LRA’s TASK FORCE “TITULONG MALINIS” REBELLIOUS REPORT ABOUT OCT 01-4 - REFUTED -
The LRA, in its Task Force Titulong
Malinis Report No. 99023 dated 9 February 1999 which was approved
by the Honorable Administrator on 13 March 1999, falsely claims that the OCT
01-4 is void and spurious, to wit:
“In view of the foregoing, there
is sufficient evidence to arrive at the
conclusion that the documents allegedly supporting the validity or authenticity
of “Titulo de Propiedad, Royal Decree No. 01-4 Protocol of 1881” or “Titulo de
Propiedad de Terrenos of 1891, OLT 01-4 Protocol” (which allegedly covers the “Hermogenes
Rodriguez Estate” or the “Estate of Hermogenes and Antonio Rodriguez”) are
spurious. The Office of the
Solicitor General and Department of Justice should be informed of these
findings so that appropriate actions may be taken thereof.”
The
succeeding statement is the supplemental conclusion of Task Force TM No.
99-0151 dated 12 October 2000 Re: TCTs Nos. T-498 and T-408 allegedly in the
names of Don Esteban Benitez Tallano and Don Gregorio Madrigal Acop, which was
anchored in the Report dated 9 February 1999.
“The falsity of OCT No.
01-4 (which is actually the same as “Titulo
de Propiedad Royal Decree No. 01-4 Protocol of 1881” or “Titulo de Propiedad de Terrenos of 1891,
Royal Decree OLT No. 01-4 Protocol), allegedly the mother title of TCTs Nos. T-498 and T-408, is narrated in the Report dated 9 February 1999 (Task
force TM No. 99-0023) which was approved by the Honorable Administrator on 13
March 1999 (see Annex “N”).
“Based on the foregoing findings, it is safe
to state that TCTs Nos. T-498
(purportedly in the name of Don Esteban Benitez Tallano) and TCT T-408 (purportedly in the name of
Don Gregorio Madrigal Acop) are questionable and not issued by Registers of
Deeds concerned. It is therefore recommended that the parties concerned be
informed of the foregoing findings for their appropriate action.”
The LRA’s Task Force Titulong Malinis
has resulted to the above-cited unfounded
report by jumping at once into conclusion, thus mixing up our country’s
historical facts in land titling to someone else’s manipulated and corrupted
documents. The Task Force deceitful and misleading report’s version that Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 01-4 (without prefix letter T) is the mother title of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-498 and T-408 seems to be a product of premeditated
undertaking: Distorting the information as quoted in OSG’s petition for
annulment of Tallano’s fabricated titles (the source of Task Force Report) identified as OCT T 01-4 (with prefix letter T), TCTs Nos. T-498 and T-408.
Without a doubt, those Certificates of Title examined
and defended by the Task Force (like that of Matias dela Cruz’s TCT No. 408
issued in 1910, and Primitivo A.
Cruz’s TCT No. 408 issued in 1948) that
were made part of the report is to expressly validate the two cited TCT 408 in
favor of the two Cruzes. On the other hand, it will serve as a concrete foundation
to denounce Acopiado’s TCT No. 408 that originated from OCT 01-4 to further
discredit the legitimacy of the latter. However, the corrupted report attempting
to authenticate those two certificates reveals glaring deficiencies that clearly
exposed the inherent deceitful defects of such certificates during their
issuance-- HOW and WHY said certificates
without probative origin (fee simple
title) being issued only in 1910 and 1948 were able to acquire the same. The
revelation of such unlawful undertakings is set up in one of the topics herein:
The
Torrens System: A Gateway for the “Flooding” of Fake Land Titles Part II, which
sheds light on the ruling cited below.
“The Torrens
system of land registration is the system for registration of title to
land only, and not a system established for the acquisition of land.
It is not intended that lands may be acquired by the system of registration. He
does not obtain title by virtue of the certificate. He secures his
certificate by virtue of the fact that he has a fee simple title.”
CLARIFYING
THE BASELESS ALLEGATION
There
was no convincing evidence laid down by the LRA’s Task Force in the issues they
raised to support and justify their annihilation work on OCT
01-4, as stated below:
1) The inaccuracy of the Report
is that: There is no such Protocol of
1881, and Royal Decree OLT No. 01-4. What was indicated in the heading of the
monumental, legal title is: Titulo de Propiedad de Terrenos Royal Degree
No. 01-4 Protocol. Thus, the
Report arrived noticeably at baseless conclusion by just plainly anchoring to
the above-cited declarations; a twisted unjustifiable contention of the
purportedly heirs of Hermogenes and Miguel Rodriguez. And in effect, the Report
hangs to an end result of debatable issue
pertaining to the veracity of OCT 01-4. Indeed, the justification about
genuineness OCT 01-4 has been long settled in a Decision with Compromise
Agreement wherein the heirs of Hermogenes and Miguel Rodriguez lost their
claim.
2) OCT T-01-4 is the mother title
of Julian M. Tallano’s TCT Nos. T-498
and T-408. It is different and IS NOT
OCT
01-4.
