|
By Jomar Canlas Reporter
Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo,
President Gloria Arroyo’s husband, recently notched a victory at
the Court of Appeals in his battle for his ancestral land of almost
nine-million-square meters located at Tatalon, Quezon City.
With a 3-2 vote, the appellate
court ruled in favor of the Office of the Solicitor General by
granting the appeal of the government and setting aside the ruling
of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court on September 2, 2004, in
favor of Genaro Santiago 3rd.
Other appellate justices who
concurred with the ruling of Associate Justice Juan Enriquez are
Edgardo Cruz and Vicente Veloso. The dissenters were Lucas Bersamin
and Marlene Gonzales-Sison.
The court ruled that there is no
merit in the ruling of the lower court in allowing the
reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificate of title in
favor of new claimants Pantaleona Santiago and Blas Fajardo, who
were represented by their heir Genaro.
The case involved a vast
tract—8,793,307 square meters—in Quezon City that is now owned
by the Tuasons, the maternal side of Mr. Arroyo.
The appellate court also ruled
that Santiago cannot claim the land and dispute the title held by
the Tuasons that were the subject of transfers, mortgage, donation
and sale to other persons.
It said the appeal of the
Solicitor General had been found meritorious in favor of the Tuasons,
since the Supreme Court settled the issue in Benin v. Tuason. This
case upheld the validity and effectiveness of the Tuasons’ title
under Original Certificate of Title No. 735 and “[declared]
further its incontrovertibility and conclusiveness against all
persons claiming, either by themselves or by their predecessors
in-interest, rights over the lands covered by said certificate of
title.”
“This [upholding of the
legality of the Tuasons’ title] means that the lower courts, like
the Quezon City Regional Trial Court in this case, “have no
jurisdiction over petitions by such third parties for reconstitution
of allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already
covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly
registered owners,” the appellate court added.
Genaro lodged the petition on May
17, 2004, for judicial reconstitution of lost or destroyed Original
Certificate of Title, alleging that he is an heir of the deceased
Pantaleona Santiago and Blas Fajardo, who died on May 8, 1937 and
October 28, 1944, respectively. The latter are allegedly the owners
of the parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
56 issued on June 13, 1910. This certificate of title was said to
have been either lost or destroyed during a fire on June 11, 1988.
The fire gutted a government office where the certificate supposedly
was stored.
There were also allegations that
the title was replaced by a “fraudulent title” in the name of
Compania Agricola de Ultramar. The other theory is that Original
Certificate of Title No. 56 was “brought by then-President
Ferdinand Marcos [to his exile in] Hawaii.”
The appellate court, however,
pointed out that the claim of Genaro holds no water for he failed to
prove that he had interest in the property covered by the title that
he wanted to be reconstituted.
“…. Appellee [Genaro] failed
to establish his filiation with spouses Pantaleona Santiago and Blas
Fajardo. While he alleged to be one of the heirs of the spouses,
said allegation is not supported with documentary evidence, such as
his birth certificate and those of his progenitors,” it said.
The appellate court also ruled
that Genaro should be held culpable for laches for his “negligence
to assert a right within a reasonable time warranting the
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned or declined to assert it.”
“Laches” refers to negligence
in the observance of duty or opportunity.
“Appellee and his
predecessors-in-interest appeared to have neglected their supposed
rights to the property in question. Appellee claimed that OCT No. 56
was issued on June 13, 1910. On the other hand, it is of record that
OCT No. 735 was issued in 1914. During this time, spouses Pantaleona
Santiago and Blas Fajardo or their heirs did not take any action or
question the validity and legitimacy of OCT No. 735,” the Court of
Appeals said.
The court added that the spouses
or their heirs did not even protest the development of
infrastructure, buildings and facilities in the area or questioned
the proprietary rights of the occupants who have the property.
Mr. Arroyo’s spokesman, lawyer
Jesus Santos, said he has not talked with the President’s husband
for quite a while, especially on the case involving the Tuason
estate.
Santos told The Manila Times
during a telephone interview early this week that he will inform Mr.
Arroyo of the victory at the appellate court.
At the time of the interview, he
said he cannot make any exact statement on the court’s ruling
since they have yet to receive a copy of the decision. Santos added
that they will first study the implications of the ruling.
|
