THE LEGALITY OF OCT NO. 994 OR THE MAYSILO ESTATE
MAYSILO ESTATE & PEOPLE’S FAITH IN JURISPRUDENCE
BY JOSEPH CAMPANILLA
In Philippine Court System, we quote, “At the apex of the judicial hierarchy is the Supreme
Court. It is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices who may sit en banc or in
three divisions of five members each. It has the power to settle actual controversies involving
rights that are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government.”
The Supreme Court is considered “the court of last resort” since no more appeals can be made
from a judgment or decision on the merits rendered by the court. A decision of a Supreme
Court division is considered a decision of the entire court.
Decisions of the Supreme Court are considered as part of the law of the land.
The real culprits, the source or cause of problem, made Maysilo Estate allegedly “the mother of
all land titling scams,” as the late Senate President and Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan once called
it (PD Inquirer, November 12, 2002 issue). He had never seen the line that crosses every path
of the hidden boundary… only “GOD MERCY AND HIS WRATH.” the Holy Bible explained.
Hereunder are the FACTS AND LAW. We challenge those Honorable Supreme Court Justices,
judges, senators, Crusade of the Group of May 3, 1917 against landgrabbing (if they have the
nerves to do so) to show to the whole world who masterminded and who orchestrated the
alleged “Maysilo Estate Land Titling Irregularities”. Co-owners and heirs of the Maysilo Estate
challenged any holder(s) of the transfer Certificate of Titles (TCTs) emanating from the sole
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 and CLAIMING their registry was on May 3, 1917 to
prove such very claim is legitimate.
Based on the Republic Act No. 994 which took effect on November 6, 1902, particulary Section
58 thereof, stipulated a basic requirement before any TCT may be issued, “provided that the
Registry of Deeds shall not enter the transfer certificate to the grantee until a plan of such
showing all the portions or lots into which it has been subdivided, and the technical
description of each portion or lot, have been verified and approved by the Director of Lands.”
For the people of the Republic of the Philippines to know and understand with impartiality
who the real co-owners and co-heirs of the Maysilo Estate are and how said property was
acquired judicially, declared legal, and validated by well seasoned lawyers (honorable Justices
and judges) of the three level of courts, namely, the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial
Court, the Court of Appeals, and the court of last resort, the Supreme Court; ending the longest
known civil case in judicial history, the irrefutable facts herein are presented before all and
sundry.
The Maysilo Estate has been the object of a protracted court battle surrounding most of the
transfer certificate titles (TCTs) emanating from the OCT No. 994. The crucial issue derived
from these alleged TCTs is to ask the question, “which of these transfer certificate of titles, DO
CONFORM within the metes and bounds of the said property (formerly known as Hacienda de
Maysilo), and WILL VALIDLY EMANATE from the sole OCT No. 994 with LRC Case No. 4429
“issued on April 19, 1917 and transcribed on May 3, 1917 with Registry of Deeds of Pasig,
Rizal.”
“The truth must be heard and spoken, because the truth shall set us free from the bondage of
lies. We should not close our eyes and disregard the truth.”
Ex Court of Justice, Artemio B. Panganiban has this to say, “our efforts must be aimed at
preserving the gains of judicial reform and supporting current and future programs. Our work
is thus no mere job or chore, but a mission ordained by the Almighty to enable us to be of
service to the people.”
As far as the judiciary system is concerned, the Chief Justice or SUPREMO NG HUDIKATURA,
must envision a judiciary that is impervious to the plague of ‘ships’, such as kinship,
relationship, friendship, professional relationship and fellowship. All courts and prosecutors,
must be held to the highest standards of public service, and are, at all times, accountable to the
people whom they must serve with utmost responsibility, loyalty, efficiency, patriotism and
justice.
In the case if MAYSILO ESTATE or OCT NO. 994, it is highly questionable to “REMAND” a
Supreme Court’s Decision that has been final and executory over the years to a much lower
Court of Appeals’ Special Division under the ponencia of ex-SC Associate Justice Dante O.
Tinga. Such unmeritorious act by a supposed lawyer is unprecedented in the annals of
judicial practice and this dastard proceeding is against the jurisprudence.
“Now, what I want is facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but facts. Facts alone are
wanted in life.” - Charles Dickens, Hard Times, 1854
FACTS AND LAW
MAYSILO ESTATE is a vast tract of land embracing huge area of Caloocan and proportions of
Malabon and Quezon Cities and Quezon City, Metro Manila which is covered by five (5) Original
Certificates of Title Nos. 982. 983, 984, 985 and 994 as indicated hereunder:
OCT NO.
AREA
DECREE NO.
LRC CASE NO.
DATE OF SURVEY
982
983
48 Has.
26 Has.
24727
24724
3863
3850
Sept. 20 – Oct. 14, 1909
February 4 – 6, 1910
984
18 Has.
24725
3852
April 15 – 30, 1910
985
994
7 Has.
1,342 Has.
24726
36455
3851
4429
Total land area: 1,500 Hectares, more or less
January 30, 1910
Sept. 8 – 27, Oct. 4-21,
Nov. 17 – 18, 1911
INDEX MAP OF OCT NO. 994 OR MAYSILO ESTATE
Celebrated title among the five (5) OCTs aforementioned above is the OCT No. 994 with an area of
THIRTEEEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED TWELVE, SIX HUNDRED EIGHTEEN SQUARE METERS AND
EIGHTY NINE DECIMETERS (13,312,618.89), more or less. This huge tract of land is sub-divided into
Lots 1 up to Lot 34, Lot 7D, and Lot 25D respectively having different sizes stated in OCT No. 994 and
inscribed completely at Decree No. 36455.
OCT. No. 994’s Plan PSU-2345 was approved by then, Bureau of Land’s Director, Jorge N. Vargas on
April 27, 1912. Subsequently, former Honorable Norberto Romualdez, Associate Judge, witnessed the
promulgation of the decision on December 3, 1912 of the Court of First Instance (CFI) while acting as
Land Registration Court (LRC) judge, in Land Registration Case No.4429. The decision ordered the
registration of the land described in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act, R.A.
496. Meaning, OCT No. 994 WAS ISSUED THROUGH ORDINARY LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDING, NO
“SHORT CUTS, NO MORE NO LESS. Thus pursuant to said decision, Decree of Registration No. 36455
WAS ”ISSUED ON APRIL 19, 1917” and same document was received and “TRANSCRIBED ON MAY 3,
1917” by the Office of the Registery of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal.
THE DELAPIDATED OLD DECREE OF REGISTRATION NO. 36455 AT REGISTRY OF DEEDS PASIG, RIZAL
ONE OF THE ORIGINAL CO-OWNERS of the above celebrated huge tract of land covered by OCT No.