This TM Report is misleading and also contradicts the details narrated in the OSG’s Petition for
Annulment of Judgment dated April 5, 2002 and concurred by the Court of Appeals’
Decision on December 11, 2009 rendering Permanent Injunction to Tallano’s
highly questionable reconstituted OCT T-01-4, TCT No. T-498 and TCT No. T-408. Those who made
the report relied solely on the CA Decision and did not bother to find out (even
ignored) the cause of action sought by the OSG (similar to that frail Report
about the heirs of Hermogenes and Miguel Rodriguez) in its petition in order to
suit their accusation.
There
were so many inconsistencies in the two (2) enumerated TM Reports. Thus, said TM report
99023 is to be considered as mischievous, appalling and replete with shocking lies when matched with the Finale Report prepared by the CIDG’s Legal
Division. This is about the premeditated Petitions for Reconstitution
orchestrated by Julian M. Tallano utilizing the long settled case under
LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P in 1997 and 2001, which was bound by Permanent
Injunction in CA-G.R. No. 70014. He has
now a Warrant of Arrest (including his 2 cohorts) for five counts of criminal
acts issued by Presiding Judge Hon. Remiebel U. Mondia, MTC, Branch 45, Pasay
City, which was filed by the CIDG in the Prosecutor’s Office in December 2015. The
conclusion in the CIDG Finale Reports has this to say:
“It is respectfully
submitted that the Compromise Agreement between the government and the
Acopiados which was judicially approved is valid.
Likewise, the Decision with Compromise Agreement rendered by the Court on
February 4, 1972 is enforceable.”
To
stress: The Report of Task Force Titulong Malinis is a wayward report that purely banks on the Permanent Injunction,
a Decision rendered by the CA under CA-G.R. SP No. 70014, which vividly
pertains only to Julian M. Tallano’s orchestrated Petitions for Reconstitution in 1997 and 2001. The unlawful
undertakings do not involved any participation of Don Anacleto M. Acopiado evidenced
by the OSG’s Petition for Annulment for Judgment dated April 5, 2002. It purely
focuses on Tallano’s manuscripts assailing his OCT T 01-4, TCT T
408 and TCT T 498 and the three (3) Court Orders by then Pasay City
RTC, Branch 111 Judge Ernesto Reyes. Acopiado’s
Certificates of Titles have no Prefix Letter T before the numbers 01-4,
408 and 409, which greatly
differs if compared to that of Tallano’s fabricated certificates.
What the Task Force Titulong Malinis is trying to imply is to distort the long
settled case of land ownership in LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P initiated during
the Macapagal administration in 1964 and finally concluded by the Marcos administration declaring OCT 01
to 100,000 null and void, ab initio by
virtue of the Decision with
Compromise Agreement in said case rendered on February 4, 1972. The Decision, likewise denied the claim of
the alleged heirs of Don Hermogenes and Miguel Rodriguez claiming ownership
over the misrepresented OCT 01-4 (also utilizing OLT 01-4).
The Decision with Compromise
Agreement is the defining document, a formal expression of agreement
between the government and the acknowledged owner of OCT 01-4, Don Anacleto M.
Acopiado. It settled once for all the issue of ownership over the lands covered
by OCT 01-4, including the government’s petition for the judicial
reconstitution of OCT 01-4, TCT Nos. 407, 408, 409 and 498 and the cancellation
of fake titles and their reconveyance in favor of the adjudicated owner.
On page 117 of the dispositive portion
of the ORIGINAL Decision with Compromise
Agreement commenced in 1964, it stated:
“WHEREFORE,
in view of the Motion for the Resolution
of Separate Decision with Compromise Agreement as submitted by the Republic of
the Philippines thru its Hon. Solicitor General, the same has been granted and both
owner and duplicate copies of the lost original of OCT No. 01-4, TCT No. 12022 has been considered reconstituted with
the same force and effect for and in favor of the heirs of Don Gregorio
Madrigal Acopiado and Don Anacleto Madrigal Acopiado, Sr. in the person of
Roberto P. Acopiado…”
It
was no other than the Land Registration Commissioner Antonio Noblejas and his
Deputy Gregorio Bilog who divulged the wicked undertakings in government
agency/office responsible for land
titling; the LRC (now LRA), Bureau of Lands and Register of Deeds as cited on
Pages 81 and 82 of the said Decision. To quote:
“It was a known fact when both LRC Commissioner Antonio Noblejas and
Asst. Gregorio Bilog, Jr. divulged the Modus Operandi of the organized
syndicate in both LRC and in the Bureau of Lands then to
defeat the interest of the herein owners, which
were an admission of this land authority that the eligible land records and
documents of the Acopiado over OCT No. 01-4, TCT No. 408 and TCT No. 498 had
been subjected into manipulation, alteration and falsification orchestrated by
no other in the LRC and the Bureau of Lands in connivance
with those in the Register of Deeds.”
The above-cited judiciaries’ competent
testimonies were bolstered by then DOJ Secretary Cerafin Cuevas in his exposure
published in Diario Uno dated November 4, 1998:
“100,000 fake land titles kalat sa bansa – Register of Deeds, kasabwat
ng sindikato.”
