 registered under the name of the late Adela and Aurora Lagdameo as proof that her family owns the piece of property. Lagdameo iniharap TCT-T-3020 na nakarehistro sa ilalim ng pangalan ng huli Adela at Aurora Lagdameo bilang patunay na ang kaniyang pamilya na nagmamay-ari ng mga piraso ng ari-arian.

The billboard reads: “No trespassing Private Property, Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development Corp. (Piadeco), Supreme Court decision in Civil Case No. 3035-M promulgated June 28, 1968.” Ang billboard nagbabasa ng: "No trespassing Private Property, Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development Corp (Piadeco), Korte Suprema ng desisyon sa Civil Case No 3035-M promulgated 28 Hunyo 1968."

Police invited for questioning brothers Jim and Bayani Montalbo, residents of Sariraya, Quezon, who were tagged by residents as the ones who put up the billboards. Police inimbitahan para sa pagtatanong kapatid Jim at Bayani Montalbo, residente ng Sariraya, Quezon, na mga tag ng mga residente bilang ang mga na ilagay up ang mga billboard.

The two introduced themselves as representatives of Piadeco with offices at Rm. Ang dalawang ipinakilala ang kanilang sarili bilang mga kinatawan ng Piadeco na may mga tanggapan sa Rm. 205 Cabrera Bldg. 205 Cabrera Bldg. II No. 64, Timog Ave., Quezon City. II No. 64, timog Ave., Quezon City.

Police said Bayani has also been introducing himself in the area as an official from the Ombudsman's office. Pulis sinabi Bayani ay din ay ipinakikilala ang kanyang sarili sa lugar bilang isang opisyal mula sa Ombudsman's office.

Authorities found that the two have distributed a so-called “Certificate of Occupancy” to at least 7 families residing inside Lagdameo's property in exchange for P2,500 supposedly as processing fee for a home lot. Awtoridad na natagpuan na ang dalawang may ipinamamahagi ng isang tinatawag na "Certificate of pagsaklaw" sa hindi bababa sa 7 mga pamilya na nakatira sa loob Lagdameo ng ari-arian sa exchange para sa P2, 500 kuno bilang processing fee para sa isang pulutong home.

The certificate was signed by Wilfredo Sumulong Torres as Piadeco chair and the Montalbo brothers as area coordinator and control officer. Ang sertipiko pinirmahan ng Wilfredo Sumulong Torres bilang Piadeco upuan at ang kapatid Montalbo bilang area coordinator at control officer.

In a phone interview, Calimpak village chieftain Recy Villanueva also disclosed that Balbino Virtucio, one of her barangay policemen, was also fooled by the syndicate and had already handed more than P100,000 to the Montalbos in exchange for the right to own at least 11 hectares of land in Guinayangan. Sa isang pakikipanayam sa telepono, Calimpak village puno Recy Villanueva din isiwalat na Balbino Virtucio, isa sa kanyang mga barangay pulis, ay din ng fooled sa pamamagitan ng mga sindikato at nagkaroon na ipinasa higit sa P100, 000 sa mga Montalbos sa exchange para sa mga karapatan sa sariling hindi bababa sa 11 ektarya ng lupain sa Guinayangan.

Reports said the Montalbos claimed that the entire Guinayangan town, which has a total land area of 22,800 hectares, is part of the huge property of Piadeco under an ancient title. Ulat sinabi ang Montalbos inaangkin na ang buong bayan ng Guinayangan, kung saan ay may isang kabuuang area ng lupa 22,800 hectares, ay bahagi ng malaking ari-arian ng Piadeco sa ilalim ng isang sinaunang title.

Police said the two vouched for the legality of the Spanish title based on the alleged Supreme Court decision on June 28, 1968. Pulis sinabi ang dalawang vouched para sa legalidad ng mga Espanyol title batay sa umano'y desisyon ng Korte Suprema sa 28 Hunyo 1968.

However, Lagdameo, who has been helping police gather evidence against the syndicate, managed to secure a certified photocopy of a Supreme Court decision on December 18, 1996 that had declared “Titulo de Propriedad Nos. 4136” as “null and void.” Gayunman, Lagdameo, na ay pagtulong sa pulis magtipon ng ebidensiya laban sa mga sindikato, pinamamahalaang sa mga secure na ng isang sertipikadong kopya ng isang desisyon ng Korte Suprema sa Disyembre 18, 1996 na ay ipinahayag "Titulo de Propriedad Blg 4136" bilang "halaga at walang bisa."

Lagdameo also found that Piadeco was not a listed company at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Lagdameo din natagpuan na Piadeco ay hindi nakalista sa isang kumpanya sa Securities at Exchange Commission.

“We believe that we have successfully foiled the plan of the syndicate to deceive thousands of unwary landless residents of Guinayangan, “ Batibot said. "Naniniwala kami na kami ay matagumpay foiled ang plano ng mga sindikato upang linlangin libo ng mga palagay na loob walang lupain residente ng Guinayangan," Batibot sinabi.

He said they were forced to release the Montalbo brothers due to the absence of criminal charges against the two. Sinabi niya sila ay sapilitang upang pakawalan ang mga kapatid Montalbo dahil sa kawalan ng mga kriminal na mga singil na laban sa dalawa.

Lagdameo said she also reported the case to the Camp Crame-based Anti-Squatting Task Force and the HUDCC for proper action against the syndicate. Lagdameo sinabi siya din iniulat na ang kaso sa Camp Crame-based Anti-squatting Task Force at ang HUDCC para sa tamang pagkilos laban sa mga sindikato.

It was learned that Torres is also allegedly the subject of a police investigation over charges of large-scale estafa and land grabbing involving huge tracts of land in the provinces of Bulacan and Rizal. Ito ay natutunan na Torres ay din umano ang paksa ng isang pulis imbestigasyon sa singil ng mga malalaking-scale estafa at lupa daklot kinasasangkutan malaking tracts ng lupa sa mga lalawigan ng Bulacan at Rizal.
0 comments share 0 comments share


(ito po ay isang malaking kasinungalingan dahil noong 1996 engracio san pedro ang desisiyon hindi po piadeco ang nadesisyunan, magkaiba po ang hawak ng PIADECO at engracio claimants,,)))



Republika ng Pilipinas
SUPREME COURT Korte Suprema
Manila Maynila

EN BANC En banc

[ [ GR No. 103727. GR No. 103727. December 18, 1996] Disyembre 18, 1996]

INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE DON MARIANO SAN PEDRO Y ESTEBAN, represented by its HEIR-JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR, ENGRACIO F. SAN PEDRO, petitioner-appellant, vs . COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), AURELIO OCAMPO, DOMINADOR D. BUHAIN, TERESA C. DELA CRUZ, respondents-appellees . Testamento ESTATE ng huli Don Mariano San Pedro Y Esteban, na kinakatawan ng kanyang tagapagmana-panghukuman administrator, ENGRACIO F. San Pedro, mampepetisyon-appellant, vs. Hukuman sa paghahabol (Second Division), Aurelio OCAMPO, Dominador D. BUHAIN, Teresa C . Dela Cruz, respondents-appellees.

[ [ GR No. 106496. GR No. 106496. December 18, 1996] Disyembre 18, 1996]

ENGRACIO SAN PEDRO, CANDIDO GENER, ROSA PANTALEON, VICENTE PANTALEON, ELEUTERIO PANTALEON, TRINIDAD SAN PEDRO, RODRIGO SAN PEDRO, RICARDO NICOLAS, FELISA NICOLAS, and LEONA SAN PEDRO, Petitioners, vs . THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, (Sixteenth Division) and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, . ENGRACIO San Pedro, Candido Gener, Rosa PANTALEON, Vicente PANTALEON, Eleuterio PANTALEON, TRINIDAD San Pedro, Rodrigo San Pedro, Ricardo Nicolas, FELISA Nicolas, at Leona San Pedro, Petitioners, vs. Ang marangal na hukuman sa paghahabol, (panlabing-anim Division) at REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS,.

DECISION DESISYON

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J .: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary HERMOSISIMA, JR..,: J chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The most fantastic land claim in the history of the Philippines is the subject of controversy in these two consolidated cases. Ang pinaka-fantastic claim lupain sa kasaysayan ng Pilipinas ay ang paksa ng kontrobersiya sa mga ito ng dalawang pinagsama-kaso. 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 ," [1] on the basis of a Spanish title, entitled "Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136" dated April 25, 1894. Ang mga tagapagmana ng huli Mariano San Pedro y Esteban inilatag claim at ay pagtula claim sa pagmamay-ari ng, laban sa ikatlong tao at ang Pamahalaan ng kanyang sarili, ng isang kabuuang area lupain ng tinatayang 173,000 hectares o "214,047 quiniones," [1] sa ang batayan ng isang Espanyol pamagat, may karapatan "Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136" petsang 25 Abril 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. [2] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang claim, ayon sa San Pedro tagapagmana, ay lilitaw sa pabalat makakarating sa mga probinsya ng Nueva Ecija, Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna at Quezon; at tulad ng Metro Manila lungsod bilang Quezon City, Caloocan City, Pasay City, Lungsod ng Pasig at Lungsod ng Manila, ganito ang nakakaapekto sa pangkalahatang makakarating ang pagpapalawak mula sa Malolos, Bulacan sa City Hall ng Quezon City at ang lupa na lugar sa pagitan ng Dingalan Bay sa hilaga at Tayabas Bay sa timog. [2] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Considering the vastness of the land claim, innumerable disputes cropped up and land swindles and rackets proliferated resulting in tedious litigation in various trial courts, in the appellate court and in the Supreme Court, [3] in connection therewith. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Isinasaalang-alang ang kalakhan ng mga lupain claim, di mabilang na mga alitan crop up at lupain at swindles rackets proliferated nagreresulta sa litigasyon nakakapagod sa iba't ibang korte trial, sa mga hukuman sa paghahabol at sa Korte Suprema, [3] sa koneksyon niyon. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We have had the impression that our decisions in Director of Forestry, et al. Kami ay nagkaroon ng impression ang na ang aming desisyon sa Director ng gugubat, et al. v. Muoz , 23 SCRA 1183 [1968]; Antonio, et al. v. Muoz, 23 SCRA 1183 [1968]; Antonio, et al. v. Barroga, et al ., 23 SCRA 357 [1968]; Carabot, et al. v. Barroga, et al;., 23 SCRA 357 [1968] Carabot, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al ., 145 SCRA 368 [1986]; Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 186 SCRA 88 [1990]; Widows and Orphans Association, Inc. (WIDORA) v. Court of Appeals, et al ., 212 SCRA 360 [1992]; NAPOCOR v. Court of Appeals, et al ., 144 SCRA 318 [1986]; Republic v. Court of Appeals, et al ., 135 SCRA 156 [1985]; and Director of Lands v. Tesalona , 236 SCRA 336 [1994] [4] terminated the controversy as to ownership of lands covered by Spanish Land Titles, for it is the rule that, once this Court, as the highest Tribunal of the land, has spoken, there the matter must rest: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary v. Court of Appeals, et al;., 145 SCRA 368 [1986] v. Intermediate hukuman sa paghahabol, et al. Republic, 186 SCRA 88 [1990]; balo at mga ulila Association, Inc (WIDORA) v. Court of Appeals , et al;., 212 SCRA 360 [1992] NAPOCOR v. Court of Appeals, et al;., 144 SCRA 318 [1986] Republic v. Court of Appeals, et al;., 135 SCRA 156 [1985] at ang Director ng Lands v. Tesalona, 236 SCRA 336 [1994] [4] terminate ang kontrobersiya bilang sa pagmamay-ari ng mga lupain na sakop ng mga Espanyol Land Titles, para sa mga ito ay ang mga tuntunin na, sa sandaling ito Court, bilang ang pinakamataas na hukuman ng lupain, ay ginagamit sa , may bagay na ang dapat magpahinga: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"It is withal of the essence of the judicial function that at some point, litigation must end. Hence, after the procedures and processes for lawsuits have been undergone, and the modes of review set by law have been exhausted, or terminated, no further ventilation of the same subject matter is allowed. To be sure, there may be, on the part of the losing parties, continuing disagreement with the verdict, and the conclusions therein embodied. This is of no moment, indeed, is to be expected; but, it is not their will, but the Courts, which must prevail; and, to repeat, public policy demands that at some definite time, the issues must be laid to rest and the courts dispositions thereon accorded absolute finality." [5] [Cited cases omitted] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "Ito ay kalakip ng mga kakanyahan ng mga panghukuman ang tungkulin na sa ilang point, litigasyon dapat magtapos. Kaya, ayon sa mga pamamaraan at mga proseso para sa lawsuits ay undergone, at ang mga mode ng pagsusuri na itinakda ng batas ay ubos na, o tinapos, walang karagdagang bentilasyon ng parehong paksa ay pinapayagan na. Upang maging sigurado, maaaring may, sa bahagi ng ang pagkawala ng mga partido, patuloy na hindi pagkakasundo sa ang hatol, at ang pagpapalagay doon inaasahan katawanin. Ito ay walang sandali, sa katunayan, ay upang; ngunit, ito ay hindi ang kanilang ay, ngunit ang mga Hukuman, na dapat manaig; at, upang ulitin, pampublikong patakaran pangangailangan na sa ilang tiyak na panahon, ang mga isyu ay dapat na inilatag sa pamamahinga at sa korte kaayusan ng mga kawal doon ibinibigay absolute kawakasan ". [5] [Nabanggit kaso tinanggal] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