[Keywords]
994 was the late MARIA DELA CONCEPCION VIDAL, married to PIOQUINTO RIVERA. Their marriage
bore four children, namely: (1) EPIFANIA; (2) SEVERO, who was survided by his son BARTOLOME; (3)
PEDRO, who was survided by his daughters ELEUTERIA R. BONIFACIO and TERESA, who in turn, was
survided by her children PELAGIA, MODESTA, VENANCIO, FELIPE and FIDELA, all ANGELES; (4)
POTENCIANA, who was survided by her children JOSEFA, GREGORIO, and ROSAURO, all AQUINO.
Currently, the family had appointed DANILO C. BONIFACIO as Assignors’ Assignee or Atty.-In-Fact on
1989 to represent the Maysilo Estate co-0wners.
Maysilo Estate Assignors’ Assignee Danilo C. Bonifacio
ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTION OF NAMES
On October 20, 1961, BARTOLOME, ELEUTERIA, JOSEFA, GREGORIO, PELAGIA, MODESTA, VENANCIO,
FELIPE AND FIDELA filed a petition in Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 4557 with the court Of First
Instance (CFI) of Pasig, Rizal, Branch I. Then, presiding judge Cecilia Munoz Palma issued an Order
dated May 25, 1962, directing the Register Of Deeds of Rizal TO CANCEL THE NAME OF MARIA DELA
CONCEPCION VIDAL IN THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 994 and substitute in lieu thereof
BARTOLOME RIVERA, ELEUTERIA RIVERA – BONIFACIO, JOSEFA RIVERA – AQUINO, GREGORIO
RIVERA – AQUINO, ROSAURO RIVERA – AQUINO, PELAGIA RIVERA – ANGELES, MODESTA RIVERA –
ANGELES, VENANCIO RIVERA – ANGELES, FELIPE RIVERA – ANGELES and FIDELA RIVERA – ANGELES
as OWNERs, with their respective shares from undivided share of the late MARIA DELA CONCEPCION
VIDAL, consisting of 1-189/1000 percent of the properties described in OCTs’ 982, 983, 984, 985 and
994 that “never been sold or disposed of” in the proportion hereunder stated:
Bartolome Rivera
Eleuteria Rivera
Pelagia R. Angeles
Modesta R. Angeles
Venacio R. Angeles
Felipe R. Angeles
Fidela R. Angeles
Josefa R. Aquino
Gregorio R. Aquino
Rosauro R. Aquino
1/3 of 1-189/1000 percent
1/6 of 1-189/1000 percent
1/30 of 1-189/1000 percent
1/30 of 1-189/1000 percent
1/30 of 1-189/1000 percent
1/30 of 1-189/1000 percent
1/30 of 1-189/1000 percent
1/9 of 1-189/1000 percent
1/9 of 1-189/1000 percent
1/9 of 1-189/1000 percent
PARTITION AND ACCOUNTING, CIVIL CASE NO. C-424
On May 3, 1965, the new owners stated above filed a complaint for Partition and Accounting docketed
as Civil Case No. C-424 before the Court Of First Instance of Rizal, Seventh Judicial District, Branch XII,
Caloocan City against Administratrix Gil de Sola, Jose Rato y Tuazon, Luis Vidal Tuazon, Concepcion
Vidal y Tuazon, Pedro Banos, Maria Dela Concepcion Vidal, Bernardino Hernandez Alvarez, Trinidad
Jurado y Sarmiento, Aurora Tuazon y Vecinte, Isabel Tuazon y Chua-Jap, Juan Jose Tuazon y dela Paz,
Maria Teresa Tuazon Tuazon y dela Paz, Mariano Severa Tuazon y dela Paz, Demetrio Asuncion Tuazon
y dela Paz, Augusto Herbert Tuazon y dela Paz, Maria Sotenana Tuazon y dela Paz, Benito Legarda y
dela Paz, Consuelo Legarda y dela Paz, Rita Legarda y dela Paz, Benito Legarda y Tuazon, Emilio Tuazon
y Pateno, Maria Rotcha y Tuazon, German Franco y Gonzales, Domingo Franco y Gonzales,
Concepcion Franco y Gonzales, Vecinta Ferrer y Tuazon, Josefa Ferrer vda. De Flores, Sofia O’ Farrel y
Pateno, Maria Eloisa y Pateno, Angel Farrel y Pateno, Juan Farrel y Pateno Sons and heirs of Felimon
Tuazon, and all their heirs;
Manotok Subd., Araneta Subd., L. Vda. Dela Pineda Subd., R. Carreon Subd., Terofal, Inc., T. S. Cruz
Subd., Fortunato Halili, Apolonio Baetiong, Margarita dela Cruz, Maria Cabang, Emiliana Oliveros,
Leon Samson, Pangyarihan, Jose Hernandez, Jose Gregorio, Ernesto Sarangaya, Leon Madrilayo,
Constancio Madrilayo, Mauricio Sagana, Daniel Liceralde, Marcelo Evatolio, Victoria Natividad,
Benigno Aquino Jr., Leonora Magsalin, Rosario Magsalin, Julita Magsalin, Princesa Magsalin, Domingo
Magsalin, Tomas Magsalin, Alberto Valenzuela, Generoso Del Rosario, Jose Rojas, Allied Chemicals,
Esmeralda Gutierrez, Pablo Panlilio, Manuela Manauel, Augusto Ongsiako, Claro Bea Lim, Lamberto
Reyes, Virginia Mercado, Stonehill Steel, Luis Sinkin Sui, Valentin Rodriguez, Baldomera Baetiong,
Felipe Dizon, Gen. Offset Press, Antonio G. Pinpin, Ongtek, Central Mfg. Corp., Go Soc & Sons, Aurelio
Cabalquinto, Gregorio Aquino, Irenea Gazana, Anatalie Sagana, Distelleria Limtuaco, Augusto Salas Jr.,
Adela Gatlin, Fortunato Samson, Leonora Vda. De Samson, Marvex Mfg. Corp., Quirica Samson,
Andres Samson, Graciano Samson, Valeriano Garcia, Fortunato Espiritu, F. Delos Reyes, Clemente
Santos, Benedicto Santos, Pedro Gardonio, Paulina Mallari, Eugenio Nunez, Antonina Peralta,
Florencio Mariano, Generoso Fulgencio, Oresanto Vicencio, Isidro Obispo, Francisco Fajardo, Elacio
Dionisio, PrimitivoAquino, Virgilio Medel, Ireneo Valera, Godofredo Ramos, Epifania Copiaco,
Purificacion Sioson and Maria Buensuceso, as defendants.
DECISION IN CIVIL CASE No. C-424, RTC BR XII, CALOOCAN CITY
On the 29TH of December 1965, the Honorable presiding Judge FERNANDO A. CRUZ, RTC Branch XII,
Caloocan City “RENDERED THE DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE Plaintiffs’ BARTOLOME RIVERA et al.,
against all the aforecited defendants “ which was “declared in default” in an Order issued on
December 4, 1965, despite of the fact that all the defendants were summoned and given sixty (60) days
period to answer the complaint after the last publication of the summons. The summons were
published in the “Daily Mirror”, a newspaper of general and wide circulation on May 20, May 27, and
June 3, 1965. All the defendants “FAILED TO FILE their respective answers, notwithstanding the lapse
of the grace period provided by the court.
