Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003

Dubious documents muddle UP land probe

By Ronnie E. Calumpita, Correspondent

Conclusion

A legal tussle has been going on between the University of the Philippines and private individuals over a tract of land inside the UP campus in Diliman, Quezon City.

In the thick of the fight are the Pael family, Renato Mallari, George Chin and UP itself.

Complicating the battle are allegations that documents had been falsified to expedite the sale of the contested property inside the 493-hectare campus.

The deed of sale allegedly made by Crisanto, Roberto and Teofila Pael and Mallari and Chin involving two lots with a total area of 233,842 square meters (only a portion of the Paels’ property) has also been found falsified. There were even two copies, on one of which, however, the name of Crisanto was only inserted.

The deed of sale allegedly made by Crisanto, Roberto and Teofila, and Mallari and Chin dated December 10, 1978, involving P1 million was notarized by Catalino Manalaysay and entered in Docket 364, Page 89, Book No. 1, Series of 1979 in Manila.

A certification issued by the assistant clerk of court, Jennifer de la Cruz-Buendia, of the Manila Regional Trial Court, however, showed that the deed of sale was not among those submitted by Manalaysay based on his Notarial Reports filed on January 10, 1980, for the period covering September 3, 1979, to December 28, 1979.

Velasquez said the deed of sale between Marilao, who could not sell any portion of the Paels’ properties through an exclusive power of attorney, and Pedro and Maria Destura involving Lots 588-A and 588-B worth P850,640 was also anomalous, because as the signature of Crisanto’s attorney-in-fact was forged.

“The signature of Marilao in the Exclusive Special Power of Attorney is very different from her alleged signature in the deed of sale. Her [Marilao’s] signature in the Special Power of Attorney was slanted to the right; the one in the fabricated deed of sale was slanted to the left,” Velasquez explained.

If Marilao and Destura indeed made a deed of sale, Velasquez said, the land title of the Pael family (TCT 36048) would have been canceled by now to pave the way for a new title for Destura.

Legal battles

At least three cases had been decided in the Quezon Regional Trial Court regarding the land dispute before they were elevated to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

The first civil case was filed by Roberto Pael in 1981 against UP after his family noticed that the state university had started building a perimeter fence in its property. The nullification of UP’s TCT 9462, its land title before it was divided into five titles, and the damages against UP were raffled to Branch 98 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (Civil Case Q-31619) in which the presiding judge was Cesar Peralejo.

Pedro Destura filed a motion for intervention, claiming to be the legitimate owner of the Paels’ 78-hectare properties following a deed of sale Destura made with Marilao, the family’s representative. His motion, however, was denied.

UP took the case to the Court of Appeals through a petition for prohibition restraining the lower court from hearing the case. UP won the case after the appellate court granted its prohibition on December 12, 1990, and issued a writ of prohibition, ordering the dismissal of the case in the lower court.

Roberto lost because of a technicality, because he wanted the title of UP covering 493 hectares nullified–the Paels’ property was only 79 hectares. Velasquez said the case filed should have been quieting of UP’s title to resolve how it allegedly took away property from his family.

Roberto’s lawyer then took the case to the Supreme Court, which also dismissed the petition of Roberto, whose defeat was again due to technicalities. He failed to give UP and other parties copies of a document.

Pedro Destura also filed a civil case against UP in 1984, when the state university entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Ayala Corp. to develop portions of the disputed land into a residential and commercial complex.

The Ayala Corp. was restrained from doing the project, so the development was discontinued, but the Civil Case Q-41687 was eventually dismissed by Branch 87 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, because there was a pending case in Branch 98 (Roberto Pael v. UP) pertaining to the same property though the cause of action of the two cases was different.

Roberto wanted UP’s title nullified; Pedro wanted the quieting of title against the state university.

Pedro’s wife, Maria, filed the third case–a petition for annulling the memorandum of agreement dated March 26, 1992, and for canceling the titles of Mallari and Chin (TCTs 52928 and 52929) in December 1993. She said the agreement was not valid, because it did not have her signature for approval, considering that she is Pedro’s wife.

Judge Lucas Bersamin of Branch 96 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, who inherited the case after it was reraffled to him from Branch 85, handed down the decision on January 24, 1994, nullifying the agreement, but ruled in favor neither of Mallari and Chin nor of Destura. He ordered the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel the titles of the two and reinstated the title of the Paels under TCT 36048.

Mallari and Chin then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the lower court. Destura then took the case to the Supreme Court through a certiorari.

Velasquez said Menor also tried to intervene, but his motion was denied because of the alleged deed of sale he made with Mallari and Chin. Menor should have been after the alleged failure of the two to pay him in full.