The LRA and its
Register of Deeds should provide strong evidence to discredit OCT 01-4 in order
to refute the ultimate facts in the above-cited details. Without such, the allegations are by mere
conclusions of law as always being the scenario encountered by those who are
seeking inquiry of the same in the said agencies. As per compliance to
law: In all averments of fraud or
mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake in the issuance of OCT
01-4 must be stated with particularity by the LRA or by its Register
of Deeds.
On the contrary, in order to liberate
the minds of the general public that a taint of corruption in LRA and RD does
not exists in the issuances of numerous fake Certificates of Title, the Task
Force must publish an exploratory article: How those fake Certificates of
Title of no probative origin being cancelled in the original LRC/Civil
Case No. 3957-P (not on the anomalous duplicate case having Permanent
Injunction orchestrated by Julian M. Tallano in 1997 and 2001) should attain
their validity as Torrens title. If done, will get rid of the agencies participation
in the nationwide corruption concerning the issuances of fake Certificates of
Title, and so are the chances that the Decision with Compromise
Agreement which incorporates quieting and annulment of OCT 01 to 100,000 in
said case – a hoax.
The Decision with Compromise
Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines was represented by then
Hon. Solicitor Felix Makasiar and Don Anacleto M. Acopiado emanated from the
petition filed by the government for: Reconveyance, Quieting and Annulment
of all the titles from OCT 01 to 100,000 utilizing Don Gregorio
M. Acopiado’s titles such as OCT 01-4
(aside from its TCT Nos 407, 408, 409 and 498) covering the whole archipelago
against those numerous claimants in the original
1964 LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P penned by then CFI Judge Enrique A.
Agana. The judicially approved compromise agreement became conclusively
final and executory forty four (44) years ago as per Entry of Judgment
having been entered in the Book of Judgment on June 14, 1972. Hence, the
Republic of the Philippines (that includes the LRA, the Judiciary, DENR, DAR,
etc.) and those holders of cancelled Certificates of Title are barred by estoppel and res judicata.
Reminder 1:
Bar – To stop (an action or claim)
by legal objection.
Estoppel – The principle that a person is barred
from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what he has said or done
before.
Res judicata –
(Latin, “a thing adjudicated”), the
rule (Sec. 47(b) Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) that a thing or matter
judicially decided as settled by judgment is conclusive between the parties and
is a bar to another action involving the same parties, subject matter and cause
of action; (bar by former judgment) and any right, fact or matter in issue
directly adjudicated in an action where a judgment is rendered is conclusive between
the parties in other case between them (conclusiveness of judgment Sec. 47(c)
Rule 39).
From the foregoing,
it is well settled that those persons, institutions or organizations holding
such nullified and invalidated Certificates of Title ranging from OCT 01 to
100,000 have no legal personality to claim the subject lands.
IF THE LAND
REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATION (LRA) AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS (RD) ARE BARRED BY
ESTOPPEL (due
to the testimonies of Noblejas and Bilog representing then the LRC): WHY THEY ARE STILL CERTIFYING AND
AUTHENTICATING THOSE “CERTIFICATES OF TITLE” PREVIOUSLY DECLARED NULL AND VOID
BY THE COURT? WHY THE JUDGES STILL
UPHELDING THOSE CANCELLED “CERTIFICATES
OF TITLE” BY CONSIDERING AND DECLARING IT AS A “TITLE” IN THEIR DECISION IF THEY ARE ALREADY BARRED BY RES
JUDICATA?
JUDGE’S DECLARING SUCH
“CERTIFICATE OF TITLE” AS “TITLE” CHALLENGES SECTION 39 OF P.D.
1529. TO QUOTE:
“A certificate of title is a mere evidence
of ownership; it is not the title to the land itself as the concept
of title is conceived under our Civil Law; the certificate of title shall be a true
copy of the decree of registration.”
In case of Leoncio Lee Tek Sheng vs. CA, one can
arrive at the distinction between a
“title” and a “certificate of
title.”
“What
can be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title. The
certificate of title referred to is that document issued by the
Register of Deeds known as the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). By title
refers to ownership which is represented by that document. Petitioner
apparently confuses certificate with title…”
Reminder 2:
Collateral attack – Attack on a prior judicial act or
judgment.
Judge rendering a
decision in favor of those null and void OCT’s/TCT’s is not only a collateral
attack to OCT 01-4 and its TCT’s 408, 498, 407 and 409, but challenging the
jurisprudence cited in Armed forces of
the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 370 Phil.
150, 163 (1999). To quote:
“A compromise agreement that is intended to resolve a matter already
under litigation is normally called a judicial compromise. Once it is stamped
with judicial imprimatur, it becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the
parties. Having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of
the controversy, it has the force and effect of any other judgment.”
Therefore, if a
decision was ever rendered by a court accrediting to those cancelled OCTs/TCTs against
Acopiado, the said judicially approved compromise agreement (Decision with
Compromise Agreement) has the force and effect over the issued judgment.
Please note that the Decision
with Compromise Agreement rendered on February 4, 1972 is based on a 1964 petition
filed by the government in court which incorporates annulment of OCT No. 01
to 100,000 wherein the Acopiados’ were only intervenors. The government
utilized OCT 01-4 (and its TCT’s 408, 498, 407 and 409) as exhibits and made as
integral part of the Republic of the Philippines position papers to cancel
those OCT 01 to 100,000 without probative origin.