It is, therefore, to the best interest of the people and the Government that we render judgment herein writing finis to these controversies by laying to rest the issue of validity of the basis of the estates claim of ownership over this vast expanse of real property. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ito ay, samakatuwid, na ang pinakamahusay na interes ng mga tao at ang Pamahalaan na namin render paghatol dito pagsulat finis sa mga kontrobersyang sa pamamagitan ng paglalagay sa pamamahinga sa isyu ng bisa ng mga batayan ng mga Estates claim ng pagmamay-ari ng higit sa ito malawak na kalawakan ng tunay na ari-arian. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The following facts are pertinent in the resolution of these long drawn-out cases: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang mga sumusunod na mga katotohanan ay may kinalaman sa ang resolution ng mga pang-out kaso inilabas: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

GR NO. GR NO. 103727 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 103727 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

GR No. 103727, an appeal by certiorari , arose out of a complaint [6] for recovery of possession and/or damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. This was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 104, Quezon City in its decision [7] dated GR No. 103727, isang apila sa pamamagitan ng certiorari, tumindig sa isang reklamo [6] para sa pagbawi ng pag-aari at / o pinsala na may isang dasal para sa isang kasulatan ng paunang atas. Ito ay awas sa pamamagitan ng Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 104, Quezon City sa desisyon nito [7] petsang July 7, 1989, the dispositive portion [8] of which reads: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Hulyo 7, 1989, ang dispositive bahagi [8] na ng nagbabasa: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, dismissing the complaint against the defendants Aurelio Ocampo, Dominador Buhain and Teresa dela Cruz and ordering plaintiff to pay each of the herein defendants, the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS ( P 5,000.00) as and for attorneys fees, and to pay the costs of suit." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "Anong dahilan, hatol ay nai-render sa pamamagitan nito, pagpapaalis ng reklamo laban sa mga defendants Aurelio Ocampo, Dominador Buhain at Teresa dela Cruz at order ng nagsasakdal sa magbayad bawat isa sa mga defendants dito, ang kabuuan ng LIMANG LIBONG PESOS (P 5,000.00) at bilang para sa bayad sa abogado, at bayaran ang mga gastos ng suit. "chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The said complaint for recovery of possession of real property and/or reconveyance with damages and with a prayer for preliminary injunction was filed on August 15, 1988 by Engracio San Pedro as heir-judicial administrator of the "Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban" against Jose G. De Ocampo, Aurelio Ocampo, MARECO, Inc., Rey Antonio Noguera, Teresa C. dela Cruz, Gaudencio R. Soliven, Diomedes Millan, Carmen Rayasco, Dominador D. Ang sinabi ng reklamo para sa pagbawi ng pagkakaroon ng tunay na ari-arian at / o reconveyance sa mga pinsala at sa isang panalangin para sa paunang atas ay iniharap sa 15 Agosto 1988 by Engracio San Pedro bilang tagapagmana-panghukuman administrator ng "testamento Estate ng Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban "laban sa Jose G. De Ocampo, Aurelio Ocampo, MARECO, Inc, Rey Antonio Noguera, Teresa C. dela Cruz, Gaudencio R. Soliven, Diomedes Millan, Carmen Rayasco, Dominador D. Buhain, Mario D. Buhain, Jose D. Buhain, Arestedes S. Cauntay, Manuel Chung and Victoria Chung Tiu (El Mavic Investment & Development Corporation), Capitol Hills Realty Corporation and Jose F. Castro. Buhain, Mario D. Buhain, Jose D. Buhain, Arestedes S. Cauntay, Manuel Chung at Victoria Chung Tiu (El Mavic Investment & Development Corporation), Capitol Hills Realty Corporation at Jose F. Castro. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-88-447 in Branch 104, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang reklamo ay docketed bilang Civil Case No Q-88-447 sa Branch 104, Regional Trial Court ng Quezon City. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In the complaint, it was alleged, among others: (1) that Engracio San Pedro discovered that the aforenamed defendants were able to secure from the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City titles to portions of the subject estate, particularly Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 1386, 8982, 951975-951977, 313624, 279067, 1412, 353054, 372592, 149120, 86404, 17874-17875, all emanating from Original Certificate of Title No. 614 [9] and Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 255544 and 264124, both derivatives of Original Certificate of Title No. 333; (2) that the aforesaid defendants were able to acquire exclusive ownership and possession of certain portions of the subject estate in their names through deceit, fraud, bad faith and misrepresentation; (3) that Original Certificates of Title Nos. 614 and 333 had been cancelled by and through a final and executory decision dated March 21, 1988 in relation to letter recommendations by the Bureau of Lands, Bureau of Forest Development and the Office of the Solicitor General and also in relation to Central Bank Circulars dated April 7, 1971, April 23, 1971, September 12, 1972 and June 10, 1980; and (4) that the issue of the existence, validity and genuineness of Titulo Propriedad No. 4136 dated April 25, 1894 which covers the subject estate had been resolved in favor of the petitioner estate in a decision dated April 25, 1978 by the defunct Court of First Instance, Branch 1 of Baliwag, Bulacan pertaining to a case docketed as Special Proceeding No. 312-B. [10] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa reklamo, ito ay di-umano'y, bukod sa iba: (1) na Engracio San Pedro natuklasan na ang mga tinuran defendants ay able sa mga secure na mula sa Talaan ng mga gawa ng Quezon City mga pamagat sa mga bahagi ng mga paksa estate, lalo Transfer Certificates of Title Blg 1386, 8982, 951,975-951,977, 313624, 279067, 1412, 353054, 372592, 149120, 86404, 17874-17875, lahat nanggagaling Original Certificate of Title No 614 [9] at Transfer Certificates of Title Blg 255544 at 264124, parehong derivatives ng Original Certificate of Title No 333; (2) na ang nasabing defendants ay able sa kumuha ng eksklusibong pagmamay-ari at ari ng mga tiyak na mga bahagi ng mga paksa estate sa kanilang mga pangalan sa pamamagitan ng panlilinlang, pandaraya, masamang pananampalataya at pagsisinungaling; (3) na Orihinal na sertipiko ng Title Blg 614 at 333 ay kinansela ng at sa pamamagitan ng isang pangwakas na at executory desisyon petsang Marso 21, 1988 kaugnay sa rekomendasyon sulat ng Bureau of Lands, Bureau of Forest Development at sa Opisina ng abogado General at din sa kaugnay sa Central Bank Circulars petsang Abril 7, 1971, Apr 23, 1971, 12 Set 1972 at Hunyo 10, 1980; at (4) na ang mga isyu ng, bisa buhay at katapatan ng Titulo Propriedad No. 4136 petsang Abril 25, 1894 na sakop ang paksa estate ay nalutas na pabor sa estate mampepetisyon sa isang desisyon petsang 25 Abril 1978 sa pamamagitan ng wala na hukumang unang dulugan, Branch 1 ng Baliwag, Bulacan nauukol sa isang kaso docketed bilang Special magpatuloy No. 312-B . [10] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Summons were served on only five of the aforementioned defendants, namely, Aurelio Ocampo, MARECO, Inc., Teresita G. dela Cruz, Dominador Buhain and Manuel Chung and Victoria Chung Tiu. [11] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Patawag ay nagsilbi lamang sa limang ng mga nabanggit defendants, namely, Aurelio Ocampo, MARECO, Inc, Teresita G. dela Cruz, Dominador Buhain at Manuel Chung at Victoria Chung Tiu. [11] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On February 7, 1989, the lower court ordered the dismissal of the complaint against Mareco, Inc. for improper service of summons and against Manuel Chung and Victoria Chung Tiu for lack of cause of action considering that the registered owner of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 86404 is El Mavic Investment and Development Co., Inc., not Manuel Chung and Victoria Chung Tiu. [12] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa Pebrero 7, 1989, ang mas mababang hukuman iniutos ang pagpapaalis ng mga reklamo laban sa Mareco, Inc sa di-wastong serbisyo ng sitasyon at laban sa Manuel Chung at Victoria Chung Tiu para sa kakulangan ng mga sanhi ng pagkilos na isinasaalang-alang ang rehistradong may-ari ng mga parsela ng lupa na sakop sa pamamagitan ng TCT No 86404 ay El Mavic at Investment Development Co, Inc, hindi Manuel Chung at Victoria Chung Tiu. [12] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Trial on the merits proceeded against the private respondents Ocampo, Buhain and Dela Cruz. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Pagsubok sa mga katangian pumunta na laban sa mga pribadong respondents Ocampo, Buhain at Dela Cruz. Chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On July 7, 1989, the lower court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint based on the following grounds: (a) Ocampo, Buhain and Dela Cruz are already the registered owners of the parcels of land covered by Torrens titles which cannot be defeated by the alleged Spanish title, Titulo Propriedad No. 4136, covering the subject estate; and (b) the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of the late Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban" specifically stated in its dispositive portion that all lands which have already been legally and validly titled under the Torrens system by private persons shall be excluded from the coverage of Titulo Propriedad No. 4136. [13] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa Hulyo 7, 1989, ang mas mababang hukuman nai-render na paghuhusga pagpapaalis ng reklamo batay sa mga sumusunod bakuran: (a) Ocampo, Buhain at Dela Cruz ay na ang rehistradong may-ari ng mga parsela ng lupa na sakop ng Torrens mga pamagat na kung saan ay hindi maaaring toto sa pamamagitan ng mga umano'y Espanyol title, Titulo Propriedad No. 4136, na sumasakop sa mga paksa estate; at (b) ang desisyon ng hukumang unang dulugan ng Bulacan na pinamagatang "Sa Matter ng testamento Estate ng huli Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban" na partikular na nakasaad sa ang dispositive bahagi na lahat ng lupain na may na legal at validly may pamagat na sa ilalim ng sistema ng Torrens pamamagitan ng mga pribadong tao ay ibinukod mula sa coverage ng Titulo Propriedad No. 4136. [13] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The motion for reconsideration thereof was denied, [14] and so, the petitioner estate interposed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. Ang mosyon para sa muling pagsasaalang-alang nito ay tinanggihan, [14] at sa gayon, ang mampepetisyon estate interposed isang apila sa Korte ng Appeals. On Sa January 20, 1992, the appeal was dismissed [15] for being unmeritorious and the lower courts decision was affirmed with costs against the petitioner estate. 20 Enero 1992, ang apila ay awas [15] para sa pagiging unmeritorious at ang mas mababang hukuman desisyon ay pinagtibay sa mga gastos sa laban sa mga mampepetisyon estate. The appellate court ratiocinated: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang mga hukuman sa paghahabol ratiocinated: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(1) neither the Titulo Propriedad No. 4136 nor a genuine copy thereof was presented in the proceeding below; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) kahit ang Titulo Propriedad No. 4136 ni isang tunay na kopya nito ay iniharap sa paglilitis sa ibaba; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(2) the illegible copy of the Titulo presented in court was not registered under the Torrens System hence, it cannot be used as evidence of land ownership; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (2) hindi mabasa ang kopya ng Titulo iniharap sa hukuman ay hindi nakarehistro sa ilalim ng Torrens System kaya, maaaring hindi ito ay maaaring gamitin bilang ebidensiya ng pagmamay-ari ng lupain; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(3) the CFI decision invoked by petitioner estate in its favor expressly excluded from the Titulo titled lands of private individuals; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (3) ang CFI desisyon mahihingi sa pamamagitan ng mampepetisyon estate sa kanyang pabor hayagang ibinukod mula sa Titulo na may pamagat na mga lupain ng mga pribadong indibidwal; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(4) the Titulo is inferior to that of the registered titles of Ocampo, Buhain and Dela Cruz as correctly ruled by the lower court; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (4) ang Titulo ay mababa kaysa sa na ng mga rehistradong mga pamagat ng Ocampo, Buhain at Dela Cruz bilang tama pinasiyahan sa pamamagitan ng mas mababang hukuman; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(5) there is no evidence showing that OCT No. 614 from which titles of Ocampo, Buhain and Dela Cruz originated was already cancelled, hence, the lower court did not err in not declaring the same as null and void. [16] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (5) walang ebidensiya na nagpapakita na ang Oktubre No. 614 mula sa na mga pamagat ng Ocampo, Buhain at Dela Cruz ng buhat ay mayroon na kinansela, kaya, ang mas mababang hukuman ay hindi magkamali sa hindi magpahayag ang parehong bilang halaga at walang bisa. [16] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Not having obtained a favorable judgment on appeal, the petitioner estate, on March 16, 1992, filed the present petition [17] docketed as GR No. 103727. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Hindi pagkakaroon na nakuha ng isang kanais-nais na paghatol sa apila, ang mampepetisyon estate, sa Marso 16, 1992, na isinampa sa kasalukuyan petisyon [17] docketed bilang GR No. 103727. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

GR NO. GR NO. 106496 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 106496 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

GR No. 106496, a petition for review on certiorari , began as a petition [18] for letters of administration over the intestate estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban which eventually resulted to an Order [19] dated November 17, 1978 declaring inter alia , Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 as null and void and of no legal force and effect. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary GR No. 106,496, isang petisyon para sa pagsusuri sa certiorari, nagsimula bilang isang petisyon [18] para sa mga titik ng pangangasiwa sa mga testamento estate ng huli Mariano San Pedro y Esteban na sa huli nagresulta sa isang Order [19] petsang Nobyembre 17, 1978 magpahayag inter alia, Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 bilang halaga at walang bisa at walang legal na puwersa at epekto. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The dispositive portion [20] of the said Order reads: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang dispositive bahagi [20] ng mga sinabi Order nagbabasa: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, this Court so orders that: "Anong dahilan, ito Court kaya order na:

1) The Decision dated April 25, 1978 is reconsidered and set aside. 1) Ang Desisyon petsang Abril 25, 1978 ay muling maisaalang-alang at itabi.

2) Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 is declared null and void and of no legal force and effect and that therefore no rights could be derived therefrom. 2) Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 ay ipinahayag ng halaga at walang bisa at walang legal na puwersa at epekto at na kaya't walang karapatan ay maaaring nagmula rito.

3) All orders approving the sales, conveyances, donations or any other transactions involving the lands covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 are declared invalidated, void and of no force and effect. 3) Lahat ng mga order na pumapayag na ang mga benta, conveyances, donasyon o anumang iba pang transaksyon na kinasasangkutan ng mga lupain na sakop ng Titulo Propriedad No. de 4136 ay ipinahayag invalidated, walang bisa at ng walang puwersa at epekto.

4) All lands covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4) Ang lahat ng mga lupain na sakop ng Titulo de Propriedad Hindi. 4136 are excluded from the inventory of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. 4136 ay ibinukod mula sa imbentaryo ng ari-arian ng huli Mariano San Pedro y Esteban.

5) The heirs, agents, privies or anyone acting for and in behalf of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban are enjoined from representing or exercising any acts of possession or ownership or from disposing in any manner portions of all the lands covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 and to immediately vacate the same. 5) Ang mga tagapagmana, mga ahente, privies o sinumang kumikilos para sa at sa ngalan ng estate ng huli Mariano San Pedro y Esteban ay nagguhit mula kumakatawan o ehersisyo anumang gawa ni aari o pagmamay-ari o mula sa pagtatapon sa anumang bahagi ng uri ng lahat ng mga lupain sakop sa pamamagitan ng Titulo Propriedad No. de 4136 at agad na lisanin ang parehong.

6) Engracio San Pedro and Justino Benito as co-administrators submit in Court within twenty days their final accounting and inventory of all real and personal properties of the estate which had come into their possession or knowledge under oath. 6) Engracio San Pedro at Justino Benito bilang co-administrator isumite sa Korte sa loob ng dalawampung araw ng kanilang huling accounting at imbentaryo ng lahat ng tunay at personal na katangian ng mga estate na kung saan ay dumating sa kanilang mga ari o kaalaman sa ilalim ng panunumpa.

7) This case is hereby re-opened, to allow movants-intervenors to continue with the presentation of their evidence in order to rest their case. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 7) kaso na ito ay sa pamamagitan nito muling nagbukas, upang payagan movants-intervenors upang magpatuloy sa ang pagtatanghal ng kanilang mga katibayan upang magpahinga ang kanilang kaso. Chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The consideration and approval of the administrators final accounting and inventory of the presentation of movants-intervenors evidence as well as the consideration of all other incidents are hereby set on December 22, 1978 at 8:30 am" chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang pagsasaalang-alang at approval ng mga administrador ng final accounting at imbentaryo ng pagtatanghal ng movants-intervenors ebidensiya pati na rin ang pagsasaalang-alang ng lahat ng iba pang mga insidente ay pinapawalang set sa Disyembre 22, 1978 sa 8:30 "chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The aforementioned petition for letters of administration over the intestate estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban was filed on December 29, 1971 with the defunct Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Fifth Judicial District, Branch IV, Baliuag, Bulacan. The petition docketed as Sp. Ang nabanggit na petisyon para sa mga titik ng pangangasiwa sa mga testamento estate ng huli Mariano San Pedro y Esteban ay iniharap sa Disyembre 29, 1971 sa mga wala na hukumang unang dulugan ng Bulacan, Fifth Judicial District, Branch IV, Baliuag, Bulacan. Petisyon Ang docketed bilang Sp. Proc. Proc. No. 312-B was initiated by Engracio San Pedro and Justino Z. Benito who sought to be appointed as administrator and co-administrator, respectively. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary No. 312-B ay sinimulan sa pamamagitan ng Engracio San Pedro at Justino Z. Benito na hinahangad na maging itinalaga bilang administrator at co-administrator, ayon sa pagkakabanggit. Chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On February 29, 1972, after the jurisdictional facts were established, evidence for the petitioners was received by the lower court without any opposition. [21] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa Pebrero 29, 1972, matapos ang hurisdiksiyunal mga katotohanan ay itinatag, katibayan para sa petitioners ay natanggap sa pamamagitan ng mas mababang hukuman nang walang anumang oposisyon. [21] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On March 2, 1972, then Presiding Judge Juan F. Echiverri issued an Order appointing Engracio San Pedro as Administrator of the subject estate. [22] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary On Mar 2, 1972, pagkatapos ay presiding Judge Juan F. Echiverri na inisyu ng isang order ng paghirang Engracio San Pedro bilang Administrator ng paksa estate. [22] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On March 11, 1972, the Court issued letters of administration in favor of Engracio San Pedro upon posting of a bond in the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos ( P 10,000.00). [23] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary On Mar 11, 1972, ang Korte na inisyu titik ng administrasyon sa pabor ng Engracio San Pedro sa pag-post ng isang bono sa ang kabuuan ng Sampung Libong Piso (P 10,000.00). [23] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On February 7, 1974, Administrator Engracio San Pedro was ordered to furnish copies of the letters of administration and other pertinent orders approving certain dispositions of the properties of the estate to the following entities: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa Pebrero 7, 1974, Administrator Engracio San Pedro ay iniutos na maglagay ng muwebles ang mga kopya ng sulat ng administrasyon at iba pang kaukulang order pumapayag na tiyak na kaayusan ng mga kawal ng mga properties ng mga estate sa sumusunod na mga nilalang: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) The Commanding General chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (A) Ang Pangkalahatang chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary namumuno

Philippine Constabulary chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Philippine konstabularyo chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Camp Crame, Quezon City chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Camp Crame, Quezon City chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(b) The Solicitor General chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (B) Ang Pangkalahatang chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary abogado

Manila chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Manila chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(c) The Government Corporate Counsel chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (C) Ang Pamahalaan Corporate Counsel chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A. Mabini St., Manila chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary A. Mabini St, Manila chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(d) The City Mayors of Quezon City & Caloocan chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (D) Ang mga City Mayors ng Quezon City & Caloocan chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(e) The Governors of Rizal, Quezon and Bulacan chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (E) Ang mga gobernador ng Rizal, Quezon at Bulacan chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(f) The City Treasurers of Quezon City and chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (F) Ang City tipiganan sa Quezon City at chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Caloocan chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Caloocan chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(g) The Provincial Treasurers of Quezon, Bulacan chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (G) Ang Provincial tipiganan ng Quezon, Bulacan chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

and Rizal chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary at Rizal chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(h) The PHHC, Diliman, Quezon City chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (H) Ang PHHC, Diliman, Quezon City chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(i) The PAHRRA Quezon Boulevard, Quezon City chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (I) Ang PAHRRA Quezon Boulevard, Quezon City chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(j) The Municipal Treasurers of the various chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (J) Ang Municipal tipiganan sa mga iba't ibang chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

municipalities in which properties of the estate are chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary munisipyo kung saan ang mga katangian ng mga estate ay chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

located; and chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary matatagpuan; at chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(k) Office of Civil Relations, Camp Crame, Quezon chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (K) Office of Civil Relations, Camp Crame, Quezon chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

City and Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City. [24] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary City at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City. [24] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The above Order was issued so as to protect the general public from any confusion brought about by various persons who had been misrepresenting themselves as having been legally authorized to act for the subject estate and to sell its properties by virtue thereof. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang itaas Order ay inisyu upang protektahan ang pangkalahatang publiko sa anumang pagkalito nagdala tungkol sa pamamagitan ng iba't-ibang mga tao na ay misrepresenting ang kanilang sarili bilang pagkakaroon ng legal na ay awtorisado upang kumilos para sa mga paksa ng ari-arian at sa nagbebenta ng kanyang mga katangian sa pamamagitan ng kabanalan nito. Chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On August 30, 1976, a Motion for Intervention and an Opposition to the Petition was filed by the Republic of the Philippines alleging, inter alia : Sa 30 Agosto 1976, isang Motion para sa Intervention at isang pagsalungat sa mga petisyon ay iniharap sa pamamagitan ng Republika ng Pilipinas alleging, inter alia:

