Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
823,
Piedad Estate Ownership What went before : The facts
Controversy Part I : The December
The Barques filed a petition for administrative
12, 2005 Decision reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 issued in the name
of their predecessor, Homer L. Barque, which was
Last March 6, 2012, the Supreme Court en
allegedly destroyed in the fire that gutted the Quezon
banc promulgated its resolution in Manotok vs.
City Hall, including the Office of the Register of Deeds
Barque, G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605, the case
of Quezon City, sometime in 1988.
involving Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate (a former
friar land) located in Quezon City.
The Manotoks filed their opposition to the
Barques petition, claiming that the lot covered by the
Voting 9-6, the High Tribunal DENIED WITH
title sought to be reconstituted by the latter forms part
FINALITY the motions for reconsideration filed by all
of the land covered by the formers own reconstituted
parties in this case. It REITERATED its August 24,
title, TCT No. RT-22481, and alleging that TCT No.
2012 decision declaring that the subject lot legally
210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque is spurious.
belongs to the national government of the Republic of
the Philippines, and denying the respective claims of
On June 30, 1997, the reconstituting officer
the opposing parties (the Manotoks as petitioners, the
denied the reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 on
Barques as respondents, and the Manahans as
grounds that the two lots covered by the Barques title
intervenors) over Lot No. 823.
appear to duplicate the lot covered by the Manotoks
own reconstituted title; and that the Barques plan,
In this four-part series, I will endeavour to
Fls-3168-D, is a spurious document.
sequentially summarize the series of opinions
rendered by the Supreme Court in this case, to wit:
On appeal by the Barques, the LRA reversed
(1) Part I (this entry) The December 12,
the reconstituting officer and ordered that
2005 decision of the 1stDivision (4-1 vote, Ynares-
reconstitution of the Barques title be given due
Santiago, J., ponente), which denied the Manotoks
course, but only after the Manotoks own title has
consolidated petitions and sustained the order for the
been cancelled upon order of a court of competent
cancellation of the Manotoks title and for the
jurisdiction.
reconstitution of the Barques title;
(2) Part II The December 18, 2008 en
The parties separately appealed to the CA.
banc resolution (8-6-1 vote, Tinga, J., ponente),
The two divisions of the CA where the cases landed
which reversed the decision of the 1 stDivision and
similarly modified the LRA decision, ordering the
remanded the petitions to the CA for further
Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel the
proceedings;
Manotoks title without a direct proceeding with the
(3) Part III The August 24, 2010 en banc decision (9-5-
RTC, and directing the LRA to reconstitute the
1 vote,Villarama, J., ponente), which denied the
Barques' title.
Manotoks consolidated petitions and declared their
title null and void, but also denied the petition for
Thus, the Manotoks filed these petitions to
reconstitution of the Barques and declared that the
the SC.
subject lot legally belongs to the national government
of the Republic of the Philippines;
The December 12, 2005 decision of the SC
(4) Part IV The March 6, 2012 en banc resolution (9-6
1st Division
vote,Villarama, J., ponente) denying with finality the
motions for reconsideration of the parties.
1 | Page
The consolidated petitions were DENIED by and Azcuna wrote separate opinions concurring in the
the Supreme Court 1stDivision, which AFFIRMED the result.