BLACK PROPAGANDA
"A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth." Joseph
Goebbels, Propaganda officer for Adolf Hitler Twisted historical facts could become accepted
as truth especially when perpetrated on paper. Similarly, LRA’s negative report about OCT 01-4 could mislead the Filipino people into
believing that it is such when it fact the report has no speck of truth.
The clandestine manipulation, alteration and annihilation done to the
monumental title Original Certificate of title 01-4 (OCT 01-4) and its land
records disorients the general public and to a great extent, the judiciary, by upholding fake title as valid and a valid
title as fake.
Thus, the black propaganda such as “This one’s for Ripley,” “It’s Almost
Funny,” and “Monumental Fakery, and a Bad Work of Fiction” are just hilarious
expressions, void of legal basis to discredit OCT 01-4. Undeniably, history narrates the sequence of
important events leading to the emergence of historical and legal title, OCT
01-4.
The
OCT 01-4, which originated from a historical land title, Las Yslas
Philipinas, is the title that binds the
entire Philippine archipelago. This is a
piece of history that every Filipino should know. According to national hero Dr. Jose Rizal:
“People who do not know their country's history will not understand the society
they live in.” The well-documented
occurrences of the past will not only cast out all the clouds shadowing the
government’s land ownership, but also,
the true events unearthed consequential to the study of the past. These facts
will thus clarify the negative issues about OCT 01-4 that are impressed upon the minds of million Filipinos
for over a century.
LRA’s BASELESS ALLEGATIONS DISPROVED BY THE BOOK
THE TORRENS SYSTEM: A GATEWAY FOR THE “FLOODING” OF FAKE LAND TITLES, PART II
Historical
events conveyed by this book revealed that by virtue of discovery and conquest,
the King binds the diverse tribes in the more than 7,000 islands and islets by
a single title as Las
Yslas Philipinas, thus making it in 1543 a single sovereignty known
to the world as Filipinas . The
King of Spain granted different forms of Spanish titles as the totality of
evidence of land ownership. When the Torrens system was imposed on February I,
1903, there were no land titles ever existed other than Spanish titles that was
qualified for such registration. Under
the concept of Torrens system: The Torrens system does not create or vest
title. It only confirms and records title already existing and vested. The
Philippine government established in 1902 (the Second Philippine Commission)
does not have a chance or did not acquire vast tracts of land from the King of
Spain, hence cannot be the source of any land titles for the registration. This
was substantiated by the following phenomenon:
1) The
First Public Land Act was passed on October 7, 1903 (8 months after the
imposition of the Torrens system), which means; there were yet no public lands
ready for disposition by the government for its issuance of Certificate of
Title.
2) The government’s claimed properties were
allegedly purchased from the Friar Lands by virtue of the Friar Land Act 1120
enacted on May 26, 1904. Hence, it would have been impossible for the government to
outright register a land title under Torrens system on February 1, 1903.
However, issuance of Certificate of Title by the government to its grantees at
that time would have been legitimately possible if the latter freely possessed or
credibly acquired an absolute valid,
indisputable land title – a Spanish title prior to the implementation of
Torrens system.
The above-cited
events only justify that there were no existing land title other than Spanish
titles upon the enforcement of the Torrens system. Conclusively, Torrens system
is just a RE-REGISTRATION of the originally registered Spanish titles that will
be discussed later.
To put more emphasis
to this fact: In a Supreme Court
Decision, it cited government’s purchased of friar lands known as the Piedad
Estate and being registered as OCT No. 614 on March 12, 1912 in the name of the
Philippines. This occurrence undeniably manifests that:
1) It was
only in 1912 that the government could officially and lawfully grant public
land; and
2) Since the
government acquired its alleged ownership from the friar lands, which emanated
from Spanish titles, the supposed date of its registration should carry with it
such Spanish title’s original registration in Spanish era and not in 1912.
Indeed, there was NO
REGISTRATION of OCT No. 614 that occurred in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines.
Washington DC’s
American Archivist Richard Fusick acknowledgment letter to Congressman Gregorio
Andolana dated December 2, 1993 confirmed the non-existence of OCT No. 614.
Assuming, but not
granting that OCT No. 614 which originated from friar lands was registered
under Torrens system; its date of registration should coincide with the original
date of registration of such land title in Spanish time.
To
elaborate:
The King grants ownership of lands evidenced by different forms of
Spanish titles. Those lands purportedly purchased by the government from the
friar lands were already titled properties or having Spanish titles originally registered under
the Spanish Mortgage Law. The
Spanish Mortgage Law provided for the systematic registration of titles and
deeds as well as possessory
claims. “Original registration takes place when the title (ownership to
land granted by the King through Royal concessions) to land is made of public record for the first time
in the name of its lawful owner” or grantees of public land from the King and
recorded their Spanish title in a public registry.
Thus, this
undertaking, which pertains to the original
registration had been sustained by Section 1 of P.D. 892 and Chapter
1, Section 3 of P.D. 1529, to quote: “Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally
registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded…”
To recap:
From the beginning; the Torrens system mandated that the person legible for registration must be the owner of the land,
and up to the present; “The
applicant for land registration under Presidential Decree No. 1529 must be
the owner of the land because registration under the Torrens system is not a mode of
acquiring ownership of land.”