Daily newewspaper “Daily Mirror” banners Pasig Court Decision awarding
Consequently, on the 7th of June 1966 or six months later, said decision dated December 29, 1965 had
already become “FINAL AND EXECUTORY since NO APPEAL by the defendants were filed within the
reglemantary period. To conform and adapt to the rule of the court on land titling procedure, the said
decision on Partition and Accounting was published at the Philippine Daily Express, another newspaper
of wide circulation for proper dissimination of information to public on April 14, 1975.
Certified true copy of Supreme Court’s First Division ‘ENTRY OF JUDGMENT” attested by Gloria C.
Paras, Clerk of the Supreme Court on November 4, 1981
DECISION IN Court Of Appeals (CA) – G.R. No. 61750-R
“Partition & Accounting “ (COURT OF APPEALS)
Same Partition and Accounting Case was elevated at the Court of Appeals on March 25, 1981 or
roughly sixteen (16) years after December 29, 1965. Why have the defendants , who were duly
notified via summons and publications, waited sixteen years before appealing before the court, let
alone respond accordingly before the RTC BR XII, CALOOCAN? Nonetheless, a decision was rendered
in CA-G.R. No. 61750-R “AFFIRMING” in toto the decision rendered on November 22, 1974 which
revived the December 29, 1965 Decision from the court a quo, in Civil Case No. C-424 in favor of
BARTOLOME RIVER ET AL., AGAINST ISABEL GIL DE SOLA, ET AL.
Court Of Appeals Seventh Division Decision rendered on November 22, 1974 as quoted, “It appearing
from the evidence presented that the properties sought to be partitioned, covered by Original
Certificate of Title Nos. 982, 983, 984, 985 and 994 ARE CO-OWNED BY THE PLAINTIFFS and the
defendants in this case in the proportions stated in said titles, and that the defendants and the
defendants-intervenors HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SAID PROPERTIES
SHOULD NOT BE PARTITIONED AMONG THE PLAINTIFFS and the defendants as co-owners thereof, and
considering that no new evidence has been presented to warrant the issuance of a new decision, the
court simply RE-INSTATES OR REVIVES ITS DECISION ON DECEMBER 29, 1965…”
Court Of Appeals Decision in case CA-G.R. 61750-R “AFFIRMING” in toto the decision rendered on
November 22, 1974 which revived the December 29, 1965 Decision
DECISION IN G.R. NO. 57422
“PARTITION & ACCOUNTING” (SUPREME COURT)
A Certificate of FINALITY was already issued by the Regional Trial Court on June 7, 1966 in Civil Case
No. C-424 BUT DESPITE THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION “AFFIRMING” IN TOTO THE TRIAL COURT’S
DECISION, same civil case was brought to the highest court of the land, with no other than the
SUPREME COURT itself, becoming the FINAL ARBITER. On November 4, 1981, a resolution was
judicially rendered by the Supreme Court’s First Division “DENYING” the said civil case petition by the
same defendants ‘FOR LACK OF MERIT”. Same supreme court decision became “FINAL & EXECUTORY”
on the 27th of January 1982. As protocol, an ENTRY OF JUDGMENT was issued by the Supreme Court’s
Clerk of Court, GLORIA C. PARAS on… This was followed by the issuance of Letter of Transmittal dated
March 9, 1982 bacK to the Court of Appeals, directing the later to return the records of the case to the
court a quo for “EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT.
“ENTRY OF JUDGEMENT” BY SUPREME COURT AS CERTIFIED BY SUPRREME COURT CLERK OF COURT,
GLORIA C. PARAS
A JUDICIAL WRIT DIRECTING SUCH ENFORCEMENT
The Honorable Court of Appeals remanded or sent back all the records to the court a quo and as part
of the “execution judgment”. At about the same time, ELEUTERIA RIVERA, one of the co-owners of the
Maysilo Estate, during her lifetime thru her counsel-on-record, Atty. Mariano E. Eslao, filed a “Motion
for the Issuance of Cease and Desist Order” from disposing the Maysilo Estate properties embraced by
OCT Nos. 982, 983, 984, 985 and 994 without authority from the court and preserve the same from
partition among co-owners. Hence, said motion was GRANTED and an Order dated July 21, 1995 was
issued by then presiding Judge Emiliano L. Leachon Jr., RTC, Branch 120, Caloocan City and herein
quoted as follows:
“The Court further orders any person or persons to cease and desist from disposing the Maysilo Estate
without authority from the court with the end view of preserving the Maysilo for the partition of the
same among the co-owners thereof.”
The said Order was promptly made in public and published in daily newspapers of wide circulation; one
at “People’s Journal Tonight” dated September 11, 1995 and another at “Balita” dated August 25, 1995.
On the 23rd of May 1996, ELEUTERIA RIVERA sought to continue the “final verdict” of the Honorable
Supreme Court, relative to Partition and Accounting decided with finality by RTC Branch 120 presided by
Judge Fernando A. Cruz dated December 29, 1965 by filing a Motion for Partition and Segregation of
portion of Lot 23-A containing an area of 14,391.54 square meters, more or less, and portion of Lot 28,
with an area of 4,872 square meters, more or less to be segregated from its mother title, the OCT No.
994. Hence, an Order for relocation survey dated June 13, 1996 was issued in relation to the partition of
the subject properties among the co-owners thereto.
Further evidences regarding the properties for segregation, e.g., OCT NO. 994 Decree No. 36455,
specific survey plan (portions of lot 23-A and Lot 28, Maysilo Estate), geodetic engineers,
representative from the Bureau of Lands, Register of Deeds, pictures of said properties, etc., were
presented to three (3) court’s appointed commissioners of the estate for evaluation and
recommendation for the segregation and issuance of Transfer certificate of Titles from OCT No. 994.