"4. That under Presidential Decree No. 892, dated February 16, 1976, Spanish titles like the TITULO is absolutely inadmissible and ineffective as proof of ownership in court proceedings, except where the holder thereof applies for land registration under Act 496, which is not true in the proceedings at bar; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "4. Na sa ilalim ng Presidential Decree No 892, may petsang Pebrero 16, 1976, Espanyol pamagat tulad ng Titulo ay ganap na hindi tinatagusan at hindi epektibo bilang katibayan ng pagmamay-ari sa hukuman ng pagdinig, maliban kung saan may hawak nito ay naaangkop para sa lupain registration sa ilalim ng Act 496, na kung saan ay hindi totoo sa mga pagdinig sa bar; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"5. That no less than the Supreme Court had declared TITULO DE PROPIEDAD NO. 4136 as invalid; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 5. "Na walang mas mababa kaysa sa Korte Suprema ay ipinahayag Titulo DE PROPIEDAD NO;. 4136 bilang hindi wasto chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"6. That, moreover, the late Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban and/or his supposed heirs have lost whatever rights of ownership they might have had to the so-called Estate on the ground of inaction, laches and/or prescription; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "6;. Na, bukod dito, ang huli Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban at / o ang kanyang mga tagapagmana dapat may nawala kahit anong karapatan ng pagmamay-ari sila ay maaaring may had sa mga tinatawag Estate sa lupa ng hindi pagkilos, laches at / o reseta chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"7. That, accordingly, there is no estate or property to be administered for purposes of inventory, settlement or distribution in accordance with law, and all the inventories so far submitted, insofar as they embraced lands within the TITULO, are deemed ineffective and cannot be legally considered; and chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "7. Na, nang naaayon, walang estate o ari-arian na ibinibigay para sa mga layunin ng imbentaryo, kasunduan o pamamahagi ng ayon sa batas, at ang lahat ng mga inventories upang malayo isinumite, insofar bilang sila niyakap makakarating sa loob ng Titulo, ay itinuturing na hindi epektibo at hindi maaaring legal na itinuturing; at chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"8. That the Republic of the Philippines has a legal interest in the land subject matter of the petition considering that, except such portions thereof had been (sic) already the subject of valid adjudication or disposition in accordance with law, the same belong in State ownership." [25] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "8. Na ang Republika ng Pilipinas ay isang legal na interes sa mga paksa lupain ng mga petisyon alang na, maliban sa naturang mga bahagi nito ay (tama) na ang paksa ng wastong adjudication o disposisyon ng ayon sa batas, ang parehong nabibilang sa estado ang pagmamay-ari. " [25] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On February 15, 1977, the Republic filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings. [26] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa Pebrero 15, 1977, ang Republika file ng Motion sa Suspindihin Pamamaraan. [26] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On February 16, 1977, the Republics Opposition to the Petition for Letters of Administration was dismissed by means of the following Order issued by Judge Benigno Puno: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa Pebrero 16, 1977, ang republics pagsalungat sa Petisyon para Sulat ng Administration ay awas sa pamamagitan ng mga sumusunod na Order na inisyu ni Judge Benigno Puno: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, for lack of jurisdiction to determine the legal issues raised, the Court hereby DISMISSES the Opposition dated August 30, 1976, filed by the Office of the Solicitor General; likewise, for lack of merit, the Motion to Suspend Proceedings dated February 15, 1977, filed by the Office of the Solicitor General is DENIED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "Anong dahilan, para sa kakulangan ng jurisdiction upang matukoy ang mga legal na isyu itataas, ang Hukuman dismisses pamamagitan nito ang pagsalungat petsang Agosto 30, 1976, na isinampa ng Opisina ng abogado General: gayon din, para sa kakulangan ng merito, ang Motion sa Suspindihin Pamamaraan petsang Pebrero 15 , 1977, na isinampa ng Opisina ng abogado General ay tinanggihan. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The administrator Engracio San Pedro and the co-administrator Justino Z. Benito are ordered to furnish the office of the Solicitor General all copies of inventories already filed in Court within ten (10) days from notice hereof." [27] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang mga administrator Engracio San Pedro at ang mga co-administrator Justino Z. Benito ay iniutos na maglagay ng muwebles sa opisina ng abogado General lahat ng kopya ng inventories na isinampa sa Hukuman sa loob ng sampung (10) araw mula sa abiso ukol dito. " [27] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On March 9, 1977, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the Republic. [28] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary On Mar 9, 1977, ng isang mosyon para sa muling pagsasaalang-alang ay iniharap sa pamamagitan ng Republika. [28] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On April 25, 1978, the lower court then presided over by Judge Agustin C. Bagasao, rendered a 52-page decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary On Apr 25, 1978, ang mas mababang hukuman pagkatapos ay presided sa ibabaw ni Judge Agustin C. Bagasao, nai-render ang isang 52-pahinang desisyon, ang dispositive bahagi ng na nagbabasa: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "Anong dahilan, hatol ay nai-render sa pamamagitan nito: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) Declaring the existence, genuineness and authenticity of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, issued on April 29, 1984, in the name of the deceased Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, covering a total area of approximately 214,047 quiniones or 173,000 hectares, situated in the Provinces of Bulacan, Rizal, Quezon, Quezon City and Caloocan City; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (A) pagdeklara ng pagkakaroon, katapatan at pagiging tunay ng Titulo Propriedad No. de 4136 ng mga Talaan ng mga gawa ng Bulacan, na inisyu sa Abril 29, 1984, sa pangalan ng namatay Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, na sumasakop ng isang kabuuang area ng humigit-kumulang 214,047 quiniones o 173,000 hectares, nakatayo sa Probinsya ng Bulacan, Rizal, Quezon, Quezon City at Caloocan City; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(b) Declaring Engracio San Pedro, Candido Gener, Santiago Gener, Rosa Pantaleon, Vicente Pantaleon, Eleuterio Pantaleon, Trinidad San Pedro, Rodrigo San Pedro, Ricardo Nicolas, and Teresa Nicolas, as the true and lawful heirs of the deceased Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban and entitled to inherit the intestate estate left by the said deceased, consisting of the above-mentioned tract of private land covered and described by said above-mentioned Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, excluding therefrom: (a) all lands which have already been legally and validly titled under the Torrens System, by private persons, or the Republic of the Philippines, or any of its instrumentalities or agencies; (b) all lands declared by the government as reservations for public use and purposes; (c) all lands belonging to the public domain; and, (d) all portions thereof which had been sold, quitclaimed and/or previously excluded by the Administrator and duly approved by a final order of the Court, except those which may hereafter be set aside, after due consideration on a case to case basis, of various motions to set aside the said Court order which approved the said sales, quitclaims, and/or exclusions; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (B) pagdeklara Engracio San Pedro, Candido Gener, Santiago Gener, Rosa Pantaleon, Vicente Pantaleon, Eleuterio Pantaleon, Trinidad San Pedro, Rodrigo San Pedro, Ricardo Nicolas, at Teresa Nicolas, bilang ang tunay at legal na mga tagapagmana ng namatay Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban at may karapatan na magmana ng testamento estate kaliwa sa pamamagitan ng sinabi ng mga namatay, na binubuo ng mga nabanggit lagay ng mga pribadong lupain sakop at inilarawan sa pamamagitan ng sinabi nabanggit Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 ng mga Talaan ng mga gawa ng Bulacan, hindi kasama rito : (a) lahat ng lupain na may na legal at validly may pamagat na sa ilalim ng Torrens System, sa pamamagitan ng mga pribadong tao, o ang Republika ng Pilipinas, o anumang ng kanyang instrumentalidad o mga ahensya; (b) ang lahat ng mga lupa ipinahayag sa pamamagitan ng pamahalaan para sa reserbasyon pampublikong paggamit at mga layunin; (c) lahat ng lupain na kabilang sa mga pampublikong domain, at, (d) ang lahat ng mga bahagi nito na kung saan ay nabili, quitclaimed at / o dati ibinukod sa pamamagitan ng mga Tagapangasiwa at gaya ng nararapat na inaprobahan ng isang pangwakas na utos ng hukuman, maliban sa mga kung saan maaaring magmula ngayon ay itabi, pagkatapos dahil sa pagsasaalang-alang sa isang kaso sa kaso na batayan, ng iba't ibang panukala na ang na magtabi ang sinabi Court order na naaprubahan ang sinabi benta, quitclaims, at / o mga pagbubukod; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(c) The designation of Atty. (C) Ang pagtatalaga ng Atty. Justino Z. Benito as co-administrator, is hereby revoked to take effect immediately, to obviate any confusion in the administration of the Estate, and to fix the responsibilities of administration to the co-heir Administrator, Engracio San Pedro, whose appointment as such is hereby confirmed. Justino Z. Benito bilang co-administrator, sa pamamagitan nito ay binawi na umepekto kaagad, upang pawiin ang anumang pagkalito sa pangangasiwa ng Estate, at upang ayusin ang mga responsibilidad ng pangangasiwa upang ang mga kapwa tagapagmana-Administrator, Engracio San Pedro, na ang appointment bilang tulad Binibigyan ng nakumpirma na. The said co-administrator Justino Z. Benito is hereby ordered to render his final accounting of his co-administration of the Estate, within thirty (30) days from receipt of copy hereof; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang sinabi co-administrator Justino Z. Benito ay aming iniutos na render ang kanyang huling accounting ng kanyang co-pangangasiwa ng Estate, sa loob ng tatlumpung (30) araw mula sa pagkatanggap ng kopya nito; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(d) The Co-Heir-Administrator, Engracio San Pedro is hereby ordered to amass, collate, consolidate and take possession of all the net estate of the deceased Don Marino San Pedro y Esteban, as well as all other sets and credits lawfully belonging to the estate and/or to take appropriate legal action to recover the same in the proper Courts of Justice, government offices or any appropriate forum; and to pay all taxes or charges due from the estate to the Government, and all indebtedness of the estate, and thereafter, to submit a project of partition of the estate among the lawful heirs as herein recognized and declared. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (D) Ang Co-tagapagmana-Administrator, Engracio San Pedro ay aming iniutos na impukin, maghambing, isahin at kamkamin ang lahat ng mga net estate ng namatay Don Marino San Pedro y Esteban, pati na rin ang lahat ng iba pang set at credits MAKATARUNGANG aari sa kalagayan at / o upang kumuha ng angkop na mga legal action na mabawi ang parehong sa tamang Hukuman ng Katarungan, mga opisina ng pamahalaan o ng anumang naaangkop na forum; at bayaran ang lahat ng mga buwis o singil dahil mula sa estate sa Gobyerno, at ang lahat ng pagkakautang ng mga estate , at pagkatapos noon, na magsumite ng isang proyekto ng partisyon ng mga estate sa gitna ng mga legal na tagapagmana ng nakasaad dito na kinikilala at ipinahayag. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

It is, however, strongly recommended to His Excellency, President Ferdinand E. Marcos that, to avoid the concentration of too much land to a few persons and in line with the projected urban land reform program of the government, corollary to the agricultural land reform program of the New Society, the above intestate estate of the late Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban should be expropriated or purchased by negotiated sale by the government to be used in its human settlements and low cost housing projects. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ito ay, subalit, Matindi inirerekomenda na ang Kanyang kamahalan, Pangulong Ferdinand E. Marcos na, upang maiwasan ang concentration ng masyadong maraming lupain ng ilang mga tao at sa linya sa inaasahan urban reporma sa lupa ng pamahalaan, corollary sa agrikultura reporma sa yuta programa ng Bagong Lipunan, ang itaas testamento estate ng huli Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban ay dapat na expropriated o binili sa pamamagitan ng negotiated sale ng pamahalaan na gagamitin sa kanyang tao settlements at mababang gastos sa pabahay. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

No Costs. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Walang Gastos. Chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SO ORDERED." [29] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary SO iniutos. " [29] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On May 17, 1978, the Republic moved for a reconsideration of the above decision: [30] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary On May 17, 1978, ang Republika inilipat para sa isang muling pagsasaalang-alang sa mga nabanggit na desisyon: [30] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On June 5, 1978, administrator Engracio San Pedro filed a Manifestation and Petition for the Inhibition of the then newly appointed Presiding Judge Oscar Fernandez. Sa Hunyo 5, 1978, administrator Engracio San Pedro na isinampa ng isang paghahayag at Petisyon para sa pagsugpo ng mga bagong pagkatapos ay itinalaga presiding Judge Oscar Fernandez. On July 12,1978, after the Republic filed its Reply to the Petition for Inhibition, Judge Fernandez denied the said petition. [31] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa Hulyo 12,1978, pagkatapos ng Republika na isinampa nito Sumagot sa ang Petisyon para sa pagsugpo, Judge Fernandez itinanggi ang petisyon sinabi. [31] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

After hearings were conducted on the Republics Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Fernandez issued the aforestated Order [32] dated November 17, 1978 which, in essence, set aside Judge Bagasaos decision dated April 25, 1978 by declaring Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 as null and void and of no legal force and effect, thus, excluding all lands covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 from the inventory of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Pagkatapos ng pagdinig ay isinasagawa sa mga republics Motion para sa muling pagsasaalang-alang, Judge Fernandez na inisyu ng aforestated Order [32] petsang Nobyembre 17, 1978 kung saan, sa esensya, magtabi Judge Bagasaos desisyon petsang 25 Abril 1978 sa pamamagitan ng deklarasyon Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 bilang null at walang bisa at walang legal na puwersa at epekto, kaya, hindi kasama ang lahat ng lupain na sakop ng Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 mula sa imbentaryo ng ari-arian ng huli Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The petitioners-heirs of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban appealed to the Court of Appeals and alleged that the lower court did not act with impartiality when it granted the Republics motion for reconsideration which was merely pro forma , thereby overturning a prior declaration by the same court of the existence, genuineness and authenticity of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 in the name of the deceased Mariano San Pedro. [33] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang petitioners-tagapagmana ng huli Mariano San Pedro y Esteban apela sa Court of Appeals at umano'y na ang mas mababang hukuman ay hindi kumilos sa parehong pakikitungo kapag ito na ipinagkaloob sa mga republics kilos para sa muling pagsasaalang-alang na kung saan ay lamang pro forma, sa gayon overturning isang naunang deklarasyon ng parehong hukuman ng, katapatan iral at pagiging tunay ng Titulo Propriedad No. de 4136 sa pangalan ng namatay Mariano San Pedro. [33] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On March 11, 1992, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-heirs. [34] In affirming the assailed Order dated November 17, 1978, the appellate court focused its discussion solely on the issue of whether or not the lower court erred in declaring Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 null and void. On Mar 11, 1992, ang Hukuman ng Appeals awas ang apila ng mga petitioners-tagapagmana. [34] Sa Pinatitibayan ang assailed Order petsang Nobyembre 17, 1978, ang hukuman sa paghahabol na nakatutok sa kanyang diskusyon lamang sa mga isyu ng kung o hindi ang mas mababang hukuman nagkamali sa magpahayag Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 halaga at walang bisa. The appellate court ruled that the petitioners-heirs failed to controvert the Republics claim that Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 is invalid on the following bases; (a) non-production of the original of the subject title; (b) inadmissibility of the photostat copies of the said title; and (c) non-registration of the subject Spanish title under Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) as required by Presidential Decree No. 892 (Discontinuance of the Spanish Mortgage System of Registration and of the Use of Spanish Titles as Evidence in Land Registration Proceedings). chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang mga hukuman sa paghahabol pinasiyahan na ang petitioners-tagapagmana bigo sa magpasinungaling ang republics claim na Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 ay hindi wasto sa sumusunod na patungan; (a) hindi-produksyon ng mga orihinal ng paksa pamagat (b) kawalan ng pagkatanggap ng potostat mga kopya ng mga sinabi title; at (c) non-registration ng paksa Espanyol pamagat sa ilalim ng Act No 496 (Land Registration Act) ayon sa hinihingi ng Presidential Decree No 892 (pigil ng mga Espanyol Mortgage System ng Registration at ng Paggamit ng Titles Espanyol bilang ebidensya sa Land Registration Pamamaraan). chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The petitioners-heirs moved for a reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision by invoking certain cases wherein the validity of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 had been allegedly recognized. Ang petitioners-tagapagmana inilipat para sa isang muling pagsasaalang-alang ng Court of Appeals ng desisyon sa pamamagitan ng invoking ilang mga kaso kung saan ang bisa ng Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 ay raw kinikilala. The Court of Appeals refused to be swayed and denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. [35] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang Court of Appeals tumanggi na maging swayed at itinanggi ang mosyon para sa muling pagsasaalang-alang para sa kakulangan ng merito. [35] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Hence, the herein petition, [36] Kaya, ang mga nakasaad dito petisyon, [36] docketed as GR No. 106496, was filed on September 18, 1992. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary docketed bilang GR No. 106496, ay iniharap sa 18 Set 1992. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