appealed CA resolutions. Justice Ynares-Santiago,
wrote the opinion for the 1st Division, reasoning that The fifth member of the 1st Division, Justice
[t]he LRA properly ruled that the reconstituting officer Carpio, dissented and voted to REVERSE the
should have confined himself to the owner's duplicate appealed CA resolutions. He summarized his opinion
certificate of title prior to the reconstitution. She went thus:
on to state:
[T]he Heirs of Barque filed before the Register of
The factual finding of the LRA that [the Barques] Deeds an administrative petition to reconstitute their
title is authentic, genuine, valid, and existing, while [the allegedly destroyed TCT. The Register of Deeds, as
Manotoks] title is sham and spurious, as affirmed by the reconstituting officer, denied the petition of the Heirs of
two divisions of the Court of Appeals, is conclusive Barque because, based on official records, the property
before this Court. It should remain undisturbed since involved is already registered under the Torrens system
only questions of law may be raised in a petition for in the name of Manotok, et al. The LRA affirmed the
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Register of Deeds, stating that only the proper trial court
could cancel the TCT of Manotok, et al. although the
xxx xxx xxx LRA believed that the TCT of Manotok, et al. was a
sham. The LRA recognized that in an administrative
There is no basis in the allegation that reconstitution, the decision of the reconstituting body is
petitioners were deprived of their property without due either to deny or approve the reconstitution of the
process of law when the Court of Appeals ordered the applicant's title, never to cancel the Torrens title of a third
cancellation of their Torrens title, even without a direct party. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals
proceeding in the RTC . . .[T]here is no need to remand declared the TCT of Manotok, et al. void and the TCT of
the case to the RTC for a re-determination on the validity the Heirs of Barque valid. Clearly, the Court of Appeals
of the titles of [the Barques] and [the Manotoks] as the deprived Manotok, et al. of their property without due
same has been squarely passed upon by the LRA and process of law. The Court of Appeals blatantly
affirmed by the appellate court. By opposing the petition disregarded Section 48 of PD 1529 and Section 19 of
for reconstitution and submitting their administratively BP Blg. 129 which confer on the proper trial court
reconstituted title, petitioners acquiesced to the authority exclusive original jurisdiction to cancel a Torrens title in
and jurisdiction of the reconstituting officer, the LRA and an action directly attacking the validity of the Torrens
the Court of Appeals, and recognized their authority to title. The Court should not countenance this gross
pass judgment on their title. All the evidence presented injustice and patent violation of the law.
was duly considered by these tribunals. There is thus no
basis to petitioners' claim that they were deprived of their
right to be heard and present evidence, which is the Manotok v. Barque, Part II : The
essence of due process. December 18, 2008 En Banc
Resolution
xxx xxx xxx Part I of this four-part series is a summary of
the December 12, 2005decision of the Supreme
Court 1st Division denying the Manotoks consolidated
The reconstitution would not constitute a petitions and sustaining the order for the cancellation
collateral attack on petitioners' title which was irregularly of the their title without a direct proceeding before the
and illegally issued in the first place. xxx. RTC and for the reconstitution of the Barques title.
The intervening facts The Court justified its pro hac vice re-
evaluation of the petitions based on the constitutional
After the promulgation of the December 12, principle that no doctrine or principle of law laid down
2005 decision, the Manotoks filed several motions for by the [C]ourt in a decision rendered en banc or in
reconsideration with the 1st Division but these were division may be modified or reversed except by the
all DENIED by the Court. court sitting en banc. This, according to the Court, is
necessitated by the argument that the 2005 Decision
On May 2, 2006, the decision of the of the First Division is inconsistent with precedents of
1st Division was entered in the Book of Entries of the Court, and leaving that decision alone without the
Judgment. But when the Barques moved for the imprimatur of the Court en banc would lead to undue
execution of the decision, the Manotoks sought the confusion . . . over whether the earlier ruling of the
referral of the motion to the Court en banc, which the Division constitutes the current standard with respect
Court en banc accepted on July 26, 2006. to administrative reconstitution of titles.
On September 7, 2006, the Manahans sought Issue: Did the LRA and the CA have jurisdiction to
to intervene in the case, alleging that their annul the Manotoks title?
predecessor-in-interest, Vicente Manahan, was
issued Sales Certificate No. 511 covering the subject The Court held that the LRA and the CA had
lot. no jurisdiction to direct the annulment of the
Manotoks title. It reasoned:
On December 18, 2008, the Court
promulgated an en banc that SET ASIDE the decision Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 . . .
and resolutions of the 1st Division and RECALLED the provides that [a] certificate of title shall not be subject to
entry of judgment. Voting 8-6 with 1 abstention, the collateral attack [...and] cannot be altered, modified, or
Court REVERSED the decisions and resolutions of cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance
the CA and the LRA, and REMANDED the cases to with law. Clearly,the cancellation of the Manotok title
the CA for further proceedings. cannot arise incidentally from the administrative
proceeding for reconstitution of the Barque title even if
How the court en banc voted the evidence from that proceeding revealed the Manotok
title as fake. Nor could it have emerged incidentally in
the appellate review of the LRA's administrative
The Court en banc decided to accept the
proceeding.