The Honorable RTC Branch 120 presided by Judge Jaime Discaya issued an Order on September 9, 1996
approving the Commisioner’s Recommendation relative to Eleuteria Rivera’s motion for Partition and
Segregation stated above. The said Order became “FINAL & EXECUTORY”. CORRESPONDING TITLES
WERE ISSUED RESPECTIVELY EMANATING FROM OCT NO. 994, AS FOLLOWS:
986 1. TCT NO. C-314535
987 2. TCT NO. C-314536
988 3. TCT NO. C-314537
3,471 sq. mtrs., more or less
1,401 sq. mtrs., more or less
14,391.54 sq. mtrs., more or less
The above aforementioned first three (3) TCTs plus the seven (7) other TCTs mentioned below have
been derivatives of OCT No. 994. Thus the controversy involving the VALIDITY OF THE LATTER
issued/registered on April 19, 1917 was “laid to rest” by virtue of the seven (7) final and executory
decisions renedered by the Honorable Supreme Court as the final arbiter, with ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
and recorded in the book of Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA). The said seven TCTs, to wit:
1)
METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE SYSTEM VS. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL., promulgated on September 3, 1996, G.R. No. 96259, Vol. 261
SCRA 327;
2)
HEIRS OF LUIS J. GONZAGA, ET AL., VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.,
promulgated on September 3, 1996, G.R. No. 96259, Vol. 261 SCRA 327;
3)
GUILLERMO Y. MASCARINA VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., promulgated
on September 3, 1996, G.R. No. 96274, Vol. 261 SCRA 327; 4) MANOTOK REALTY,
INC., AND MANOTOK ESTATE CORPORATIONS VS. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT
CORP, promulgated on November 29, 2005, G.R. No. 123346, Vol. SCRA
4)
ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, INC., VS. HEIRS OF JOSE B. DIMSON,
promulgated on November 29, 2005, G.R. No. 134385, Vol. 476 SCRA;
5)
STO NINO KAPITBAHAYAN ASSOCIATION, INC., VS. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT,
INC., promulgated on November 29, 2005, G.R. No. 148776, Vol. 476 SCRA;
6) REYNALDO AGUILAR VS. DOLORES P. PALISPIS, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND,
EDILBERTO P. PALISPIS, promulgated on July 18, 2008, G.R. No. 179926
Numbers 4, 5 and 6 stipulated TCTs above was the oldest consolidated cases heard in the trial court
since way back December 1979. It reached approximately 26 long years since then before Third
Division Supreme Court overturned thru an En Banc Resolution under the ponencia of then Associate
SC Justice Dante Tinga a prior Supreme Court First Division decision which upheld and affirmed other
courts’ decision nullifying the defendants petitions. This septuagenarian, then, SC Associate Justice
Tinga, assembled an instant case against the Plaintiffs without checking the scores of disputable
evidence(s) presented then by the defendants from RTC to Court of Appeals and lastly to the First
Division of Supreme Court and “REMANDED” the latter decision to the Special Division of the Court
of Appeals on December 14, 2007, for another court proceeding on two flimsy grounds, namely: one,
the recommendation of then Department of Justice Head Teofisto Guingona; and two, on the
recommendation of the Senate Special committee purportedly investigating the Maysilo controversy. It
is to be noted down that this senate investigation was conducted without the Maysilo co-owners, who
lamented, “how can we attend the investigation when we were not invited by this august body in the
first place?”
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL’S APPEAL AND WITHDRAWAL
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed an appeal based on the aforecited Order of September 9,
1996 and subsequently, on November 18, 1996 submitted its “WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL” on the basis
that upon meticulous and thorough investigation, it was found that the Civil Case C-424 for Partition and
Accounting is of private properties and private litigants. Thus,. It was DISMISSED OUTRIGHTLY FOR
“LACK OF MERIT” in an Order rendered by the Honorable Judge Jaime M. Discaya, RTC Branch 120,
Caloocan City on November 28, 1996.
THE CLEAN CERTIFICATE OF TITLES ISSUED
In compliance with the aforesaid Order, the Register Of Deeds of Caloocan City issued another seven
(7) titles as follows, to wit:
1.) TCT NO. C-360461, 20,002 sg. Mtrs., along A. Bonifacio, Balintawak, Quezon City;
Lot 23-A
2.) TCT NO. C-360615, 22,646 sq. mtrs., along Rizal Avenue Extension, Grace Park
Caloocan City Near Monumento; Lot 23-A
3.) TCT NO. C-360607, 6,841 sq. mtrs., along EDSA, Monumento, Caloocan City; Lot 23-A
4.) TCT NO. C-360462, 2,172 SQ. mtrs., North Diversion Road corner Quirino Highway,
Caloocan City; Lot 28
5.) TCT NO. C-360468, 1,135 sq. mtrs., along EDSA corner Gen. Tinio Street, Monumento,
Caloocan City; Lot 28
6.) TCT NO. C-360469, 1,914 sq. mtrs., along Samson Road corner Bautista Street,
Caloocan City; Lot 25
7.) TCT NO. C-360929, 388 sq. mtrs.,
Caloocan City; Lot 23-A
besides Grand Central corner Benin street,
Another petition for Segregation was filed by the co-owners on August 1, 1996 involving twelve (12)
parcels of land located at Caloocan and Quezon Cities. Said petition was “GRANTED” by Judge Discaya in
an order dated January 8, 1998 which became final and executor as per Certifiacate Of Finality dated
March 17, 1999 issued by the Clerk of Court Atty. John Voltaire Venturina, RTC Branch 120.
Assuming the arguendo was that OCT NO. 994 was registered or issued on May 3, 1917 by the Pasig
Registry of Deeds, as per the personal conclusion and recommendation of DOJ Teofisto Guingona
Associate to the Supreme Court, with the former, made the ULTIMATE & UNDERLYING PREMISE
utilized by the “Supreme Court en banc” summoned by Dante Tinga, still, the Maysilo property
belonged legally to the co-owners and co-heirs of the late MARIA DELA CONCEPCION VIDAL, married
to PIOQUINTO RIVERA because said Decree of Registraion was ISSUED ON APRIL 19, 1917 AND
TRANSCRIBED THE NEXT MONTH MAY 3, 1917 by the sole government body to MANDATED BY LAW to
issue land registration certificate.
HOW CAN THIS SUPREME COURT EN BANC negated the findings of the honorable courts, from the RTC
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND LASTLY, THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, “that the
titles ALONE of the Manotok Corporations and the Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc., were NOT
DERIVATIVES OF OCT NO.994”. On records and submitted to these respective courts, the TCTs
presented by the defendants aforementioned suffered fatal irregularities and considered SPURIOUS;
not to mention the fact, other TCTs, as verified are encroaching and overlapping the OCT NO. 994.
IF A COURT IS TO RULE OUT A PRECEEDING DECISION, EXAMPLE, THE DECISION OF THE “FIRST
DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT” ON THE MAYSILO “PARTITION & ACCOUNTING” CASE WHICH
HAD BEEN “FINAL AND EXECUTORY” FOR YEARS BEFORE THIS controversial “TINGA EN BANC”
CREATION, THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL ISSUES SHOULD BE “PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBTS”, AND NOT BY MERE RECOMMENDATION OR SUSPICION BY A SELECT FEW, TO WIT:
1. The original OCT NO. 994 registered/issued on May 3, 1917 should be in English.
The time of land registry was during the early American era, where all Spanish
titles registered before the promulgation and effectivity (November 6, 1902) of
Republic Act NO. 496 NEEDED to be registered in English with the Registry of
Deeds. The court records attested to the fact that the TCTs by the defendants
were in Spanish;
2. The property(s) for land registration must allow government appointed body to
survey the property for verification. In the case of the Maysilo Estate of OCT NO.