After the parties filed their respective pleadings in GR Nos. 103727 and 106496, this Court resolved to consolidate both cases on September 15, 1994. [37] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Pagkatapos ng mga partido na isampa ang kanilang mga pleadings sa GR Blg 103,727 at 106,496, ito Korte nalutas sa isahin parehong mga kaso sa 15 Set 1994. [37] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

While these cases were pending before us, several parties filed separate motions for intervention which we denied on different occasions for lack of merit. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Habang ang mga kaso ay nakabinbin sa amin, ilang partido na isinampa hiwalay na panukala na ang para sa interbensyon na namin tinanggihan sa mga iba't ibang okasyon para sa kakulangan ng merito. Chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In GR No. 103727, the grounds relied upon for the grant of the petition are as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa GR No. 103727, sa bakuran relied sa para sa mga bigyan ng petisyon ay ang mga sumusunod: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"I. That petitioner-appellant as plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-88-447, RTC, Branch 104 was denied due process of law due to gross negligence of lawyer, which respondent court grossly failed to take cognizance of. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "I. Na mampepetisyon-appellant bilang nagsasakdal sa Civil Case No Q-88-447, RTC, Branch 104 ay tinanggihan kaparaanan ng batas dahil sa gross pagpapabaya ng abugado, na sumasagot hukuman mahalay bigo sa kumuha pagkamalay ng. Chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

II. II. That the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in not remanding the case for trial and in affirming the lower courts null and void judgment." [38] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Na ang korte sumasagot nakatuon libingan pang-aabuso ng pagpapasya para na rin sa kakulangan ng kapangyarihan sa hindi remanding ang kaso para sa paglilitis at sa kumikilala sa mas mababang korte na null at walang bisa ng kahatulan. " [38] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In GR No. 106496, the petitioners-heirs present the following assignment of errors, to wit : Sa GR No. 106496, ang petitioners-tagapagmana kasalukuyan ang mga sumusunod na assignment ng mga error, sa makatuwid:

"First. Respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the appealed order which resolved a question of title or ownership over which the lower court as an intestate court has no jurisdiction and over the vigorous and repeated objections of the petitioners. [39] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "Unang. Pinatutugon Court of Appeals pinagtibay ang apela order na malutas ang isang katanungan ng titulo o pagmamay-ari sa ibabaw na kung saan ang mas mababang hukuman bilang isang testamento hukuman ay walang kapangyarihan sa ibabaw at ang malakas at paulit-ulit na mga pagtutol ng mga petitioners. [39] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Second. Second. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in upholding the order of Judge Fernandez setting aside the order and decision of Judge Puno and Bagasao; Judge Fernandez thereby acted as an appellate court reviewing, revising, amending or setting aside the order and decision of Judges of equal rank. [40] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sumasagot Court of Appeals nagkamali sa pagtataguyod ng mga order ng Judge Fernandez pagtatakda ng isang tabi ang mga order at desisyon ni Judge Puno at Bagasao; Judge Fernandez sa ganyan acted bilang isang hukuman sa paghahabol pagrepaso, pagbabago, amending o pagtatakda ng isang tabi ang mga order at desisyon ng mga hukom ng pantay na ranggo. [40] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Third. Third. Respondent Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to uphold the order of Judge Fernandez who without jurisdiction, set aside the order of Judge Puno and the decision of Judge Bagasao, both of which were already final. [41] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sumasagot Court of Appeals ay walang kapangyarihan na itaguyod ang mga order ng Judge Fernandez na walang hurisdiksyon, itabi ang mga order ng Judge Puno at ang desisyon ng Judge Bagasao, parehong na kung saan ay mayroon na huling. [41] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Fourth. Ikaapat. Respondent Court of Appeals was unmindful of the fact that Judge Fernandez was appointed by President Marcos to reverse Judge Bagasao, regardless of the evidence, thereby unmindful that petitioners were denied the cold neutrality of an impartial tribunal. [42] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Fifth. Ikalima. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not considering the evidence presented before Judges Echiverri, Puno and Bagasao and merely adopted the order of Judge Fernandez who never received a single piece of evidence, notwithstanding the 1906 Guido title over Hacienda Angono in Binangonan, Rizal, the boundary owner stated therein being Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, and the November 1991 en banc decision of the Supreme Court upholding the Guido title." [43] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Of paramount importance over and above the central issue of the probative value of the petitioners Spanish title in these cases is the propriety of the lower courts resolution of the question of ownership of the subject San Pedro estate in the special proceedings case. Mahalaga sa lahat ng kahalagahan higit sa itaas at ang mga usapin ng nakakasubok halaga ng mga petitioners title Espanyol sa mga kaso na ito ay ang pagiging angkop ng mga mas mababang resolution ng looban ng mga tanong ng pagmamay-ari ng paksa Pedro estate San sa mga espesyal na kaso ng pagdinig. Thus, before we address ourselves to the issue of whether or not petitioners Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 is null and void and of no legal force and effect, it is best that we first determine whether or not the lower court, acting as a probate court, in the petition for letters of administration, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in settling the issue of ownership of the San Pedro estate covered by Titulo Propriedad No. 4136. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Kaya, bago namin address ating sarili sa mga isyu ng kung o hindi petitioners Titulo Propriedad No. de 4136 ay walang bisa at walang legal na puwersa at epekto, ito ay pinakamahusay na namin ang unang matukoy kung o hindi ang mas mababang hukuman, kumikilos bilang isang taong nakaprobasyon korte, sa mga petisyon para sa mga titik ng administrasyon, nakatuon libingan pang-aabuso ng discretion amounting sa kakulangan ng kapangyarihan sa pag-aayos ang isyu ng pagmamay-ari ng Pedro estate San sakop ng Titulo Propriedad No. 4136. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioners-heirs, in GR No. 106496, on the one hand, contend that the lower court, then CFI, Bulacan, Branch IV, had no jurisdiction as an "intestate court", [44] to resolve the question of title or ownership raised by the public respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General in the intestate proceedings of the estate of Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. [45] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Petitioners-tagapagmana, sa GR No. 106496, sa isang kamay, makikipaglaban na ang mas mababang hukuman, pagkatapos CFI, Bulacan, Branch IV, ay walang kapangyarihan bilang isang "testamento hukuman", [44] upang malutas ang mga katanungan ng mga pamagat o pagmamay-ari itataas sa pamamagitan ng pampublikong sumasagot Republika ng Pilipinas, sa pamamagitan ng Opisina ng abogado General sa testamento proceedings ng estate ng Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. [45] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The public respondent, on the other hand, invoking its sovereign capacity as parens patriae , argues that petitioners contention is misplaced considering that when the Republic questioned the existence of the estate of Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, the lower court became duty-bound to rule on the genuineness and validity of Titulo de Propriedad 4136 which purportedly covers the said estate, otherwise, the lower court in the intestate proceedings would be mistakenly dealing with properties that are proven to be part of the States patrimony or improperly included as belonging to the estate of the deceased. [46] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ang pampublikong sumasagot, sa ibang dako, invoking nito pinakadakila kakayahan bilang parens patriae, argues na petitioners pagtatalo ay nailagay sa ibang lugar na isinasaalang-alang kapag ang Republika questioned ang pagkakaroon ng mga ari-arian ng Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, ang mas mababang hukuman ay naging pinapabuwis sa tuntunin sa katapatan at kawastuan ng Titulo de Propriedad 4136 na purportedly ay sumasaklaw sa mga sinabi estate, sa kabilang banda, ang mas mababang hukuman sa testamento proceedings ay nagkamali ang pakikitungo sa mga properties na napatunayan na maging bahagi ng mana sa ama o mga ninuno Unidos o hindi wasto ang kasama bilang aari sa estate ng namatay. [46] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A probate courts jurisdiction is not limited to the determination of who the heirs are and what shares are due them as regards the estate of a deceased person. Ang isang taong nakaprobasyon hukuman hurisdiksiyon ay hindi limitado sa pagpapasiya ng sino ang mga tagapagmana at kung ano ang namamahagi ay dahil ang mga ito tungkol sa kalagayan ng isang namatay na tao. Neither is it confined to the issue of the validity of wills. Ni wala ito limitado sa mga isyu ng bisa ng Wills. We held in the case of Maingat v. Castillo , [47] that "the main function of a probate court is to settle and liquidate the estates of deceased persons either summarily or through the process of administration." Kami gaganapin sa kaso ng Maingat v. Castillo, [47] na "ang mga pangunahing function ng isang hukuman probate ay upang tumira at puksain ang Estates ng namatay na tao alinman summarily o sa pamamagitan ng proseso ng pangangasiwa." Thus, its function necessarily includes the examination of the properties, rights and credits of the deceased so as to rule on whether or not the inventory of the estate properly included them for purposes of distribution of the net assets of the estate of the deceased to the lawful heirs. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Kaya, ang kanyang function kinakailangan kabilang ang pagsusuri ng mga ari-arian, mga karapatan at mga kredito ng namatay upang tuntunin sa kung o hindi ang imbentaryo ng ari-arian ng maayos kasama ang mga ito para sa mga layunin ng pamamahagi ng mga net arian ng estate ng namatay sa legal na tagapagmana. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In the case of Trinidad v. Sa kaso ng Trinidad v. Court of Appeals , [48] we stated, thus: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Court of Appeals, [48] namin nakalagay, kaya: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"xxx questions of title to any property apparently still belonging to estate of the deceased maybe passed upon in the Probate Court, with the consent of all the parties, without prejudice to third persons xxx" chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "Xxx katanungan ng mga pamagat sa anumang ari-arian tila pa rin na kabilang sa estate ng namatay siguro dumaan sa ibabaw sa mga taong nakaprobasyon hukuman, na may pahintulot ng lahat ng mga partido, walang kinikilingan sa ikatlong taong xxx" chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Parenthetically, questions of title pertaining to the determination prima facie of whether certain properties ought to be included or excluded from the inventory and accounting of the estate subject of a petition for letters of administration, as in the intestate proceedings of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, maybe resolved by the probate court. Parenthetically, mga katanungan ng mga pamagat na nauukol sa mga prima facie pagpapasiya kung ang mga tiyak na mga katangian ng nararapat na kasama o ibinukod mula sa imbentaryo at accounting ng mga estate paksa ng isang petisyon para sa mga titik ng administrasyon, tulad ng sa testamento proceedings ng estate ng huli Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, marahil malutas sa pamamagitan ng mga hukuman taong nakaprobasyon. In this light, we echo our pronouncement in the case of Garcia v. Garcia [49] that: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa liwanag na ito, echo namin ang aming mga proklamasyon sa kaso ng Garcia v. Garcia [49] na: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"xxx The court which acquired jurisdiction over the properties of a deceased person through the filing of the corresponding proceedings, has supervision and control over the said properties, and under the said power, it is its inherent duty to see that the inventory submitted by the administrator appointed by it contains all the properties, rights and credits which the law requires the administrator to set out in his inventory. In compliance with this duty, the court has also inherent power to determine what properties, rights and credits of the deceased should be included in or excluded from the inventory. Should an heir or person interested in the properties of a deceased person duly call the courts attention to the fact that certain properties, rights or credits have been left out in the inventory, it is likewise the courts duty to hear the observations, with power to determine if such observations should be attended to or not and if the properties referred to therein belong prima facie to the intestate, but no such determination is final and ultimate in nature as to the ownership of the said properties . " [50] [Underscoring Supplied] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "Xxx Ang hukuman na nakuha sa hurisdiksiyon sa mga katangian ng isang namatay na tao sa pamamagitan ng pag-file ng kaukulang pagdinig, may superbisyon at kontrol sa mga sinabi ng mga katangian, at sa ilalim ng kapangyarihan sinabi, ito ay ang kanyang likas na tungkulin upang makita na ang imbentaryo na isinumite ng mga administrator hinirang ng ito ay naglalaman ng lahat ng mga ari-arian, mga karapatan at mga credits na ang kautusan ay nangangailangan ng administrator ang na set out sa kanyang imbentaryo. Sa pagsunod sa tungkulin na ito, ang hukuman ay din na likas na kapangyarihan upang matukoy kung ano ang mga katangian, mga karapatan at mga kredito ng namatay ay dapat na kasama sa o ibinukod mula sa imbentaryo. Dapat tagapagmana o tao na interesado sa mga katangian ng isang namatay na tao gaya ng nararapat na tawag sa mga hukuman ng pansin sa ang katunayan na ang ilang mga katangian, mga karapatan o mga credits ay kaliwa out sa imbentaryo, ito ay gayon din naman sa korte tungkulin upang pakinggan ang mga obserbasyon, na may kapangyarihan upang matukoy kung ang naturang obserbasyon ay dapat na dumalo sa o hindi at kung ang mga katangian ng tinutukoy doon nabibilang prima facie sa testamento, ngunit hindi tulad pagpapasiya ay pangwakas at panghuli sa kalikasan bilang na ang pagmamay-ari ng sinabi properties . " [50] [Underscoring ibinibigay] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In view of these disquisitions of this Court, we hold that the lower court did not commit any reversible error when it issued the Order dated November 17, 1978 which set aside Judge Bagasaos decision dated April 25, 1978 and declared Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 as null and void, consequently excluding all lands covered by the said title from the inventory of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Sa view ng mga disquisitions ng ito Hukuman, sa loob namin na ang mas mababang hukuman ay hindi gumawa ng anumang mga error kabilaan kapag ito na inisyu ng Order petsang Nobyembre 17, 1978 na magtabi Judge Bagasaos desisyon petsang Abril 25, 1978 at ipinahayag Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 bilang halaga at walang bisa, dahil diyan hindi kasama ang lahat ng lupain na sakop ng mga sinabi pamagat mula sa imbentaryo ng ari-arian ng huli Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