cases from the 1st Division on a pro hac vice basis to
lend much needed jurisprudential clarity as only the There is no doubt that the Court of Appeals does
Court en banc can constitutionally provide. not have original jurisdiction to annul Torrens titles or to
otherwise adjudicate questions over ownership of
J. Tinga wrote the opinion for the Court. He property. Its exclusive original jurisdiction is determined
was joined by CJ Puno, and JJ. Austria-Martinez, by law, particularly by Batas Pambansa (B.P. 129).
Velasco and Brion. Concurring with their respective Section 9 of that law restricts the exclusive original
separate opinions were J. Carpio, with whom J. jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to special civil actions
Carpio-Morales joined, and J. Corona. and to actions for annulment of judgments of the
regional trial court. Still, the Court of Appeals did acquire
J. Ynares-Santiago, the ponente of the jurisdiction over the Barques and the Manotoks
1st Division decision and resolutions, wrote a petitions, albeit in the exercise of its exclusive appellate
dissenting opinion. She was joined by JJ. jurisdiction over the ruling of the LRA, also pursuant to
Quisumbing, Azcuna, Chico-Nazario, Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. Thus, for the
Reyes, and Leonardo-De Castro. J. Nachura did not appellate court to be able to direct the cancellation of a
take part. Torrens title in the course of reviewing a decision of the
LRA, the LRA itself must have statutory authority to
Issue: Can the Court en banc validly re-evaluate cancel a Torrens title in the first place.
the decision of the 1stDivision?
xxx xxx xxx
The Court first grappled with what it called
Nowhere in [Section 6 of P.D. No. 1529 where
procedural unorthodoxies involved in the re-
the general functions of the Land Registration
evaluation of the Manotoks petitions even after an
3 | Page
Commissioner are enumerated] is it stated that the LRA Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26 as amended by Rep. Act No.
has the power to cancel titles. Indeed, the Barques are 6732, which authorizes the administrative reconstitution
unable to point to any basis in law that confirms the of titles in limited cases. In fact . . . such laws take great
power of the LRA to effect such cancellation, even under care to ensure that a petition for administrative
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26 as amended by Rep. Act No. reconstitution of title will not disturb existing Torrens
6732, which authorizes the administrative reconstitution titles.
of titles in limited cases. In fact . . . such laws take great
care to ensure that a petition for administrative
reconstitution of title will not disturb existing Torrens It is thus clear that neither the Court of Appeals
titles. nor the LRA had jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title.
It is thus clear that neither the Court of Appeals Issue: Should the Supreme Court,
nor the LRA had jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title. after dismissing the Barques petition for
administrative reconstitution, act further on the
Issue: Did the LRA and the CA have jurisdiction to apparent problems of the Manotoks title?
annul the Manotoks title?
After noting the apparent flaws in the
The Court held that the LRA and the CA had Manotoks claim, which it described as considerable
no jurisdiction to direct the annulment of the and disturbing enough, the Court decided to remand
Manotoks title. It reasoned: the case to the CA for reception of evidence on the
validity of the Manotoks title. It explained this
Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 . . . extraordinary step in the following wise:
provides that [a] certificate of title shall not be subject to
collateral attack [...and] cannot be altered, modified, or It must be borne in mind that the disputed
cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance property is part of the Friar Lands over which the
with law. Clearly, the cancellation of the Manotok title Government holds title and are not public lands but
cannot arise incidentally from the administrative private or patrimonial property of the Government and
proceeding for reconstitution of the Barque title even if can be alienated only upon proper compliance with the
the evidence from that proceeding revealed the Manotok requirements of Act No. 1120 or the Friar Lands Act.
title as fake. Nor could it have emerged incidentally in
the appellate review of the LRA's administrative xxx xxx xxx
proceeding.