UP also came to the Supreme Court by filing a motion for intervention, which was granted. The same motion of the Paels was denied on the grounds that they had made a deed of sale with Mallari and Chin.

The Paels then filed a supple­mental motion for recon­sideration before the Supreme Court, but the petition was denied for lack of merit in the Court’s resolution dated December 7, 2001. Destura’s motion for recon­sideration was also denied.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to resolve the land dispute between UP and Mallari and Chin.

House committee hearing

Jose Pael, a son of Crisanto and Simplicia, said the family has no other recourse than to seek the help of the House of Representatives after the Supreme Court denied their motion for reconsideration to remand the case to the lower court, where they could present their evidence. The Court remanded the land dispute to the Court of Appeals to resolve the alleged overlapping claim between the UP property and that of Mallari’s and Chin’s.

“We went to the Congress because we’re not allowed to talk and give our side to prove that the property is still ours. We only wanted to take back what belongs to us,” Jose Pael stressed.

House Resolution 990, filed by Rep. Eladio Jala of the Third District of Bohol, aims to resolve the issue of the rightful ownership of the UP Diliman property that will also pave the way to scrutinize the present Torrens System of land registration of any loopholes so that legislative remedies can be made.

At the July 29 hearing, Velas­quez presented to the committee evidence substantiating the claims of the Paels that the alleged deed of sale supposedly made by Crisanto, Roberto and Teofila, and Mallari and Chin was fabricated and antedated.

Velasquez said his TCT 36048 originated from the Tuazon family’s OCT 730, the same title from which UP derived its original title (TCT 36048).

His claims, however, were refuted by Assistant Solicitor General Roman del Rosario, who said the title of the Pael family is fake.

Del Rosario, who represented UP, said the validity of the state university’s land title to the property has already been upheld by the Court of Appeals.

The House committee ordered the UP officials, the Department of Justice, the Land Registration Authority and the Office of the Solicitor General to submit documents and position papers to prove that UP is indeed the rightful owner of the disputed property.

Rep. Vicente Sandoval of the First District of Palawan, who sponsored the resolution on behalf of Jala, also asked the UP officials to give the committee a list of all of UP’s land acquisitions. He ordered the Paels to file a comprehensive position paper to bolster their claims to the property.

Amicable settlement

Jose said the Pael family is open for an amicable settlement with UP officials just to settle the two-decade-old land dispute.

“We’ve been deprived of our property for so many years. Many people have claimed it, but we are willing to donate a portion of our property to UP, especially those that have its existing establis­hments,” he added.

His family, Jose said, has been left with only 12 hectares of land, the Pael Subdivision, in which several lots have already been sold.

Velasquez said the Paels understand the reputation of UP being the premier state university, so they would rather give a portion of their missing property to the university than allow Mallari and Chin to get the property through illegal means.

Pael noted that since the appellate court and the Supreme Court said that the title of the Paels is dubious, therefore the titles of Mallari and Chin are also fake, since their titles came from the Paels’ through an alleged deed of sale.

Velasquez said the courts overlooked this important point and instead recognized the titles of Mallari and Chin, whose alleged property overlaps with UP’s.

The 78-hectare property being disputed by the Pael family, UP and Mallari and Chin covers the 12-hectare UP Arboretum, which was classified by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources as a rain forest, home to diverse species of flora and fauna; the site of the Citimall near the Philippine Coconut Authority, the UP Bliss housing projects and other vacant lots on the western section of the Commonwealth Avenue.

UP: The rightful owner

The UP stood firm that it is the rightful owner of the disputed property being contested by the Paels and Mallari and Chin.

UP officials immediately intervened in the Supreme Court after Mallari and Chin won the case of land dispute against Destura, Menor and the Paels.

UP entered the picture claiming that the property is not owned by Mallari and Chin, the Paels and other claimants, because their titles are fake.

In its motion for intervention, UP cited at least seven cases decided by the Supreme Court in which its title to the contested property had long been upheld, including the case filed by Roberto Pael.

UP cited the decision of the High Court in the Roberto A. Pael et al. v Court of Appeals, et al. which found the title of the Paels dubious and fabricated. Therefore, the titles of Mallari and Chin are also fake, since their titles derived from an alleged defective title.

The Supreme Court eventually granted UP’s motion for intervention, since any of its decision affecting the property “would create a cloud over UP’s title.”

And since UP had not yet presented its evidence in this case, the Court remanded it to the appellate court “for reception of evidence relevant to determining the boundaries of the conflicting claims between UP and respon­dents Chin and Mallari over the property in dispute.”