994, the survey dates duly verified by the government entity were September 827, October 4-21 and November 12-18, 1911 which appeared on the sole/original
certificate of title, as oppose to the defendants’s submitted survey dates
respectively dated December 1, 1930 (or surveyed thirteen years later?), and
August 1932 (or fifteen years later?). Other derivative was surveyed December
22, 1917;
3. All TCTs, if originally segregated from the OCT NO. 994 and registered on May 3,
1917, must have its own SUBDIVISION SURVEY PLAN NO. indicated on their TCT
covering the purported subdivision of OCT NO. 994 from Lots 1-34 and Lot 7D and
Lot 25D issued by the Bureau of Lands (now Land Management Bureau);
4. All SUBDIVISION SURVEY PLAN must be recorded in the Bureau of Lands (now
LMB), and the TIE LINES stated in every individual TCTs embracing the lots
procured “MUST NOT DEVIATE” nor DEPART from the mother lot’s TIE POINT (the
Bureau of Lands Location Monument NO.1 or “BLLM NO.1” of Caloocan City.
Changing the TIE POINTS in the technical descriptions on every TCTs from that of
the mother lot’s TIE POINT (BLLM NO.1) to a different or adjoining location
monuments will definitely SHIFT such POSITION AWAY from the Maysilo Estate
actual location. Any shift for that matter DEFEATS the very purpose of TIE POINTS
AND TIE LINES. It is standard practice to adopt to the mother lot’s TIE POINT in
order to fix the location of the parcel of lands being surveyed on the earth’s
surface; here lies almost all of the irregularities of the defendants claiming to be
derivatives of the OCT NO. 994; ON RECORDS, AGAIN, THEIR CLAIMS WERE
ADJUDGED BY THE HONORABLE JUDICIAL COURTS AS SPURIOUS AND MERE
FABRICATIONS;
5. TCTs MUST CONFORM within the metes and bounds of the Maysilo Estate, and
must have been issued with a SUBDIVISION PLAN from any Lots 1-34, 7D and 25D
of the Maysilo Estate or OCT NO. 994 & APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
or the G.L.R.O. It should be noted that “A FEW TCTs duly certified by the Registry
of deeds of Caloocan, Malabon and Quezon Cities were found to have been issued
fraudulently”, no less, by the notorious fake-land-title syndicate
due to
“inherent technical infirmities/defects” as follows, to wit:
1.) GOTESCO INVESTMENTS, INC., Owner: JOSE GO of Gotesco Grand Central,
Rizal Avenue Caloocan City. TCT NO. 326321, A Spanish title. Property is
only a portion of Lot 23-A of Maysilo Estate and emanated from mother title
“OCT NO. T-9392”, instead of OCT NO. 994 with “DECREE NO. 4429”, instead
of 36455 and without LRC Case Number. Apparently, owner filed a petition
for the issuance of new owner’s duplicate copy due to alleged title lost on
February 2012. But widrew this motion thru his counsel Reynaldo M. De
Sagunthe on November 12, 2013 after knowing that Maysilo Estate
Assignee, Danilo C., Bonifacio filed a “Complaint for Intervention” on
September 5, 2013. Said petition was withdrawn on the ground that the
title was lost initially but found later. The truth of the matter was that the
title had been mortgaged for Php300,000,000. On November 19, 2013
counsel for the Maysilo Estate, Atty. Oscar M. Baria III, filed his
comment/opposition to the Motion to Withdraw. A hearing date was set on
December 3, 2013. “The petitioners are just evading our lawful due process
by said withdrawal because of the technical and inherent defects of the
Gotesco title,” retorts Atty. Oscar Baria. Gotesco’s TCT NO. 326321, a
transfer from TCT NO. 54327 registered in the name of Caloocan City
Government is adjudged spurious. Subsequently, an Affidavit of Adverse
Claim dated December 11, 2013 was filed by Mr. Danilo C. Bonifacio with
the Office of Registry Od Deeds in Caloocan City but was declined for entry
due to alleged “GII” Cancellation of Mortgage that is on-going. However,
when asked for a true copy of the latter’s instrument, RD Caloocan failed to
issue on the said ground;
2.) CKB CORPORATION. TCT NO. C-360064 located in Caloocan City allegedly
derived from OCT. NO 994 with DECREE NO. 36455, LRC Case No. 4429 but
with Cadastral Record No. 1606, certified by the LRA on November 6, 2008
and situated in the Mindoro province. MBM 9 tie point/tie line was used
instead of BLLM NO.1 of OCT NO.994, Maysilo Estate, Caloocan City;
3.) NELL MART, INC., TCT NO. 236236 located in Caloocan City, allegedly a
derivative of OCT NO. 994, DECREE NO. 36455 But with G.L.R.O. Cadastral
Record No. 1606, certified by the LRA on November 6, 2008 and situated in
Sitio of Curtijan, Bo. Of Polo, Municipality of Pinamalayan, Mindoro
Province. MBM 5 tie point/tie line was used instead of BLLM NO.1 of OCT
NO. 994, Maysilo Estate, Caloocan;
4.) FRANCISCO D. FRANCO, married to Josefa Escobar. TCT NO. 7387 located in
CAlle Cuatro corner B. Natividad Streets, Caloocan City, allegedly emanated
from OCT NO.994, DECREE NO. 36455 bu with Cadastral Record No. 34,
G.L.R.O. Record No. 1606, cetified by the LRA on November 6, 2008, and
situated in Mindoro Province. Also, TCT NO. 7387 whose full technical
appeared on TCT NO. 36957 of Balintawak Estate, Inc., and not on original
owner’s duplicate copy. Said texture of TCT NO. 7387, if only to be
examined by the NBI’s Questioned Document Division (QDD) or Forensic
Chemistry Division, will prove that the same was not issued on February 4,
1948 and was only fabricated. Date of survey was December 1, 1930 –
August 1932, instead of September 8-27, Oct 4-21, and November 12-18, all
1911, the original date of survey of Oct no. 994 and recorded at DECREE NO.
36455 and portion only of Lot 29, Maysilo Estate;
5.) CENTRAL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES. TCT NO. 2801 located in
Caloocan City, allegedly from OCT NO. 994, DECREE NO. 36544, LRC Record
Case No. 4429 but with G.L.R.O. Record No. 1606, certified by the LRA on
November 6, 2008 and situated in Mindoro Province. MBM 5 tie points/tie
line was used instead of BLLM NO.1 of OCT NO. 994, Maysilo Estate;
6.) CHUA KUN YAO, MARRIED TO BENITA GAN, ET AL. TCT NO. M-3371, situate
in Tonsuya, Malbon, bearing DECREE NO. N-64994 issued by the CFI,
Province of Antique, LRC Record Case No. N-13221 issued by the Province of
Nueva Ecija. A derivative of OCT NO. 2485 and 6604, but the truth of the
matter is that it is just a portion of Lot 6 of the Maysilo Estate under OCT
NO. 994;
7.) MARSON REALTY CORPORATION. TCT NOS. C-342792 and C-342791, both
located at Boni Serrano Street corner EDSA, Caloocan City, allegedly a
derivative of OCT NO. 994, DECREE NO. 36455, but with G.L.R.O. Cadastral
Record Case No. 1577 (under DECREE 799) located in Vitas, Sitio of Balut,
Tondo, Manila;
8.) JOHNNY C. OLACO. TCT NO. C-390163, located in Caloocan City, allegedly
emanated from OCT NO. 994, DECREE NO. 36455, but with G.L.R.O.