The Alonso [v. Country Club] approach [of
There is no doubt that the Court of Appeals does declaring that a former friar land still legally belongs to
not have original jurisdiction to annul Torrens titles or to the national government for failure of the private
otherwise adjudicate questions over ownership of claimant to establish a clear title thereto] especially
property. Its exclusive original jurisdiction is determined appeals to us because, as in this case, the subject
by law, particularly by Batas Pambansa (B.P. 129). property therein was a Friar Land which under the Friar
Section 9 of that law restricts the exclusive original Lands Law (Act No. 1120) may be disposed of by the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to special civil actions Government only under that law. Thus, there is greater
and to actions for annulment of judgments of the concern on the part of this Court to secure its proper
regional trial court. Still, the Court of Appeals did acquire transmission to private hands, if at all.
jurisdiction over the Barques and the Manotoks
petitions, albeit in the exercise of its exclusive appellate At the same time, the Court recognizes
jurisdiction over the ruling of the LRA, also pursuant to that there is not yet any sufficient evidence for us to
Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. Thus, for the warrant the annulment of the Manotok title. All that the
appellate court to be able to direct the cancellation of a record indicates thus far is evidence not yet refuted by
Torrens title in the course of reviewing a decision of the clear and convincing proof that the Manotoks claim to
LRA, the LRA itself must have statutory authority to title is flawed. To arrive at an ultimate determination, the
cancel a Torrens title in the first place. formal reception of evidence is in order. This Court is not
a trier of fact or otherwise structurally capacitated to
xxx xxx xxx receive and evaluate evidence de novo. However, the
Court of Appeals is sufficiently able to undertake such
Nowhere in [Section 6 of P.D. No. 1529 where function.
the general functions of the Land Registration
Commissioner are enumerated] is it stated that the LRA The Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice
has the power to cancel titles. Indeed, the Barques are
Carpio
unable to point to any basis in law that confirms the
power of the LRA to effect such cancellation, even under
4 | Page
Like the majority, J. Carpio holds that the the a prior title, which was the only duly issued existing
re-evaluation of the consolidated petitions is proper Torrens title over the property issued by the Register
even after entry of the 1st Divisions decision. He does of Deeds of Quezon City.
not however join the majority in remanding the case to
the CA. He merely voted to GRANT of the Manotoks On the question of whether the LRA has
motion for reconsideration,REVERSE the jurisdiction, in administrative reconstitution
1st Divisions decision and resolution and RECALL its proceedings, to rule which between two titles over the
Entry of Judgment, and DENY the petition for same property is valid, or who between two claimants
administrative reconstitution respondents Heirs of over the same property is the lawful owner, J.
Homer L. Barque, Sr. Carpio held in the negative, thus:
5 | Page
Thus, the Court of Appeals had the authority to
J. Ynares-Santiago found no compelling order the cancellation of petitioners reconstituted TCT
reason to further require the referral of these cases to No. RT-22481 after it affirmed the findings of the LRA
the RTC or the CA for a re-litigation of the issues that petitioners TCT No. RT-22481 is spurious and
already raised and resolved by the two divisions of void ab initio. Having also affirmed the LRA finding that
the CA and affirmed by the Court's 1st Division in its respondents title, TCT No. 210177, is genuine, valid and
final and executory decision dated December 12, existing, the Court of Appeals likewise had the authority
2005. She reasoned that the doctrine of immutability to order its reconstitution since this was the final step in
the administrative reconstitution process.
of final and executory decisions precludes the Court
from taking this unprecedented action.