A corollary issue sought to be ventilated by the petitioners-heirs as regards the assailed Order of November 17, 1978 is the impropriety of Judge Fernandez act of granting the motion for reconsideration filed by the public respondent Republic since, Judge Fernandez did not personally hear the intestate case. Petitioners thus dubbed him as a "reviewing judge." By setting aside the Decision dated April 25, 1978 of his predecessors in CFI, Branch IV, Baliuag, Bulacan, namely, Judge Benigno Puno and Judge Agustin C. Bagasao, respectively, Judge Fernandez, acting as a "reviewing judge," proceeded without authority and/or jurisdiction. [51] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

There is no question that, barring any serious doubts as to whether the decision arrived at is fair and just, a newly appointed judge who did not try the case can decide the same as long as the record and the evidence are all available to him and that the same were taken into consideration and thoroughly studied. Walang tanong na, maliban sa anumang mga malubhang doubts bilang kung ang desisyon ng dumating sa ay makatarungan at, isang bagong hinirang hukom na hindi subukan ang kaso ay maaaring magpasya ang parehong hangga't ang record at ang katibayan ay ang lahat ng magagamit na sa kaniya at na ang mga parehong ay kinuha sa pagsasaalang-alang at lubusan aral. The "reviewing judge" argument of the petitioners-heirs has no leg to stand on considering that "the fact that the judge who penned the decision did not hear a certain case in its entirety is not a compelling reason to jettison his findings and conclusion inasmuch as the full record was available to him for his perusal." [52] In the case at bar, it is evident that the 41-page Order dated November 17, 1978 of Judge Fernandez bespeaks of a knowledgeable and analytical discussion of the rationale for reconsidering and setting aside Judge Bagasaos Decision dated April 25, 1978. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Considering the definiteness of our holding in regard to the correctness of Judge Fernandez disposition of the case, ie, the issuance by the lower court of the assailed Order of November 17, 1978, we now focus on the core issue of whether or not the lower court in GR No. 106496 committed reversible error in excluding from the inventory of the estate of the deceased Mariano San Pedro y Esteban all lands covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 primarily on the ground that the said title is null and void and of no legal force and effect. Isinasaalang-alang ang katiyakan ng aming mga humahawak sa patungkol sa ang kawastuhan ng Judge Fernandez disposisyon ng mga kaso, ibig sabihin, ang pagpapalabas ng mas mababang hukuman ng assailed Order ng Nobyembre 17, 1978, na namin ngayon sa focus sa mga pangunahing isyu ng kung o hindi ang mas mababang hukuman sa GR No. 106496 nakatuon kabilaan error sa pagbubukod mula sa imbentaryo ng ari-arian ng namatay San Pedro y Mariano Esteban lahat ng lupain na sakop ng Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 lalo na sa lupa na ang mga sinabi title ay walang bisa at ng walang legal na puwersa at epekto. Juxtaposed with this is the issue of whether or not the appellate court, in both cases, GR Nos. 103727 and 106496, erred in not recognizing Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 as evidence to prove ownership by the late Mariano San Pedro of the lands covered thereby. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Juxtaposed sa mga ito ay ang isyu ng kung o hindi ang mga hukuman sa paghahabol, sa parehong mga kaso, GR Blg 103727 at 106496, nagkamali sa hindi pagkilala Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 bilang katibayan upang patunayan ang pagmamay-ari sa pamamagitan ng ang huli Mariano San Pedro ng mga lupain sakop sa ganyang paraan. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

It is settled that by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 892 which took effect on February 16, 1976, the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law was abolished and all holders of Spanish titles or grants should cause their lands covered thereby to be registered under the Land Registration Act [53] within six (6) months from the date of effectivity of the said Decree or until August 16, 1976. [54] Otherwise, non-compliance therewith will result in a re-classification of their lands. [55] Spanish titles can no longer be countenanced as indubitable evidence of land ownership. [56] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Ito ay natatag na sa pamamagitan ng kabanalan ng Presidential Decree No 892 na kung saan kinuha epekto sa Pebrero 16, 1976, ang sistema ng registration sa ilalim ng mga Espanyol Mortgage Law ay lansag at ang lahat ng mga may hawak ng mga Espanyol mga pamagat o pamigay dapat maging sanhi ang kanilang mga lupain sakop sa ganyan na nakarehistro sa ilalim ng ang Land Registration Act [53] sa loob ng anim (6) na buwan mula sa petsa ng bisa ang sinabi Decree o hanggang Agosto 16, 1976. [54] Kung hindi, di-pagtupad niyon ay magreresulta sa isang-uuri ng muling ng kanilang mga lupain. [ 55] Espanyol pamagat, hindi na maaaring countenanced bilang hindi mapag-aalinlanganan katibayan ng lupain ng pagmamay-ari. [56] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Section 1 of the said Decree provides: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Seksyon 1 sa mga sinabi Decree nagbibigay ng: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"SECTION 1. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is discontinued, and all lands recorded under said system which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "SEKSIYON 1. Ang sistema ng registration sa ilalim ng mga Espanyol Mortgage Law ay hindi na ipinagpatuloy, at lahat ng lupain naitala sa ilalim ng sistema ng sinabi na hindi pa sakop ng Torrens title ay itinuturing bilang hindi nagpatala makakarating. Chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

All holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration of their lands under Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act, within six (6) months from the effectivity of this decree. Lahat ng mga may hawak ng mga Espanyol mga pamagat o pamigay dapat mag-aplay para sa pagpaparehistro ng kanilang mga lupain sa ilalim ng Act No 496, sa kabilang banda na kilala bilang ang Land Registration Act, sa loob ng anim (6) na buwan mula sa pagpapatupad ng batas na ito. Thereafter, Spanish titles cannot be used as evidence of land ownership in any registration proceedings under the Torrens system. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Pagkatapos noon, Espanyol pamagat ay hindi maaaring gamitin bilang ebidensiya ng pagmamay-ari ng lupain sa anumang pamamaraan ng pagpaparehistro sa ilalim ng sistemang Torrens. Chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act. 3344." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Whereas clauses of the aforesaid Decree specify the underlying policies for its passage, to wit :

"WHEREAS, fraudulent sales, transfers, and other forms of conveyances of large tracts of public and private lands to unsuspecting and unwary buyers appear to have been perpetrated by unscrupulous persons claiming ownership under Spanish titles or grants of dubious origin; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREAS, these fraudulent transactions have often resulted in conflicting claims and litigations between legitimate title holders, bona fide occupants or applicants of public lands, on the one hand, and the holders of, or person claiming rights under the said Spanish titles or grants, on the other, thus creating confusion and instability in property ownership and threatening the peace and order conditions in the areas affected; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREAS, statistics in the Land Registration Commission show that recording in the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is practically nil and that this system has become obsolete; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREAS, Spanish titles to lands which have not yet been brought under the operation of the Torrens system, being subject to prescription, are now ineffective to prove ownership unless accompanied by proof of actual possession; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREAS, there is an imperative need to discontinue the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law and the use of Spanish titles as evidence in registration proceedings under the Torrens system"; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In the case of Director of Lands v. Heirs of Isabel Tesalona, et al., [57] we took cognizance of this Decree and thus held that caution and care must be exercised in the acceptance and admission of Spanish titles taking into account the numerous fake titles that have been discovered after their supposed reconstitution subsequent to World War II. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In both cases, petitioners-heirs did not adduce evidence to show that Titulo de Propriedad 4136 was brought under the operation of PD 892 despite their allegation that they did so on August 13, 1976. [58] Time and again we have held that a mere allegation is not evidence and the party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. [59] Proof of compliance with PD 892 should be the Certificate of Title covering the land registered. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In the petition for letters of administration, it was a glaring error on the part of Judge Bagasao who rendered the reconsidered Decision dated April 25, 1978 to have declared the existence, genuineness and authenticity of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 in the name of the deceased Mariano San Pedro y Esteban despite the effectivity of PD No. 892. Judge Fernandez, in setting aside Judge Bagasao's decision, emphasized that Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136, under PD 892, is inadmissible and ineffective as evidence of private ownership in the special proceedings case. He made the following observations as regards the Titulo, to wit: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"The Solicitor General, articulating on the dire consequences of recognizing the nebulous titulo as an evidence of ownership underscored the fact that during the pendency of this case, smart speculators and wise alecks had inveigled innocent parties into buying portions of the so-called estate with considerations running into millions of pesos. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Some, under the guise of being benign heroes even feigned donations to charitable and religious organizations, including veterans' organizations as smoke screen to the gargantuan fraud they have committed and to hood wink further other gullible and unsuspecting victims." [60] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In the same light, it does not escape this Courts onomatopoeic observation that the then heir-judicial administrator Engracio San Pedro who filed the complaint for recovery of possession and/or reconveyance with damages in GR No. 103727 on August 15, 1988 invoked Judge Bagasaos Decision of April 25, 1978 in support of the Titulos validity notwithstanding the fact that, by then, the said Decision had already been set aside by Judge Fernandez Order of November 17, 1978. We are in accord with the appellate courts holding in GR No. 103727 insofar as it concludes 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. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

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 PD 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. In the special proceedings case, the petitioners-heirs failed to produce the Titulo despite a subpoena duces tecum (Exh. "Q-RP") to produce it as requested by the Republic from the then administrators of the subject intestate estate, Engracio San Pedro and Justino Benito, and the other interested parties. As an alternative to prove their claim of the subject intestate estate, the petitioners referred to a document known as "hypoteca" (the Spanish term is ` hipoteca ) allegedly appended to the Titulo. However, the said hypoteca was neither properly identified nor presented as evidence. Likewise, in the action for recovery of possession and/or reconveyance with damages, the petitioners-heirs did not submit the Titulo as part of their evidence. Instead, only an alleged illegible copy of the Titulo was presented. (Exhs. "C-9" to "C-19"). chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Best Evidence Rule as provided under Rule 130, section 2 of the Rules of Court is stated in unequivocal terms. Subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the said Rule read: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"SEC. 2. - Original writing must be produced; exceptions. - There can be no evidence of a writing the contents of which is the subject of inquiry, other than the original writing itself, except in the following cases: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) When the original has been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(b) When the original is in the possession of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;"

xxxx xxxxx chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Sections 4 and 5 of the same Rule further read: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Seksyon 4 at 5 ng parehong Rule karagdagang basahin: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"SEC. 4. Secondary evidence when original is lost or destroyed. --- When the original writing has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction or unavailability, its contents may be proved by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of witnesses." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SEC. Sec. 5. Secondary evidence when original is in adverse partys custody . --- If the writing be in the custody of the adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the writing, the contents thereof may be proved as in the case of its loss. But the notice to produce it is not necessary where the writing is itself a notice, or where it has been wrongfully obtained or withheld by the adverse party." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Thus, the court shall not receive any evidence that is merely substitutionary in its nature, such as photocopies, as long as the original evidence can be had. In the absence of a clear showing that the original writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court, the photocopy submitted, in lieu thereof, must be disregarded, being unworthy of any probative value and being an inadmissible piece of evidence. [61] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Hence, we conclude that petitioners-heirs failed to establish by competent proof the existence and due execution of the Titulo. Their explanation as to why the original copy of the Titulo could not be produced was not satisfactory. The alleged contents thereof which should have resolved the issue as to the exact extent of the subject intestate estate of the late Mariano San Pedro were not distinctly proved. In the case of Ong Hing Po v. Court of Appeals , [62] we pointed out that: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of the document. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence; execution; loss; contents. This order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. [63] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In upholding the genuineness and authenticity of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136, Judge Bagasao, in his decision, relied on: (1) the testimony of the NBI expert, Mr. Segundo Tabayoyong, pertaining to a report dated January 28, 1963 denominated as "Questioned Documents Report No. 230-163"; (2) a photostat copy of the original of the Titulo duly certified by the then Clerk of Court of the defunct Court of First Instance of Manila; and (3) the hipoteca registered in the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on December 4, 1894. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Judge Fernandez, in his November 1978 Order which set aside Judge Bagasaos April 1978 decision correctly clarified that the NBI report aforementioned was limited to the genuineness of the two signatures of Alejandro Garcia and Mariano Lopez Delgado appearing on the last page of the Titulo, not the Titulo itself. When asked by the counsel of the petitioners-heirs to admit the existence and due execution of the Titulo, the handling Solicitor testified:

xxxxxxx xx chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ATTY. Dyka. BRINGAS: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