Cadastral Record No. 1577 (under DECREE NO. 799), situated in Vitas, Sitio
of Balut, Tondo, Manila, certified by the LRA on October 23, 2008;
NOTE: ACCORDING TO DENR/LMB DATED JULY 2009, “THERE WAS NO
CADASTRAL MAP AVAILABLE IN CALOOCAN, RIZAL” AS PER CONFIRMATION
OF OIC CHIEF FERNANDO R. VERBO AND TEODORO A. DE CASTRO, HEAD
SURVEY RECORD UNIT.
9.) ERNEST PRINTING CORPORATION. TCT NOS. C-333781 and C-333782,
located in Pio Valenzuela near Calle Cuatro Streets, Caloocan City, allegedly
emanated from OCT NO. 994, DECREE 36455, but with Cadastral Record
Case No. 34, G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record Case No. 1606, certified by the LRA
on November 6, 2008, situated in Mindoro Province. MBM 4 tie point/tie
line was used, instead of BLLM NO1 of OCT NO. 994 of the Maysilo Estate;
10.) EDILBERTO CREAUS AND GENEROSA MANLAPIG. TCT NO. 364494, TCT NO.
T-130270 AND TCT NO. M-3306 of Sps. Fung Fukpui, a.k.a. Victor Kho and
Shirley Kho, both has the same subdivision plan “PSD-10115”, a portion of
section 1 described in Subdivisision Plan “PSD10114” are not listed in EDP
SURVEY LISTING at the main office of the DENR-LMB. Both lotsare portionof
Lot 25-A of the Maysilo Estate. According to certification issued by DENRNCR Chief Engineer Teofilo R. Laguardia dayed November 9, 2001, “Malabon
Multi Purpose Cadastre, MCad-581, Case 1 submitted by the Malabon
Engineering Office to OIC-Director of Lands dated October 30, 1979 IS NOT
YET APPROVED since its submission until 2011”. Meaning the issuance of
Creaus and Fukpui titles, as weel as other TCTs covered by MCad-581, Case 1
ARE ALL FRAUDULENT. A BOGUS ONE. “The spring cannot rise higher than
Source”.
11.) LAVERNE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION. TCT NO. 0012011002435, located along Dagat-Dagatan Avenue, Caloocan City but, on
the face of its title, it was situated in the “Barrio of Longos, Malabon
Municipality”, bearing “NO” CASE Number, “NO” DECREE Number, “NO”
RECORD Number. A derivative of “OCT NO 5577”. Obviously, a court order
dated November 18, 2011, docketed as LRC CASE NO. C-5721 for Writ
Possession, was witnessed by the Honorable Presiding Judge Oscar P.
Barrientos, RTC Branch 123, Caloocan City, duly signed by the Branch Clerk
of Court, Emily P. Dizon. SAID PROPERTY is only a portion of Lot 5 of the
Maysilo Estate under OCT NO. 994, DECREE NO 36455, LRC RECORD CASE
NO. 4429. It is of GREAT IRONY, WHY A “WRIT OF POSSESSION WAS
RENDERED BY RTC CALOOCAN CITY” WHILE THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF MALABON CITY!!!
12.) ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, INC. (AIA). TCTs NOS. 7784 and
13574 were allegedly derived from TCTs NOS. 26538 and 26539, bothin the
name of Jose Rato, whose titles were issued pursuant to DECREE NO. 4429
and was issued by the CFI of Laguna, which is entirely different from DECREE
NO. 36455 upon which OCT NO. 994 of the Maysilo Estate was issued. This
MEANS THAT THE PROPERTIES OF THE ARANETA INSTITUTE ARE EITHER IN
LAGUNA OR ISABELA, “not in the Maysilo Estate, Potrero, Malabon City.”
Needless say, the Araneta Institute titles suffer FATAL IRREGULARITIES.
Rato’s titles from where the Araneta Institute titles ORIGINATED
SUPPOSEDLY “were not annotated on OCT NO. 994”. When it was derived
from Rato’s titles, what was cancelled was TCT NO. 6169 and NOT TCT 26539
in the name of Jose Rato. MORESO, WHEN TCT NO 7784 of Araneta
Institute was issued, the corresponding DEED OF SALE AND MORTGAGE was
not annotated thereon, and the previous title supposedly to be cancelled
was NOT RECEIVED BY THE REGISTER OF DEEDS; TO THINK, AS PER
ARANETA INSTITUTE CLAIM THAT THEIRS WERE SPECIFICALLY COMING
FROM OR ORIGINATED FROM OCT NO. 994, WHY THE GREAT
IRREGULARITIES IN THE TCTs ALLEGEDLY REGISTERED ON MAY 3, 1917?;
13.) MANOTOK CORPORATION’S 20 TITLES.
ALSO SUFFERED FATAL
IRREGULARITIES, located at Lot 26 of the Maysilo Estate, Caloocan City.
The former’s 20TCTs emanated from TCTs NOS. 4210 and 4211 in the names
of Alejandro Ruiz and Mariano Leuterio, respectively. The titles were
derived from TCT NO. 4211. It is to be noted down that TCT 4211 was later
cancelled by TCT NO. 5261 in the name of Francisco Gonzales which was
likewise, cancelled later by TCT NO. 35486 IN THE NAMES OF HIS SIX
CHILDREN, under “subdivision plan PSU-21154”, but, could not be traced at
the depository plan of the Bureau of Lands. The titles from where Manotoik
Corporation’s titles were derived from were still inscribed in SPANISH.
However, its alleged mother title, OCT NO. 994 was in ENGLISH. Alarmingly,
the date of survey appearing on the Manotok titles was in December 12,
1917, instead of September 8-27, October 4-21, and November 12-18, 1911
as appearing on OCT NO. 994. The tie points deviated from the mother
title’s tie point which is BLLM NO.1 (or Bureau of Lands location monument
no.1). Furthermore, the results of the laboratory analysis conducted by the
Forensic Chemist of the NBI “REVEALED THAT TCT NO. 4210 AND 4211 WERE
ESTIMATED TO BE FIFTY (50) YEARS OLD AS OF MARCH 1993 WHEN THE
EXAMINATION WAS CONDUCTED.” Hence the Manotok documents could
have been prepared ONLY IN 1940 and NOT IN 1917 as appearing on the
face of TCT NO. 4211. It is very CLEAR from the findings of the trial court and
the appellate court that the Manotok Corporation’s titles were actually
DERIVED FROM QUESTIONABLE AND IRREGULARLY ISSUED TITLES WHOSE
ORIGIN TO OCT NO. 994 CANNOT BE VALIDLY TRACED DOWN TO IT!
ACCORDING TO THE FACTS AND RECORDS, BARTOLOME RIVERA’S FATHER AND
GRANDFATHER EMPLOYED “DON CLARO M. RECTO” as their lawyer, but lost.