On the issue of whether the LRA has
jurisdiction to administratively reconstitute the
Particularly, the lady justice found no
Barques title despite the Manotoks previously
justifiable basis to disturb the LRA finding that [the
reconstituted title, J. Ynares-Santiago held in the
Barques] Plan FLS-3168-D indeed exists in the
affirmative. She cited the fact that it appears from the
official files of LMB, DENR; thus, she held that [the
records that the location and technical description of
Barques] title, TCT No. 210177, which describes Lot
the properties described in the parties respective
823 as subdivided into Lots 823-A and 823-B in
titles are not the same. Thus, [i]t is . . . misleading
accordance with Fls-3168-D, [is] in order.
and baseless for [the Manotoks] to assert that their
previously reconstituted title . . . covers the same
She would also sustain the LRA finding that
property as that identified and described in [the
the Manotoks reconstituted title is spurious,
Barques title] so as to deprive the LRA of jurisdiction
considering petitioners' failure to prove facts contrary
over [the Barques] petition for reconstitution.
to the LRA findings. She concluded that since the
property covered by [the Manotoks] reconstituted title
However, even assuming that both parties
is not the property in Matandang Balara that they are
respective titles cover the same property, the LRA
occupying as clearly shown by their own documentary
would still have jurisdiction over respondents' petition
evidence, it necessarily follows that they are not the
for reconstitution, thus:
owners of such property.
As [the Manotoks] themselves admit, they
On the issue of the jurisdiction of the CA to
caused the administrative reconstitution of their TCT No.
order the cancellation of the Manotoks title and the RT 22481 in 1991 under R.A. No. 6732. On the other
reconstitution of the Barques title, she held: hand, [the Barques] TCT No. 210177 shows that it was
issued on September 24, 1975 by the Register of Deeds
The Court of Appeals . . . has the corresponding of Quezon City. Its existence was likewise confirmed by
authority and jurisdiction to decide the appealed case on the LRA in its Resolution of June 24, 1998 based on the
the basis of the uncontroverted facts and logbook of the Register of Deeds, which contains the list
admissions contained in the petition, comment, reply, of titles lost during the fire that destroyed its records in
rejoinder, and memoranda, filed by the parties, and to 1988.
apply the law applicable in administrative reconstitution
proceeding which is Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6732. [The Barques] TCT No. 210177 was, therefore,
in existence at the time [the Manotoks] filed their petition
Section 10, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court for reconstitution. In Alipoon v. Court of Appeals, the
specifically mandates that the findings of fact of the Court ruled that:
court or agency concerned, when supported by [I]nasmuch as TCT No. T-17224 has been in
substantial evidence, shall be binding on the Court of existence as early as March 16, 1933, the issuance in
Appeals. Since petitioners were not able to show that 1989 of a reconstituted original certificate of title
the LRA findings of fact were unsupported by bearing the number OCT No. RO 12890 (N.A.) over
evidence, the Court of Appeals committed no error of Lot No. 663 in the name of petitioners' parents
jurisdiction when it confirmed such findings. Fausto Alipoon and Silveria Duria is rendered legally
doubtful, and the reconstituted title is void.
Moreover, Section 11 of R.A. No. 6732 provides
that: It, therefore, follows that [the Manotoks]
SEC. 11. A reconstituted title obtained by means of reconstituted title, even assuming the same to have
fraud, deceit or other machination is void ab initio as been duly reconstituted, was deemed nullified by the
against the party obtaining the same and all persons mere existence of [the Barques] title at the time of the
having knowledge thereof. administrative reconstitution of [the Manotoks] title. xxx.
6 | Page
On whether the LRA has jurisdiction to Estate, Quezon City, legally belongs to
adjudicate the validity of the Manotoks title in the the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC
administrative reconstitution proceedings filed by the OF THE PHILIPPINES, without prejudice to the
Barques, J. Ynares-Santiago held in the affirmative, institution of REVERSION proceedings by the State
reasoning that [s]ince the LRA had the duty to through the Office of the Solicitor General. We will
resolve the petition for reconstitution as well as [the also look at the dissenting opinions of the minority.