Even the
High Court clarified and sustained that the owners of the land who possesses
Spanish titles were the qualified applicants for the re-registration: To quote:
“For it is well-settled that, unless the
applicant has shown by convincing evidence that the property in question was
ever acquired by the applicant or his ancestors either by composition title
from the Spanish government or by possessory information title, or by any other
means for the acquisition of public land (Royal concessions), the property
must be held to be part of public domain.”
Generally, the original date of registration
of Certificates of Titles today took place only after the implementation of the
Torrens System. Such certificates have
one inherent defect though -- not having probative origin or real land
ownership.
THE ORIGIN AND/OR SOURCE OF LAND TITLE
Based on the concept
of Jura Regalia:
“The belief that the
Spanish Crown is the origin of all land titles in the Philippines has persisted because title to land must emanate
from some source for it cannot issue forth from nowhere.”
“The theory of the feudal system was
that: title to all lands was granted out to others who were permitted to
hold them under certain conditions, the King theoretically retained the title.
By virtue of law, the King was regarded as the original proprietor of all
lands, and the true and only source of title, and from him all lands were
held. The theory of jura regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural
fruit of conquest.”
Las Yslas
Philipinas is the title or ownership of the King over the entire
archipelago. The binding of scattered islands and islets into single political
sovereignty by naming it after King Philip II as Las Yslas Philipinas had
secured them from other explorers – Dutch, British, Mexican and Portuguese. If
the King hadn’t done this, the islands would still have been prey to other
colonizers and our country would have had a different name rather than
“Philippines.”
The Supreme Court’s En bank Decision, G.R. No.
135385 promulgated on December 6, 2000 has adhered to this universally
acknowledged historical paradigm:
“Regalian
Doctrine was introduced into our political system upon the “discovery”
and the “conquest” of our country in
the sixteenth century. Under this
concept, the entire earthly territory known as the Philippine Islands was
acquired and held by the Crown of Spain.
The King, as then head of State, had the supreme power or exclusive dominion
over all our lands, waters, minerals and other natural resources.”
In the
case of Lee Hong Hok vs. David, 48 SCRA 372, it settled as well sustained King’s
ownership of the Philippine archipelago. To quote:
“The 1935 Constitution of the
Philippines, the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines, and the 1987
Constitution of the Philippines adopted the universal feudal theory that all
lands belong to the crown…”
By virtue of Royal
Decree in 1891, King Alfonso XIII issued Titulo
de Propiedad de Terrenos, Royal Degree 01-4
Protocol in lieu of Las Yslas Philipinas (the origin and/or
source of land title). The former was an Honorary Decree to the fourth degree relative of Don
Esteban Rodriguez de Figueroa – cousin of King Philip II.
The existence of Titulo de Propiedad de Terrenos, Royal Degree 01-4 Protocol 1891 was certified by the National Archives
Records Management and Archives Office dated November 15, 2005. To quote:
“THIS
IS TO CERTIFY that there is an available record
found in Gaceta de Manila dated May 18, 1891 on file with this Office of
the Titulo de Propiedad de Terrenos, Royal Degree 01-4 Protocol 1891 in the
name of DON MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ in the City of Manila.”
The historic chronological
events signifying and consequently confirming the ownership of the Philippine
archipelago and its territories is well established in Article III of the Treaty
of Paris on December 10, 1898. It defined the meets and bounds or the
boundaries of a titled property covered by Titulo
de Propiedad de Terrenos, Royal Degree 01-4
Protocol, which set the
International Treaty Limits. The plotted boundaries mirrored the coverage of
the original land title Las Yslas
Philipinas evidenced by RP ITL & TERRITORIAL WATERS (Post-RA 3046). Titulo de Propiedad de Terrenos, Royal Degree 01-4 Protocol, which
is a Spanish title became Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) 01-4 upon its re-registration under the Torrens system.
THE
END OF THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
After the Philippines
was ceded by Spain to the United States on December 10, 1898 (The Treaty of
Paris), there were no longer Spanish
titles being granted and that ended the original registration of land
titles under the Spanish Mortgage Law.
To
emphasize; original registration is
explicitly understood as the undertaking during the Spanish period and not upon the imposition of the
Torrens system (Act 496) in American era.
Act 496, a subsequent registration or a dealing after original registration was strategically utilized
in the issuances of Certificates of Title even in the absence of a fee simple
title (incontestable ownership of land from the King – a Spanish title) by
the government agencies concerned in land titling; the LRA and its Register
of Deeds that includes court’s
participation by accepting and granting petitioner’s application for land
registration even without a valid land title presented and submitted by the same. This started the proliferation of
fabricated/fake/spurious Certificates of Title of no probative origin of
land ownership (Spanish title) all over the country exploiting the Torrens
system.
DETECTING FAKE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE
Tracing back the source of the TCT’s 408 of
the Cruzes (validated by the LRA’s Task Force Titulong Malinis) emanated from
an OCT purportedly having its original date of registration in 1910 and 1948,
as well as that of OCT 614 in the name of the Republic of the Philippines
originally registered in 1912 will at an instant determine the inherent
defects of said Certificates of Title.