However, it was later discovered that Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate was NOW in
the name of Juan Recto and the portion of the four hectares on the 11th Avenue,
Caloocan City, erected by the Chinese School and Lots 27, 28, and 29 of the
Maysilo Estate is in the name of Don Vicente Singson Encarnacion, ex-Secretary
of Justice and alleged owner of the Morning Breeze Subdivision , known as, the
Balintawak Estate, and likewise sold portion of Lot 28 erected by the Manila
Central University Hospital and the Bonifacio Market. All this is nothing but a
CLEAR FOUL PLAY perpetrated by supposed trusted professional(s) then,
against the Maysilo Estate. The rest may be history but the book of redemption
to correct the LANDGRAB IS UNMISTAKENABLY CURRENT AND ACTIVE.
It is for this reason that the co-heirs and co-owners of the Maysilo Estate had
brought to open all the TRUTH BEHIND THE MANIPULATIONS, THE TREACHERY IN
DISGUISE OF TRUST AND THE CLOUT OF THE AFFLUENT FEW AND THEIR
GRANDIOSE DESIGNS TO RUB OFF THE HEIRS AND CO-HEIRS ITS LEGITIMNATE
OWNERSHIP OF THE VAST LAND EMBRACING MALABON, CALOOCAN AND
QUEZON CITIES.
Malice and fabrications and more importantly SEMANTICS WAS UTILIZED TO
CONFUSE THE PUBLIC RE MAYSILO DATE OF LAND REGISTRATION by select
people, their patrons and allies to make Maysilo Estate the controversial BUT
LEGAL PIECE OF HUGE LAND THAT IT WAS MADE TO BE.
It is forwith believed that NOTHING IS LATE in order to remedy what was wrong
in the first place: WHY MR. TINGA disregarded the merits of the case by THREE
HONORABLE AND REPUTABLE COURTS OF THIS LANDS in order to “remand” to a
much lower court A FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISION by the highest court of
the land, the First Division of the Supreme Court, so that defendants Aranetas
and Manotoks may finally claim what is not rightfully theirs IS A CRIME TO THE
HIGHEST DEGREE IN JUDICIAL HISTORY AND A MOCKERY OF IMMEASURABLE
IMPACT TO THE JUDICIAL INSTITUTION, AS WELL AS, TO THE TRUE AND
BONAFIDE OWNERS AND HEIRS OF THE MAYSILO ESTATE. Such action is a slap
in the face of the JUDICIARY AND JURISPRUDENCE
It is a known fact that Mr. Tinga, while successfully avoiding the filed inhibition
case against him before and during the notorious “en banc hearing” of the
Supreme Court, that he heavily leaned on the supposed flimsy recommendation
of then Secretary of Justice Teofisto Guingona and their affirming cohorts at the
Senate that the OCT NO. 994 was, according to his professional finding, was
registered on May 3, 1917 and not April 19, 1917.
As a lawyer, the basic tool to prove the validity of an issue, eg. “the registration
date of the Maysilo Estate” is TO SHOW CLEAR AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER, LAND REGISTRATION.
Why this reknowned secretary of justice use semantics as oppose to factual
truth, based on evidence, is a sixty four dollar question. It appeared that
finding the truth was not the goal of this “remand” proponents. Theirs was
simply to CONFUSE EVERYONE; USING THEIR CLOUT ATTENDANT TO THEIR
RESPECTIVE HIGH-END POSTS IN GOVERNEMTNT- ON ONE END, THE SO-CALLED
ELECTED SENATORS OF THE LAND, AND ON THE OTHER , AN APPOINTED
SECTRETARY in order to make their semantics credible.
LET’S TAKE A QUICK DIVE AT THE LEGAL LAND REGISTRATION DOCUMENT
BETTER KNOWN AS OCT NO. 994 UNDER THE NAME OF THE LATE MARIA
CONCEPCION VIDAL. During the 1900s, to be precise, in 1902, the land
registration law or Republic Act 496 came to be in order that land titles in
Spanish may be transitioned into English. For one to have his or her land
property, that is still in Spanish, to be registered under the Torrens Titling
System, three points must be sufficed, namely 1) that said land property must
be submitted as a “Plan”, 2) that same property must be referenced to a tie
point and tie line with a corresponding technical description submitted in order
said location can be easily verified by government appointed entity (surveyor)
who will survey the actual location, and lastly, 3) that said property must be
approved, no less, by the Director of Bureau of Lands before a decree of
registration will be issued. All three prerequisites had been sufficed by the
Maysilo Estate thru its late matriarch, MARIA CONCEPCION VIDAL. Thus,
registering the property, no matter how long it takes in years, to have it
registered makes the attendant/resultant DECREE, a legal document to behold.
ON THIS DECREE OF REGISTRATION KNOWN AS OCT NO. 994, there is NO
WORDING TO THE EFFECT SAYING “THIS DOCUMENT IS “REGISTERED ON SAID
DATE” But on the contrary, this legal piece of paper has but one phrase to
DEFINE DATE OF REGISTRATION: that this certificate was “ISSUED ON” April 19,
1917… “transcribed” on May 3, 1917. Then the question will follow: WHAT
WAS BEING ISSUED IN THE FIRST PLACE ON SUCH DAY? The answer is quite
SIMPLE. What was being “issued on April 19, 1917 and “transcribed on May 3,
1917 with the Registry of Deeds, as attested by this decree, is nothing but
“LAND REGISTRATION” BEFORE THE AUGUST BODY OF THE “REGISTRY OF
DEEDS OF PASIG RIZAL”. NOWHERE IN THIS PIECE OF LEGAL LAND
REGISTRATION DOES IT LITERALLY SAY OR INSCRIBE “THAT IT WAS REGISTERED
ON SUCH DATE”. Why is it so? It is self explanatory and one, need not
inscribed the word “REGISTERED ON SUCH DATE” on this document because
this document is by itself is A DECREE OF REGISTRATION!!! Thus, any word or
date which followed the word “issue on” on this document is actually, the date
of REGISTRATION. SIMPLE AND SELF EXPLENATORY. Where then is Mr. Wise
Guy, Teofisto Guigona getting his wisdom? ON FLIMSY SEMANTICS? What’s in it
for you Mr. Justice Secretary to stoop down so low?
Furthermore, regardless one uses April 19, 1917 or May 3, 1917 poses NO
PROBLEM because, these two dates either defined VERY VIVIDLY the existence
of a LAND REGISTRATION PROPERTY “issued on April 19, 1917 and “transcribed
with the Registry of Deeds in Pasig Rizal on May 3, 1917 under the name of late
MARIA CONCPCION VIDAL.
IT IS BY IRREFUTABLE FACT THAT THE MANOTOKS AND THE ARANETAS
TREACHEROUSLY SECURED EX-PARTE FROM MR TINGA ET AL THE LATTER’S
QUESTINABLE RECOGNITION TO HAVE THEIR LONG GONE PETITION BE
CONSIDERED AND “REMANDED” TO THE “STOOGES ON THE LOWER COURT”,
AFTER THEIR MUCH PUBLICIZED LOST TO THE MAYSILO HEIRS AND CO-OWNERS.