Manotoks] opposition thereto, it necessarily had to
examine the title of the parties, using its technical
expertise, to determine if the petition for reconstitution The intervening facts
should be given due course, or denied as prayed for
by the [Manotoks]. After the promulgation of the December 12,
2005 decision, the Manotoks filed several motions for
On whether the LRA or the CA has jurisdiction reconsideration with the 1st Division but these were
to decide the ownership of the disputed property in all DENIED by the Court. The decision of the
the administrative reconstitution of title filed by the 1st Division was later entered in the Book of Entries of
Manotoks, J. Ynares-Santiago also held in the Judgment. But when the Barques moved for the
affirmative:[S]ince [the Manotoks] themselves laid execution of the decision, the Manotoks sought the
before the LRA and the Court of Appeals all their referral of the motion to the Court en banc, which the
evidence to prove the genuineness of their Court en banc accepted on July 26, 2006.
reconstituted title and their ownership of the property
in dispute, the Court of Appeals had the
corresponding authority and jurisdiction to pass upon Meanwhile, the Manahans sought to intervene
these issues. in the case, alleging that their predecessor-in-interest,
Vicente Manahan, was issued Sales Certificate No.
511 covering the subject lot.
10 | P a g e
is issued. When the purchaser finally pays the final admit that the Manotoks became the absolute
installment on the purchase price and is given a deed of owners of the land upon their full payment of the
conveyance and a certificate of title, the title, at least in purchase price on 7 December 1932.
equity, retroacts to the time he first occupied the land,
paid the first installment and was issued the xxx xxx xxx
corresponding certificate of sale. The sequence then is
that a certificate of sale is issued upon payment of the Indisputably, upon full payment of the purchase
first installment. Upon payment of the final installment, price, full and absolute ownership passes to the
the deed of conveyance is issued. purchaser of friar land. In the case of the Manotoks title,
the Deed of Conveyance was issued except that it
It is the Deed of Conveyance that must bear lacked the signature of the Secretary which the majority
the signature of the Secretary of Interior/Agriculture erroneously hold is still indispensable pursuant
because it is only when the final installment is paid to Alonso. However, Alonso should not be applied to the
that the Secretary can approve the sale, the Manotoks' title because DENR Memorandum Order No.
purchase price having been fully paid. This is why 16-05 was not yet issued when the Court
DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 refers only to the decided Alonso. The absence of the Secretarys
Deed of Conveyance, and not to the Sale Certificate, as signature in the Deed of Conveyance in Alonso was
the document that is deemed signed by the never cured and hence the Court in Alonso voided the
Secretary. In short,Section 18 of Act No. 1120 which Deed of Conveyance. Besides, in Alonso the
states that (n)o xxx sale xxx shall be valid until corresponding Torrens title was never issued even after
approved by the Secretary of Interior refers to the a lapse of 66 years from the date of the Deed of
approval by the Secretary of the Deed of Conveyance. In sharp contrast, here the lack of the
Conveyance. Secretarys signature in the Manotoks Deed of
Conveyance No. 29204 was cured by the issuance
DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05 expressly of DENR Memorandum Order No. 16-05, which
acknowledges that it is only a ministerial duty on the expressly states that all Deeds of Conveyance that
part of the Secretary to sign the Deed of Conveyance do not bear the signature of the Secretary are
once the applicant had already made full payment on deemed signed or ratified x x x. Moreover, the
the purchase price of the land. The Manotoks have been issued their torrens title way back
majority expressly admit in their Reply to the in 1933. Section 122 of Act No. 496 states that [i]t shall
Dissenting Opinion that Memorandum Order No. 16-05: be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of
x x x correctly stated that it is only alienation, grant, or conveyance in behalf of the
a ministerial duty on the part of the Secretary to sign Government to cause such instrument, before its
the Deed of Conveyance once the applicant had delivery to the grantee, to be filed with the register of
made full payment on the purchase price of the deeds for the province where the land lies and to be
land. Jurisprudence teaches us there registered like other deeds and conveyances,
that notwithstanding the failure of the government whereupon a certificate shall be entered as in other
to issue the proper instrument of conveyance when cases of registered land, and an owner's duplicate
the purchaser finally pays the final installment of the certificate issued to the grantee. TCT No. 22813 would
purchase price, the purchaser of friar land still not have been issued in the name of Severino Manotok
acquired ownership over the subject land. if Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 had not been
(Italicization supplied) delivered to the Register of Deeds of the Province of
Rizal to which the land covered by the Manotoks title
xxx xxx xxx then belonged. The Manotoks should not be punished if
the documents leading to the issuance of TCT No.