By
referring to the first page of the two (2) TCT’s 408 and any TCT originated
from OCT 614, there are portions with strict instructions for filling up the
blanks with vital information by the LRA or the Register of Deeds just below
the inscription of the technical description. To quote:
“It
is FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on _____
…”
The
instruction is asking for the Spanish title’s original date of registration (not in 1910, 1948, 1912). “Original”
means pertaining to the beginning of
something or in reference to the origin. Always think of that: Original
Registration takes place when the title to the concerned land is recorded on
public record for the first time in
the name of its lawful owner. Undeniably, Spanish titles’ original registration
took place during the Spanish times under the Spanish Mortgage Law. For that
reason, the Torrens system is just a re-registration of the originally
registered Spanish title towards the issuance of Original Certificate of Title.
And finally, as expected, the issued Original Certificate of Title’s
registration must conform to the Spanish title’s original date of registration.
Thus, if the concerned Original Certificates
of Title – though issued under the Torrens system – fails to coincide with its
original date of registration during the Spanish times and indicates a
registration date prior to the operation of the Torrens system, we should consider
that OCT, together with its spurious approved
plan covering the subject land, as void. This vindicates that
such registrations, which occurred under Torrens system, were empty of
ownership (no probative origin) as they don’t really possess any Spanish
title, the principal requirement for the new system’s land title registration.
SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION (Mistakenly
Understood as Original Registration)
Subsequent registration takes place when any deed affecting the land is
declared of public record after
the date of its original registration. Thus, the registration of sale,
transfer, encumbrance or other disposition of land – which has been originally
registered – is within the purview of subsequent registration. The same is
true regarding mortgage, lease or any other encumbrance affecting land covered
by a pre-existing certificate of title, whether such a title is an original or
a transfer certificate.
Argument: Those conveyed or transferred titles,
which operate as a notice of the deed, contract, or instrument to others (a
subsequent registration) had all emanated from the Spanish titles originally
registered during the Spanish era. There is no original land title registration
that took place under the Torrens system. It must be understood that the Torrens
system is not for the original registration of a land title, but
is purposely intended for the re-registration of a Spanish titles. It
was only the Spanish Mortgage Law that fulfilled such an original registration.
The inscription on the face of the Certificate of
Title as ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE is often confusing to many of us. Just
remember however that Original Certificate of Title merely dictates that
said certificate is appropriately represented by an incontestable Spanish title
originally registered in the name of its first owner under the Spanish
Mortgage Law.
Conclusion: The Torrens system is: 1) A re-registration of the originally
registered Spanish title or a registration of an already titled property; 2) A subsequent
registration of deeds affecting the land (sale, transfer,
encumbrance or other disposition of a land which has been originally
registered.) Meaning to say: In the Torrens system, “title by registration” takes place of “title by deeds” of the system under the “general” law. A sale
of land, for example, is effected by a registered transfer, upon which a
certificate of title (TCT) is issued. Under the old system, the same sale
would be effected by a conveyance… To fully comprehend: During Spanish time,
the buyer of a piece of land is being protected
only by an instrument called a “Deed of Sale.” The object of the Torrens
system then is to do away with the delay, uncertainty, and expense of the old
conveyance system, hence, title by
registration thru the issuance of TCT was implemented.
Torrens
system generally means those systems of
registration of transactions with interest in land whose declared object
is, under governmental authority, to establish and certify to the ownership of
an absolute and indefeasible title to realty, and to simplify its transfer.
There is
no other tangible and qualified title issued in the original registration except for the
existing Spanish title. Thus, subsequent
registration (the Torrens system) relates to dealings or transactions of the
land after such Spanish title’s re-registration took place followed by the
issuance of OCT. Any transfer of ownership of land coming from that OCT through
a “Deed of Sale” earlier executed in Spanish time (derived from Spanish title) or
later (buyer of land from the already issued OCT) is the issuance of TCT in the
name of the buyer. For emphasis, let me stress that the Torrens system specifically provides or
process: 1) Re-registration of the originally
registered Spanish titles under the Spanish Mortgage Law. 2)
Subsequent registration of deeds affecting the land.
Thus, it
demonstrates that all Certificates of Title (OCTs/TCTs) issued under the
Torrens system having its date of
registration only upon its enactment in 1903 were all void and remain void.
It justifies that all registrations performed there from were empty of
ownership as they don’t possess Spanish title which is the principal
requirement needed to qualify for such re-registration set forth by the Land
Registration Act 496; the Torrens system.
OCT
01- 4 MAINTAINED ITS EXISTENCE AND VERACITY BY:
1) DOJ SECRETARY SALVADOR MARIŇO - Page 71 of the
original Decision with Compromise
Agreement, LRC/Civil Case No. 3957-P clearly
cited:
“The
government had issued only one land title OCT No. 01-4 and the decree issued 1910 for the whole
archipelago and that its expediencies TCT No. 408… TCT No. 498… TCT No.
409… and TCT No. 407. and thereafter if any other land titles exist other
than those land titles, alleged to be fraudulent titles in character and are
null and void ab-initio.”