The Senate Committee Report NO. 1031 which is another essential ally to
bolster Mr. Tinga’s pursuit to malign the Maysilo Estate are unreliable because
they emanate from ex-parte self serving proceeding. The report is long in
recommendation, but short in “hearing” duration, since it took only just a day
for this Senate group to conduct the aforesaid hearing on November 21, 1997
without hearing the side of the Maysilo co-heirs and co-owners who were
deliberately not invited in this Senate investigation looking into the controvesy
of the Maysilo Estate. “Where is the impartiality? We were not even invited by
this Senate group?,” lamented one of the co-owners.
“This is incredible,” opined ex-Associate Supreme Court Justice, Angelina
Sandoval Gutierrez, “the Senate Committee Reports cannot be considered
because the factual evidence and conclusions reached therein were apparently
based on HEARSAY EVIDENCE and documents were NEVER AUTHENTICATED IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED UNDER THE RULES OF COURT ON EVIDENCE.”
The facts are indubitable, incontestable and immutable. The facts of the case
are clear and the issue simple. THE CONTROVERSY OF THE MAYSILO ESTATE
MUST NOT BE RESORTED TO PROPAGANDA OR TO APPEAL TO THE SAME VIA
MEDIA BLITZ NOR WITH POLITICAL COLOR AND/OR INFLUENTIAL INCLINATION
RELATIVE TO “SUPREME COURT’S FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISION” AND
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. WHY “REMAND” CASE THAT ALREADY MADE INTO
BOOK OF REFERENCE FOR LAW PRACTITIONERS ANS STUDENTS ALIKE AND
ALREADY A PART OF THE SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED (SCRA) FOR
YEARS? What’s in it for you Septuaginarian ex-Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga?
Now who are behind the scene creating Maysilo or OCT NO. 994 as the “mother
of all land titling scams?” Are we to expect that the computerization of Land
Titling then on on track in the Philippines can minimize land disputes and reduce
litigation of such cases with respect to LRA’S 5-PHASE PROGRAM which began in
2007 that is worth PHP2.7 Billion? During the commencement of said LRA’s
program, no investigation has been made nor conducted in full consonance to
the mandate of Republic Act 496 where one registrants needed to suffice the
three requirements on land registration. IS LRA COMPUTERIZATION GREATER
THAN THE LAW WHICH IS RA 496? The twelve (12) transfer of certificates of
titles mentioned herein, to name a few, clearly showed that even if the LRA
administrative body will convert all document (titles) into electronic data,
Maysilo will spurious, questionable, doubtful and dubious specifically within the
especially before the eyes of the plague os “ships”.
The truth of the fact, the Offices of Solicitor General (OSG), the Land
Registration Authority (LRA), Department of Justice during the term of ex-DOJ
Secretary Teofisto Guingona, Sr., and the Philippine House of Senate
Investigation are only RECOMMENDATORY and cannot ALTER NOR MODIFY the
Supreme Court’s FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISION.
“This violates the time honored principle of separation of powers and thereby
undermines the independence of the judiciary,” dissented ex-Associate Justice
of Supreme Court, Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez. Same opinion have been
espoused by the following Justices Presbitero J. Velasco and Ruben T. Reyes in
lieu of the en banc hastily formed by Mr. Dante O. Tinga. By the notorious
action of these above mentioned high placed government officials, JUSTICE had
received a spate of mockery that needed to be remedied.
In conclusion, let it be known that there is but one LEGITIMATE LAND
REGISTRATION DOCUMENT BETTER KNOWN AS THE MAYSILO ESTATE OR OCT
NO. 994. ITS LEGITIMACY IS OPEN FOR PERUSAL BY ALL WITH THE BUREAU OF
LANDS AND THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF PASIG RIZAL.
LET NO ONE BE CONFUSED AGAIN BY THE MERE SEMANTICS OF THE SELECT
FEW HIDING BEHIND JOURNALISTS CLOUT, OR WITH SENATORS OR SECRETARY
OF JUSTICE whats’s- in- it- for-me- COSTUMES.
REPUBLIC ACT 496 IS THE LAW ON LAND REGISTRATION; ITS MANDATE BIGGER
THAN WHAT THE SELECT FEW ARE. LET NO ONE FORGET THAT NOBODY IS EVER
ABOVE THE LAW. IF IS DOES, IT IS NOTHING BUT TEMPORARY!
“The Doctrine that there should be an end to litigation has been SERIOUSLY
DISTURBED. We must not be DEPRIVED OF THE FRUITS OF THE FINAL VERDICT.”
IS EX-JUSTICE TINGA REALLY CREDIBLE TO MAN THE POST & HEAD A SUPREME COURT ENC BANC
DIVISION?
Based on the urgent “Urgent Motion For Inhibition of Justice Dante Tinga filed against the former
dated September 21 2007 by Atty. Jorge Roito N. Hirang of Gutierrez Sundiam & Villanueva Law
Office, thru the Honorable Court Suprem Court in G.R. Nos. 123346, 134385 and 148767, it is
publicized on the Supreme Court Website www.supremecourt.gov.ph that Justice Tinga had a long
standing “professional relationships” with Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc (AIA). This website
disclosed that “xxx he was a senior attorney at the Araneta, Mendoza & Papa Law Office from 1961 to
1977 and senior partnber at the Santiago Tinga & Associate from 1978 to 1984, and also a senior
partner at the Pimentel Cuenco Fuentes Tinga Law Firm from 1984 to 1986xx.” The “Araneta”
appearing in the law firm of Araneta, Mendoza & Papa Law Offices pertained to “Atty. J. Antonio
Araneta”, the son of the late Don Gregorio Araneta and brother of Salvador and Vicente Araneta.
But “the Court En Banc” dated October 16, 2007, RESOLVED TO DENY the subject Urgent Motion For
Inhibition “for lack of merit?” IS THIS JUSTICE?
“There is a trite that we cannot bite the hand that fed us” added by the law firm. From the point of
view of the Maysilo Estate co-owners and co-heirs and the people who upheld the JURISPRUDENCE,
there is an old saying, “HE WHO HAS THE GOLD, HAS THE RULE”.
A PRINT-OUT OF THE WEBPAGE: http://wikepedia.org/wiki/Category: Filipino Business People
where we can find the names of the children of Gregorio Araneta (URGENT MOTION FOR INHIBITION
OF HON. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA dated Sept. 21, 2007)
Is it true that he was born on May 11, 1934? Then he is 75 years old at the time of this en banc. Is it
not mandated by law that Supreme Court Justices are retirable at age 70.
By virtue of the Motion for Inhibition plus the age factor, how come Septuaginarian Associate Justice
was holding a much sensitive position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court? Where is the
application on the Law On Inhibition? At 70 years of age, why was he not sitting in the comforts of
his home as a RETIREE, as MANDATED BY LAW on retirable government employees? Why was he
then allowed to hold this Associate Justice position in the first place? Do we have a law on this or we
don’t?