To repeat, Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 22813 could no longer be found in the files of the
expressly and unequivocally acknowledged that government office, considering that these were pre-war
Severino Manotok had fully paid the purchase price to documents and considering further the lack of proper
the Government. Since the majority expressly admit preservation of documents in some government
that upon full payment of the purchase price it agencies.
becomes the ministerial duty of the Secretary to
approve the sale, then the majority must also The fact remains that the Manotoks were
necessarily admit that the approval of the Secretary able to present a certified true copy of Deed of
is a mere formality that has been complied with by Conveyance No. 29204 secured from the National
the issuance of Memorandum Order No. 16- Archives which is the official repository of
05. Since the majority further expressly admit that government and public documents. This Deed of
upon full payment of the purchase price ownership Conveyance No. 29204 was signed by the Director of
of the friar land passes to the purchaser, despite the Lands and lacked only the signature of the Secretary
failure of the Secretary to sign the Deed of of Interior/Agriculture. Memorandum Order No. 16-
Conveyance, then the majority must also necessarily 05 speaks of all Deeds of Conveyance that do not
11 | P a g e
bear the signature of the Secretary and thus
includes Deed of Conveyance No. 29204. Under On what constitutes the positive evidence of
Memorandum Order No. 16-05, such Deeds of approval to lend validity to the sale of friar
Conveyance are deemed signed by the Secretary. lands, Justice Carpio Morales held:
Clearly, Memorandum Order No. 16-05 applies
squarely to the Manotoks title for two reasons. The ponencia concludes, as a matter of course
First, Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 was signed by on the strength of Sections 11, 12 and 15, that
the Director of Lands but lacked only the signature the certificate of sale must be signed by the Department
of the Secretary. Second, the purchase price for the Secretary for the sale to be valid. As discussed earlier,
land subject of Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 had these three Sections neither support the theory that such
been fully paid on 7 December 1932, more than 77 signing is required in the sale certificate nor shed light to
years ago. the specifics of approval.
The concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice I submit that the Department Secretarys
Carpio Morales signature on the certificate of sale is not one of the
requirements for the issuance of the Deed of
Justice Carpio Morales held that the absence Conveyance under Act No. 1120. To require another
of the signature of the Secretary of the signature of the Department Secretary on the Certificate
Interior/Agriculture and Natural Resources in the of Sale, on top of that deemed placed by Order 16-05 on
Manotoks Sale Certificate No. 1054 and Deed of the Deed of Conveyance, is to impose
Conveyance No. 29204 issued in 1919 and 1932, a redundant requirement and render irrelevant the spirit
respectively, does not warrant the annulment of their of said Order.
title.
IN FINE, petitioners having complied with the
She advanced the thesis the [t]here is no conditions for the applicability of Order 16-05, their Deed
absence of approval to speak of, since [the of Conveyance is deemed signed or otherwise ratified
Manotoks] Deed of Conveyance is, pursuant to Order by said Order.
16-05, deemed signed by the Department Secretary,
It bears emphasis that Order 16-05 is a positive
and there is no legal basis for requiring another
act on the part of the Department Secretary to remedy
signature of the Department Secretary on the Sale
the situation where, all other conditions having been
Certificate. She continued: Contrary to established by competent evidence, the signature of the
the ponencia's position, Order 16-05 does not Department Secretary is lacking. The Order aims to
contravene Act No. 1120. Order 16-05 did not rectify a previous governmental inaction on an otherwise
dispense with the requirement of the Department legally valid claim, or affirm an earlier approval shown to
Secretarys approval. It recognizes that the approval be apparent and consistent by a credible paper trail.
of the Secretary is still required, the grant or
ratification of which is made subject only to certain Obviously, the incumbent Department Secretary
conditions, precisely to remove all clouds of doubt can no longer probe into the deep recesses of his
regarding the validity of these instruments which do deceased predecessors, or unearth irretrievably tattered
not bear his signature. The fulfillment of the documents at a time when the country and its records
conditions must be proven to be extant in every case. had long been torn by war, just to satisfy himself with an
explanation in the withholding of the signature. The
Justice Carpio Morales likewise submitted the meat of Order 16-05 contemplates such bone of
proposition that there is no statutory basis for the contention as in the present case.
requirement of the Department Secretary's signature
on the Certificate of Sale, apart from a strained The cloud of doubt regarding the validity of the
deduction of Section 18. On the majoritys general conveyance to petitioners predecessors-in-interest
proposition that a claim of ownership must fail in the having been removed by Order No. 16-05, petitioners
absence of positive evidence showing the Department title over Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate is, I submit, valid.