2) U.P. PROFESSOR REMEDIOS C. BALBIN – In 2008 Edition “Preface” of
the book: The Law on Squatting and Demolition has this to
say:
“In
this 2008 edition, we add substantial material on a new facet of the law on squatting. We have
included the many land claims or ownership to land, which have caused numerous
conflicts. Many of these claims have been struck down by the Supreme Court, and
what remains is the well-documented
claim under OCT 01-4. Having been sustained by the Supreme Court, the decision
which was issued in 1974, by the CFI – Seventh Judicial District, Branch
XXVIII, Pasay City, under Judge Enrique A. Agana, may yet be the stabilizing force in the midst of
disturbing land conflicts, falsifications, and misrepresentations.”
About the Author: Remedios C. Balbin is
a University of the Philippines law graduate, cum, laude, Class ’59, a
Fullbright scholar and fellow of the Southwestern Legal Foundation, at the
Southern Methodist University, graduate school of law in Dallas, Texas, in
1966, where she obtained her master’s degree in law. She retired as Professor
of Business Law from the U.P. College of Business Administration in 1990, after
twenty-eight (28) years of teaching, research, and book writing.
3) PRESIDENT FERDINAND E. MARCOS –
Presidential Decree 1143 was issued by the Former President on May 28, 1977
utilizing the Titulo de Propiedad
de Terrenos, Royal Degree 01-4 Protocol as the title covering the entire archipelago; an adherence
to Article III of the Treaty of Paris.
Section 8, the title to represent Parcel I and II of the
Philippine archipelago is Titulo de
Propiedad de Terrenos of 1891, Royal Deg[c]ree 01-4 Protocol.
Section 9, all legitimate occupants of land in the
Philippines who by law are
qualified to acquire land should first consent the holder in whole or in part
of Titulo de Propiedad de Terrenos,
Royal Deg[c]ree 01-4 Protocol.
From the above-cited
P.D. 1143, in order for someone to have a valid title, the title should have
been derived from OCT 01-4 because, even if a person is holding a title in his
name and living in first class subdivision or owning a cluster of modern
commercial buildings in business area, the outcome is similar to that of a
squatter dwelling in the shanties area. Squatters
are those individuals or groups who occupy lands without the consent of the
landowners.
4) THE 1973 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION - In
Article I, Section I of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, the national
territory of the Philippine Archipelago was clearly defined as follows:
“The national territory comprises the
Philippine Archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and
all the other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right
or legal title…”
This is the painful truth, that we, unknowingly, ARE
VICTIMS OF FAKE TITLE, TITLERS AND CORRUPTION ACTIVITIES IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
IN LAND TITLING, THUS MAKING US SQUATTERS IN OUR OWN LAND.
NO ONE SPEAKS FOR THE TRUTH
To whom do we turn
to? The government offices/officials who
were supposed to strictly observe in the dissemination of historical events in
land titling as adopted by the government relative to the Decision with
Compromise Agreement were the ones who annihilate, discredit and misrepresent
the genuineness of the archival documents which played a major role in our
history.
ANOTHER REPORT ADDS
TO ALL THIS CONFUSION
Aside from the LRA’s
Task Force Titulong Malinis’ unjustifiable Report, another distortion of
information was published by the Housing and Urban Development Council - a
Primer on National Drive Against Professional Squatters and Squatting
Syndicates (NDAPSSS). It openly admitted their ignorance about OCT 01-4. On page 22 of the Primer, they declared that OCT 01-4 is a Spanish
title and concluded that the person(s) or group(s) utilizing it as
“Squatting Syndicate(s)”
Their portrayal could
no longer deceive the Filipinos for we are already fully armed with documents
to divulge their deceptions. When we say
Original Certificate of Title (OCT), it pertains to Torrens title. What a
disgrace to those lawyers of eleven (11) government agencies involved in the
publication of the Primer, primarily the then HUDCC Chairman Atty. Chito
Cruz.
Posters of the said
deceitful information declaring that OCT 01-4 Protocol & its derivative
(TCT 408 & TCT 498) were fake titles had been displayed at eye-catching
place like the Register of Deeds, the Barangay Offices and along busy
streets.
The dissemination of
the wicked information is relentless – a paid advertisement dated 5 October, 2015
is operated/handled by the HUDCC, which occupies the whole page 12 of the
Philippine Star is a warning or notice to the public. This mischievous act had cause the then HUDCC Chairman Atty. Chito Cruz
to be charged by libel at the Office of the Ombudsman on June 30, 2016 by
Daniel B. Frianeza for indicting the latter as “Squatting Syndicates.”
A letter dated
October 14, 2016 from the Officer of Real, Quezon Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO)
Miliarete B. Panaligan reacted to
the informative letter by Daniel B. Frianeza sent on July 28, 2016 to President
Duterte. To quote:
“In connection with this, please be informed
that this Office had conducted investigation surrounding OCT No. 01-4 and TCT
409 as claimed by the Acopiado estate as proof of Ownership over a parcels of
land located in Brgy. Dinahican, Infanta, Quezon. During the course of
investigation, it appears that OCT 01-4/TCT No. 409 has no record on file in
the Registry of Deeds for Quezon, Infanta Branch based on their Certification
dated September 07, 2016, copy of which is hereto attached.”