With the testimony of this witness, I would like to call the distinguished counsel for the government whether he admits that there is actually a titulo propriedad 4136. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

COURT: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Would you comment on that Solicitor Agcaoili? chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ATTY. Dyka. AGCAOILI: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We are precisely impugning the Titulo and I think the question of counsel is already answered by witness. The parties have not yet established the due existence of the titulo. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ATTY. Dyka. BRINGAS: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We are constrained to ask this matter in order to be candid about the question. The witness is a witness for the government, so with the testimony of this witness for the government to the effect that there is actually in existence Titulo Propiedad 4136; we are asking the question candidly to the government counsel whether he is prepared to state that there is really in existence such Titulo Propiedad 4136. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ATTY. Dyka. AGCAOILI: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We are now stating before this Court that there was such a document examined by the NBI insofar as the signatures of Alejandro Garcia and Manuel Lopez Delgado are concerned and they are found to be authentic." [64] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The following significant findings of Judge Fernandez further lend credence to our pronouncement that the Titulo is of dubious validity: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"xxx the NBI in its Questioned Document Report No. 448-977 dated September 2, 1977 (Exhibit `O-RP) concluded that the document contained material alterations as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

a) On line 15 of p. a) Sa linya 15 ng p. 1, Title and on line 5 of p. 2, Title, the word Pinagcamaligan was written after Pulo; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

b) On line 16, p. 1, Title, un was converted to mil; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

c) On Line 18, p. 1, Title, mil was written at the end of tres in tres mil; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

d) On line 19 of p. 1, Title, a semblance of mil was written after setentay tres; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

e) On line 6, p. 2, Title, un was formed to a semblance of uni; and chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

f) On line 8, p. 2, Title, un was formed to mil. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The plain and evident purpose was definitely to enlarge the area of the Titulo. According to Mr. Tabayoyong of the NBI, there are still "pieces of black ashes around the rings of the portions which are indications of burnings." The burnings were made on the very portions where there were previous erasures, alterations and intercalations. Understandably, the burnings were done to erase traces of the criminal act." [65] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In the case of National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al. [66] Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, in reinstating the trial courts judgment therein, sustained the finding that: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"xxx The photostatic copy (in lieu of the lost original) of the Spanish title in the name of Mariano San Pedro shows obvious alterations and intercalations in an attempt to vastly increase the area and change the location of the land described in the original title xx x." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Anent the inadmissibility as evidence of the photostat copy of the Titulo, we sustain the lower courts analysis, as affirmed by the appellate court, viz :

"To begin with, the original of Titulo de Propiedad No. 4136 was never presented in Court. Upon request of the Government, a subpoena duces tecum (Exhibit "Q-RP") was issued to the two administrators, Engracio San Pedro and Justino Benito as well as to other interested parties to produce the original of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136. But no one produced the Titulo. What the parties did was to pass the buck to one another. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Without any plausible explanation at all on as to why the original could not be produced, the Court cannot take cognizance of any secondary evidence. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

It was explained that the Titulo after changing hands, finally fell into the hands of a certain Moon Park of Korea but who later disappeared and that his present whereabouts could not be known. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Strangely enough, despite the significance of the titulo, no serious efforts on the part of the claimants-heirs were exerted to retrieve this document of vital importance despite the Court order to produce it in order to determine its authenticity. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

It would not be enough to simply say that Moon Parks whereabouts are unknown or that there are not enough funds to locate him. The only logical conclusion would be that the original would be adverse if produced." [67] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

As regards the hipoteca which allegedly defines the metes and bounds of the subject intestate estate, the petitioners-heirs have not established the conditions required by law for their admissibility as secondary evidence to prove that there exists a document designated as Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136. Hence, the same acquires no probative value. [68] chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

At this juncture, our decision dated June 28, 1968 in Director of Forestry, et al. v. Hon. Emmanuel M. Muoz, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch I, et al . [69] is enlightening. In said case, private respondent, Pinaycamaligan Indo-Agro Development Corporation, Inc. (PIADECO), claimed to be the owner of some 72,000 hectares of land located in the municipalities of Angat, Norzagaray and San Jose del Monte, province of Bulacan, and in Antipolo and Montalban, province of Rizal. To prove its ownership Piadeco relied on Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 dated April 28, 1894. Scholarly opining that the Titulo is of doubtful validity, [70] Justice Conrado V. Sanchez, speaking for the Court, stated that: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"But an important moiety here is the deeply disturbing intertwine of two undisputed facts. First . The Title embraces land `located in the Provinces of Bulacan, Rizal, Quezon, and Quezon City. Second . The title was signed only by the provincial officials of Bulacan, and inscribed only in the Land Registry of Bulacan. Why? The situation, indeed, cries desperately for a plausible answer. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

To be underscored at this point is the well-embedded principle that private ownership of land must be proved not only through the genuineness of title but also with a clear identity of the land claimed. (Oligan v. Mejia, 17 Phil. 494, 496; Villa Abrille v. Banuelos, 20 Phil. 1, 8, citing Sison v. Ramos, 13 Phil. 54 and Belen v. Belen, 13 Phil. 202; Licad v. Bacani, 51 Phil 51, 54-56; Lasam v. Director, 65 Phil. 367, 371. This Court ruled in a case involving a Spanish title acquired by purchase that the land must be concretely measured per hectare or per quinon , not in mass ( cuerpos ciertos ), (Valdez v. Director, 62 Phil. 362, 373, 375). The fact that the Royal Decree of August 31, 1888 used 30 hectares as a basis for classifying lands strongly suggests that the land applied for must be measured per hectare. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Here, no definite area seems to have been mentioned in the title. In Piadecos Rejoinder to Opposition dated April 28, 1964 filed in Civil Case 3035-M, it specified that area covered by its Titulo de Propiedad as 74,000 hectares ( Rollo in L-24796, p. 36). In its Opposition of May 13, 1964 in the same case, it described the land as containing 72,000 hectares ( Id. , p. 48). Which is which? This but accentuates the nebulous identity of Piadecos land. Piadecos ownership thereof then equally suffers from vagueness, fatal at least in these proceedings. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Piadeco asserts that Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, the original owner appearing on the title, acquired his rights over the property by prescription under Articles 4 and 5 of the Royal Decree of June 25, 1880, ( Rollo of L-24796, p. 184) the basic decree that authorized adjustment of lands. By this decree, applications for adjustment -- showing the location, boundaries and area of land applied for -- were to be filed with the Direccion General de Administracion Civil , which then ordered the classification and survey of the land with the assistance of the interested party or his legal representative (Ponce, op. cit ., p. 22). chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Royal Decree of June 5, 1880 also fixed the period for filing applications for adjustment at one year from the date of publication of the decree in the Gaceta de Manila on September 10, 1880, extended for another year by the Royal Order of July 15, 1881 ( Ibid. ). If Don Mariano sought adjustment within the time prescribed, as he should have, then, seriously to be considered here are the Royal Orders of November 25, 1880 and of October 26, 1881, which limited adjustment to 1,000 hectares of arid lands, 500 hectares of land with trees and 100 hectares of irrigable lands ( See : Government v. Avila, 46 Phil. 146, 154; Bayot v. Director of Lands, 98 Phil. 935, 941. Article 15 of the Royal Decree of January 26, 1889 limited the area that may be acquired by purchase to 2,500 hectares, with allowable error up to 5%. Ponce, op. cit ., p. 19). And, at the risk of repetition, it should be stated again that Piadecos Titulo is held out to embrace 72,000 or 74,000 hectares of land. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

But if more were needed, we have the Maura Law (Royal Decree of February 13, 1894), published in the Gaceta de Manila on April 17, 1894 ( Ibid. , p. 26; Ventura, op. cit ., p. 28). That decree required a second petition for adjustment within six months from publication, for those who had not yet secured their titles at the time of the publication of the law ( Ibid .). Said law also abolished the provincial boards for the adjustment of lands established by Royal Decree of December 26, 1884, and confirmed by Royal Decree of August 31, 1888, which boards were directed to deliver to their successors, the provincial boards established by Decree on Municipal Organization issued on May 19, 1893, all records and documents which they may hold in their possession (Ramirez v. Director of Land, supra , at p. 124). chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Doubt on Piadecos title here supervenes when we come to consider that title was either dated April 29 or April 25, 1894, twelve or eight days after the publication of the Maura Law. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Let us now take a look, as near as the record allows, at how Piadeco exactly acquired its rights under the Titulo . The original owner appearing thereon was Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. From Piadecos explanation -- not its evidence ( Rollo of L-24796, pp. 179-188) we cull the following: On December 3, 1894, Don Mariano mortgaged the land under pacto de retro , redeemable within 10 years, for P 8,000.00 to one Don Ignacio Conrado. This transaction was said to have been registered or inscribed on December 4, 1894. Don Mariano Ignacio died, his daughter, Maria Socorro Conrado, his only heir, adjudicated the land to herself. At about the same time, Piadeco was organized. Its certificate of registration was issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 1932 . Later, Maria Socorro, heir of Don Ignacio, became a shareholder of Piadeco when she conveyed the land to Piadecos treasurer and an incorporator, Trinidad B. Estrada, in consideration of a certain amount of Piadeco shares. Thereafter, Trinidad B. Estrada assigned the land to Piadeco. Then came to the scene a certain Fabian Castillo, appearing as sole heir of Don Mariano, the original owner of the land. Castillo also executed an affidavit of adjudication to himself over the same land, and then sold the same to Piadeco. Consideration therefor was paid partially by Piadeco, pending the registration of the land under Act 496. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The question may well be asked: Why was full payment of the consideration to Fabian Castillo made to depend on the registration of the land under the Torrens system, if Piadeco was sure of the validity of Titulo de Propiedad 4136? This, and other factors herein pointed out, cast great clouds of doubt that hang most conspicuously over Piadecos title." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Moreover, in the case of Widows & Orphans Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, [71] we categorically enunciated that the alleged Spanish title, Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136, had become bereft of any probative value as evidence of land ownership by virtue of PD 892 as contained in our Resolution dated February 6, 1985 in a related case entitled Benito and WIDORA v. Ortigas docketed as GR No. 69343. On March 29, 1985, an entry of final judgment was made respecting GR No. 69343. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, the prior declarations by this Court relating to the issue of the validity of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 preclude us from adjudicating otherwise. In the Muoz case, we had cast doubt on the Titulos validity. In the WIDORA case, the Titulos nullification was definitive. In both cases, the Republic and the estate of Mariano San Pedro y Esteban were on opposite ends before this bench. In the case en banc of Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City , [72] the Court explained the concept of conclusiveness of judgment, viz :