Secretarys approval, which cannot simply be
presumed or inferred from certain acts, Justice Carpio
Morales countered: Jurisprudential review is gainful
only insofar as settling that the approval by the
Department Secretary is indispensable to the validity
of the sale. Case law does notcategorically state
that the required approval must be in the form
of a signature on the Certificate of Sale.
12 | P a g e
Man otok v. Barque | GR 162335 & 162605 | March 6, A valid certificate of sale issued to Severino the official document
2012 | J.Villarama, Jr. denominated as Sale Certificate clearly required both the
signatures of the Director of Lands who issued such sale
Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests certificate to an applicant settler/occupant and
the Secretary of the Interior/Agriculture and Natural Resources
FACTS: indicating his approval of the sale.
These forms had been prepared and issued by the Chief of the
The surviving heirs of the late Homer Barque, filed a petition with Bureau of Public Lands under the supervision of the Secretary of
the LRA for administrative reconstitution of the original the Interior, consistent with Act No. 1120.
copyof TCT No. 210177 issued in the name of Homer L. Barque, Manotoks assignors cannot simply be presumed from the
which wasdestroyed in the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall, execution of assignment documents in his favor.
including the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Neither can it be deduced from the alleged issuance of the half-
sometime in 1988. torn TCT, itself a doubtful document as its authenticity was not
Insupport of the petition, petitioners submitted the owners duplica established, much less the veracity of its recitals because the
te copy of TCT No. 210177, real estate tax receipts, name of the registered owner and date of issuance do not appear
tax declarations and the Plan FLS 3168 D covering the property. at all.
The Manotoks filed their opposition to the Barques No Register of Deeds had testified and attested to the fact that
petition, claiming that the lot covered by the title sought to be the original of TCT No. 22813 wasnot under his/her custody, nor
reconstituted by the latter forms part of the land covered by the that said certificate of title in the name of Severino Manotok
formers own reconstituted title, TCT No. RT-22481, and alleging existed in the files of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan or
that TCT No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque is Quezon City.
spurious. The claim of the Barques who, just like the Manahans, were
The reconstitution was denied on grounds that the two lots unable to produce an authentic and genuine sale certificate, must
covered by the Barques title appear to duplicate the lot covered likewise fail.
by the Manotoks own reconstituted title; and that the Barques The Decision discussed extensively the findings of the CA that th
plan, Fls-3168-D, is a spurious document. eBarques documentary evidence were either spurious or irregula
On appeal, the LRA reversed the reconstituting officer and rlyprocured, which even buttressed the earlier findings mentioned
ordered that reconstitution of the Barques title be given due in the December 18, 2008 Resolution.On the other hand, the
course, but only after the Manotoks own title has been cancelled belatedly submitted copy of Sale Certificate No.511 by the
upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Manahans was not among those official documents which the
The CA ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the Manotoks Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) offered as evidence, as in
title. The latter filed these petitions to the SC. fact no copy thereof can be found in the records of either the
DENR-NCR or LMB.
ISSUE Moreover, the sudden emergence of this
unauthenticateddocument is suspicious, considering that Celzo w
Who is the legal owner of the Piedad Estate in Quezon City? ho testified, aswitness for both the OSG and the Manahans,
categorically admitted that she never actually saw the application
HELD to purchase and alleged Sale Certificate No. 511 of the
Manahans.
The national government of The Republic of the Philippines is the
legal owner of the subject property.
The Supreme Court denied with finality all the motions for
reconsideration filed by all parties in this case.
13 | P a g e