“In
view hereof, this Office respectfully request the Chief, Legal Division
regarding his opinion on this claimed and accusation.”
Argument: It
seems Miliarete B. Panaligan lacks
the knowledge of interpreting the informative letter sent to President Duterte.
For her, it is an opinion. But it is not, because the letter’s content was just
mere restatement of the proven/established facts. Thus, her self-justifying
response; “claiming” and “accusing” were invocation of
frustration.
The essence of the
alleged conducted investigation about OCT 01-4 and TCT 409 by mere
Certification in one sentence issued by the Registry of Deeds for Quezon,
Infanta Branch is here to quote: “This is
to certify that this Registry does not have on file OCT 01-4/TCT No. 409 of
Acopiado Estate”, is conclusions of law. Failure to explain in
details why they don’t have on file such OCT 01-4 and TCT 409 will create a
vacuum or emptiness of the land covered by such court’s validated certificates
accurately enclosed by its technical descriptions. Miliarete B. Panaligan’s letter is a strong act of rebelliousness
to the adjudicated decision - Decision with Compromise Agreement, which upholds
the existence and veracity of the enumerated OCT 01-4/TCT 498. To quote:
1. OCT No. 01-4 in certified copy procured by
the Office of the Solicitor General and marked as Exhibit E-1 (back of
title) which said title is in the name of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez and the
same was on file in the Hon. Registry of Deeds Office in Morong now Province of
Rizal and had been transferred to the province of Manila and lately to the
Registry of Deeds of the Province of Bulacan, due to the fact the Malolos
became the last seat of Philippine government. (Page 52)
2.
TCT No. 498, TCT No. 407, and TCT No. 409, in the name of Don Gregorio
Madrigal Acopiado and Doña Maria Camella Sarmento Madrigal, certified true
copy, issued to the office of Honorable Register of Deeds of Malolos, Bulacan,
and Tayabas, Quezon, marked as Exhibit E, E-1, E-2, and E-3, (back to the
title) and made as an integral part of
the Republic of the Philippines position paper and the government. (Page
53)
3.
Sworn Affidavit, paragraph C of
Hon. LRC Deputy Administrator, Gregorio Bilog, Jr. which was incorporated in a
Government’s position paper declaring that OCT No. 01-4, which was registered
in the name of Don Hermogenes A. Rodriguez in favor of Don Gregorio Madrigal
Acopiado marked as Exhibit H and made as
an integral part of government’s position paper. (Pages 55-56)
4.
Sworn Affidavit which was incorporated
in government position paper, paragraph E, of Hon. LRC Administrator Antonio
Noblejas declaring that both TCT No.
408, TCT No. 498, TCT No. 407 and TCT
No. 409, were eligible and with probative value in favor of THE
LANDOWNERS/ Don Gregorio M. Acopiado and Don Anacleto M. Acopiado, marked as Exhibit J and made as an integral
part of the government position paper. (Pages 56-57)
5.
Certified Copy of the excerpt
from the sworn testimonies of NBI Director Joly Bugarin before the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee headed by the Ex-President Gil Puyat and made as an integral portion of the government position paper divulging
several modus operandi of those in the LRC-Bureau of Lands before in conspiracy
of those influential group in the government in the massive issuance of fake
land titles affecting the titles of the Acopiado; OCT No. 01-4, TCT No. 498
and that TCT No. 408 in the name of Don Gregorio Madrigal Acopiado in favor of
the land grabbers and oligarch real estate developers as they were benefited by
those who could pay lucrative sum. (Page 59)
LRA’s TASK FORCE
“TITULONG MALINIS” AND OTHER PERSONS/OFFICES INVOLVED FOR THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION
OF THE MONUMENTAL TITLE OCT 01-4 SHOULD BE CITED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
The clandestine
manipulation, alteration and annihilation to the monumental title (OCT 01-4)
and its land records deeply initiated disorientation to land ownerhip not only
to the general public, but to a great extent is the judiciary by upholding fake
title as valid and valid title as fake.
The disastrous
misinterpretation pertaining to the “fakeness” of OCT 01-4 is a direct
challenge to Article I, Section I of the Philippine Constitution, as well as
swaying the Philippine history into distortion.
Ultimately, all this confusion could only manifest the following:
1)
That person does not
believe that the Philippines was colonized by Spain,
2) He does not
believe in Christianity,
3)
There is no country
known as “Philippine Islands,” and as a consequence,
4) There’s no such thing as FILIPINO.
Let Us Put a Stop to this Endless Cycle of CORRUPTION and
EXPLOITATION!
Together, let us “WAGE WAR” Against Fake Land Titles,
Titlers, and Landgrabbers!
CAMPAIGN Against Fake Land Titles, Titlers and
Landgrabbers;
EXPOSE and OPPOSE the CORRUPT PRACTICES in Government
Agencies Concerned in Land Titling;
EDUCATE the People About Ancient Land Title and Its Ownership;
UNITE and ORGANIZE
for Clean Land Titles;
PROVIDE Affordable Land for Filipinos (ALFI); and
BUILD A SQUATTER-FREE PHILIPPINES!
dbf122116