"xxx conclusiveness of judgment - states that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with them are concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or different cause of action, while the judgment remains unreversed by proper authority. It has been held that in order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a particular matter in another action between the same parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be identical. If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit ( Nabus v. Court of Appeals , 193 SCRA 732 [1991]). Identity of cause of action is not required by merely identity of issues." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The issue, whether Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 is valid or not, must now be laid to rest. The Titulo cannot be relied upon by the petitioners-heirs or their privies as evidence of ownership. In the petition for letters of administration the inventory submitted before the probate court consisted solely of lands covered by the Titulo. Hence, there can be no "net estate" to speak of after the Titulos exclusion from the intestate proceedings of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In GR No. 103727, the Titulo cannot be superior to the Torrens Titles of private respondents Buhain, Ocampo and Dela Cruz, namely TCT No. 372592 (Exh. "2", Buhain), TCT No. 8982 (Exh. "2"- De Ocampo) and TCT No. 269707 (Exh. "2" - Dela Cruz). [73] Under the Torrens system of registration, the titles of private respondents became indefeasible and incontrovertible one year from its final decree. [74] More importantly, TCT Nos. 372592, 8982, 269707, having been issued under the Torrens system, enjoy the conclusive presumption of validity. [75] As a last hurrah to champion their claim to the vast estate covered by the subject Spanish title, the petitioners-heirs imputed fraud and bad faith which they failed to prove on the part of the private respondents as regards their Torrens titles and accused their own counsel of gross negligence for having failed to call the proper witnesses from the Bureau of Forestry to substantiate the petitioners-heirs claim that OCT No. 614 from which private respondents were derived is null and void. It is an elementary legal principle that the negligence of counsel binds the client. [76] The records show that the petitioners-heirs were not at all prejudiced by the non-presentation of evidence to prove that OCT No. 614 is a nullity considering that their ownership itself of the lands being claimed was not duly proved. In the case of Villa Rhecar Bus v. Dela Cruz, et al ., [77] we held: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

"It is unfortunate that the lawyer of the petitioner neglected his responsibilities to his client. This negligence ultimately resulted in a judgment adverse to the client. Be that as it may, such mistake binds the client, the herein petitioner. As a general rule, a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. (Que v. Court of Appeals, 101 SCRA 13 [1980] Only when the application of the general rule would result in serious injustice should an exception thereto be called for. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, no undue prejudice against the petitioner has been satisfactorily demonstrated. At most, there is only an unsupported claim that the petitioner had been prejudiced by the negligence of its counsel, without an explanation to that effect." chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Sans preponderance of evidence in support of the contention that the petitioners-heirs were denied due process on account of the negligence of their counsel, the writ of certiorari is unavailing. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

It bears repeating that the heirs or successors-in-interest of Mariano San Pedro y Esteban are not without recourse. Presidential Decree No. 892, quoted hereinabove, grants all holders of Spanish Titles the right to apply for registration of their lands under Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act, within six (6) months from the effectivity of the Decree. Thereafter, however, any Spanish Title, if utilized as evidence of possession, cannot be used as evidence of ownership in any land registration proceedings under the Torrens system. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

All instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act 3344. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In view hereof, this is as good a time as any, to remind the Solicitor General to be more vigilant in handling land registration cases and intestate proceedings involving portions of the subject estate. It is not too late in the day for the Office of the Solicitor General to contest the Torrens titles of those who have acquired ownership of such portions of land that rightfully belong to the State. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In fine, the release of the matured Land Bank Capital Bonds issued in favor of Mariano San Pedro y Esteban on August 13, 1968 sought by one Catalino San Pedro, alleged heir, legal holder and owner of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 is a matter not ripe for adjudication in these cases. Firstly, Catalino San Pedro is not a party in any of the two cases before us for review, hence, this Court in a Resolution dated May 10, 1993, [78] denied Catalinos motion for leave to reopen and/or new trial. And, secondly, the aforementioned bonds were not included in the inventory of the subject estate submitted by then administrators, Engracio San Pedro and Justino Benito before the probate court. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE , in view of all the foregoing, the petitions in GR Nos. 103727 and 106496 are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Consequently, in GR No. 103727, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 20, 1992 is hereby AFFIRMED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In GR No. 106496, judgment is hereby rendered as follows : chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(1) Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 is declared null and void and, therefore, no rights could be derived therefrom; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(2) All lands covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 are excluded from the inventory of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(3) The petition for letters of administration, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 312-B, should be, as it is, hereby closed and terminated. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(4) The heirs, agents, privies and/or anyone acting for and in behalf of the estate of the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban are hereby disallowed to exercise any act of possession or ownership or to otherwise, dispose of in any manner the whole or any portion of the estate covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136; and they are hereby ordered to immediately vacate the same, if they or any of them are in possession thereof. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

This judgment is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SO ORDERED . chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Narvasa, CJ, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Puno, Panganiban, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Melo, Kapunan, Mendoza, and Francisco, JJ., no part. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Vitug, J., on official leave.

Endnotes: Endnote:

[1] A Spanish mode of land measurement.

[2] Rough Sketch of area claimed attached at the end of this Decision.

[3] See Concurring Opinion of Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr. in Widows and Orphans Association, Inc. (WIDORA) v. Court of Appeals, et al. , 201 SCRA 165, 177 [1991].

[4] See The Director of Forest Administration, et al. v. Fernandez, et al. , 192 SCRA 121 [1990]; Tiburcio v. Castro, 161 SCRA 583 [1988]; and JM Tuazon & Co., Inc. v. Jurilla, 76 SCRA 346 [1977]; See also SC (Third Division) Resolution dated February 11, 1991 in GR No. 94538: "Carmencita D. Cerena v. Hon. Esther Nobles Bans, et al. "

[5] In Re: T. Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405, 454 [1995].

[6] [6] Records, GR No. 103727, pp. 1-8

[7] [7] Id. , pp. 283-286; Penned by then Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion.

[8] Id. , p. 286; RTC Decision, p. 4. 4.

[9] Piedad Estate or Friar Lands.

[10] See Note 6, pp. 3-6, Supra.

[11] Rollo of GR No. 103727, p. 33; CA Decision, p. 2. 2.

[12] Records, GR No. 103727, pp. 208-209; Issued by then Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr.

[13] Id. , pp. 284-285; RTC Decision, pp. 2-3.

[14] Id. , p. 294. 294.

[15] Rollo of GR No. 103727, pp. 32-36; CA (Second Division) Decision, pp. 1-5; Penned by Associate Justice Regina G. Ordoez-Benitez and concurred in by then Acting Presiding Justice Jose AR Melo and Associate Justice Emeterio C. Cui.

[16] Id. , pp. 35-36; CA Decision, pp. 4-5.

[17] Id. , pp. 12-30.

[18] Rollo of GR No. 106496, pp. 37-44.

[19] Records, GR No. 106496, p. 355, et. seq .; Annex A.

[20] See Note 18, pp. 38-39; CA Decision, pp. 5-6, Supra.

[21] Rollo of GR No. 103727, p. 52; RTC Decision dated April 25, 1978, in Sp. Proc. Proc. No. 312-B, p. 1. 1.

[22] Rollo of GR No. 106496, p. 35; CA Decision, p. 2. 2.

[23] Ibid.

[24] See Note 21, pp. 52-53, supra.

[25] Rollo of GR No. 106496, pp. 35-36; CA Decision pp. 2-3.

[26] Id. , p. 36. 36.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Rollo of GR No. 103727, pp. 101-103.

[30] Rollo of GR No. 106496, p. 38. 38.

[31] Ibid.

[32] See Note 19, supra.

[33] See Note 30, pp. 54-94; CA Brief for the Petitioner-Appellant and Petitioner Co-Appellants.

[34] Id. , pp. 34-49; CA (Sixteenth Division) Decision, pp. 1-16, Penned by Associate Justice Luis L. Victor and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo J. Francisco and Pacita Caizares-Nye.

[35] Id. , pp. 51-53.

[36] Id. , pp. 7-30.

[37] Id. , p. 552.

[38] Rollo of GR No. 103727, pp. 23-24.

[39] Rollo of GR No. 106496, p. 16. 16.

[40] Id. , p. 18. 18.

[41] Id. , p. [41] Id., p. 19. 19.

[42] Id. , p. 23. 23.

[43] Id. , p. 25. 25.

[44] The proper term should be "probate court."

[45] Rollo of GR No. 106496 pp. 16-18.

[46] Id. , pp. 211-213.

[47] 75 Phil. 532, 535 [1945].

[48] 202 SCRA 106, 116 [1991].

[49] 67 Phil. 353, 356-357 [1939].

[50] 23 CJS, p. 1163, par. 381. 381.

[51] Rollo of GR No. 106496, pp. 18-19.

[52] People v. Dela Cruz, 207 SCRA 632, 643 [1992] citing People v. Umbrera, 196 SCRA 82 [1991] and People v. Abaya, 185 SCRA 419 [1990].

[53] Act No. 496.

[54] See Director of Lands v. Heirs of Isabel Tesalona, et al. , 236 SCRA 336, 343 [1994]; Republic v. Court of Appeals, et al. , 135 SCRA 156, 166 [1985].

[55] Carabot v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 368, 383 [1986].

[56] Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. , 186 SCRA 88, 93 [1990].

[57] See Note 54.

[58] Rollo of GR No. 103727, p. 39; Complaint (Civil Case No. Q-88-447), p. 3. 3.

[59] Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 494, 502 [1994] citing Imperial Victory Shipping Agency v. NLRC, 200 SCRA 178 [1991]; PT Cerna Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al., 221 SCRA 19, 25 [1993] citing Rodriguez v . Valencia, 81 Phil. 787 [1948] and Legasca v . de Vera, 79 Phil. 376 [1947]; The New Testament Church of God v. Court of Appeals, et al. , 246 SCRA 266, 269 [1995] citing Republic v . Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 160 [1991].

[60] See Note 19, supra ; Order dated November 17, 1978 in Sp. Proc. Proc. No. 312-B, p. 39. 39.

[61] Gobonseng, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 472, 495 [1995]; Arroyo v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 246 SCRA 384, 404 [1995] citing Government of the PI v. Martinez, 44 Phil. 817, 827.

[62] 239 SCRA 341, 348 [1994].

[63] De Vera v. Aguilar, 218 SCRA 602 [1993].

[64] Decision, Sp. Proc. Proc. No. 312-B, p. 20. 20.

[65] See Note 60, pp. 36-37.

[66] 144 SCRA 318, 321 [1986].

[67] Order, Sp. Proc. Proc. No. 312-B, p. 35. 35.

[68] See Republic v. CA, GR No. 113549, prom. on July 5, 1996.

[69] 23 SCRA 1183, 1206-1209.

[70] NB .: The Muoz case was decided in 1968, long before the issuance of PD No. 892

[71] 212 SCRA 360, 380 [1992].

[72] 231 SCRA 88, 99-100.

[73] See Tiburcio v. Castro, et al. , 161 SCRA 583, 588 citing Tiburcio v. PHHC, 106 Phil. 477 [1959]; Galvez v. Tuason, 10 SCRA 344 [1964]; and PHHC v. Mencias, 20 SCRA 1031 [1967].

[74] See Calalang v. Register of Deeds, 208 SCRA 215, 228 [1992], citing Tirado v. Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321 [1990].

[75] See Ramos v. Rodriguez, 244 SCRA 418, 424 [1995].

[76] (BR Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 28, 39 [1992] citing Manila Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 200 [1990]; Arambulo v. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 589,601 [1993] citing BR Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Supra ).

[77] 157 SCRA 13, 16 [1988].

[78] Rollo of GR No. 106496, p. 269. 269.


ChanRobles ™ LawTube


FEATURED DECISIONS cralaw Tampok na mga desisyon cralaw


google search para sa chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com

cralaw

QUICK SEARCH QUICK SEARCH

cralaw
1901 1901

1902 1902

1903

1904

1905 1905

1906 1906

1907

1908 1908

1909 1909

1910 1910

1911 1911

1912

1913 1913

1914 1914

1915 1915

1916 1916

1917

1918 1918

1919 1919

1920
1921 1921

1922 1922

1923

1924 1924

1925

1926 1926

1927

1928 1928

1929

1930 1930

1931 1931

1932 1932

1933 1933

1934 1934

1935 1935

1936 1936

1937

1938 1938

1939 1939

1940
1941 1941

1942 1942

1943 1943

1944 1944

1945 1945

1946 1946

1947 1947

1948 1948

1949 1949

1950 1950

1951

1952 1952

1953 1953

1954 1954

1955

1956

1957 1957

1958 1958

1959 1959

1960 1960
1961 1961

1962 1962

1963 1963

1964

1965

1966

1967 1967

1968 1968

1969 1969

1970 1970

1971 1971

1972 1972

1973 1973

1974 1974

1975 1975

1976 1976

1977 1977

1978 1978

1979 1979

1980 1980
1981 1981

1982 1982

1983 1983

1984 1984

1985 1985

1986 1986

1987 1987

1988 1988

1989 1989

1990 1990

1991 1991

1992 1992

1993 1993

1994 1994

1995 1995

1996 1996

1997 1997

1998 1998

1999 1999

2000 2000
2001 2001

2002 2002

2003 2003

2004 2004

2005 2005

2006 2006

2007 2007

2008 2008

2009 2009

2010 2010












Copyright©1998-2010 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™ ChanRobles ™ Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com ™

RED