LRA: Allow or refuse
In the words of former Supreme Court Associate Justice
Florentino P. Feliciano, "the authority of reconstituting officers (of the LRA)
in administrative reconstitution is simply to reconstitute certificates of
title, or to refuse to reconstitute if there is valid reason for such refusal."
Feliciano noted in his memorandum to the Court en banc that
"since the LRA administrator (Maulit) had no jurisdiction to judge the Manotok
TCT invalid, the Court of Appeals could have no jurisdiction on appeal to affirm
that Maulit opinion. Because the CA’s judgment in fact affirms that option, that
judgment was also void.
According to the former jurist, "the CA could not also have
made or adopted the Maulit conclusions as though it were so in the first
instance, because the law gives the CA no original jurisdiction in the matter.
Feliciano pointed out that "any original determination by the
CA on the question of the validity of the Manotok TCT could be the exercise of
non-existent jurisdiction and therefore void.
In the pen of Associate Justice Consuelo Y. Ynares, the Court ordered the
register of deeds of Quezon City to cancel the title of Manotok and issue a new
one for their property in the name of the heirs of Homer Barque.
Travesty
The First Division of Santiago might have treated lightly, if
not with indifference, the defense of the Manotoks against the Heirs of Homer
Barque who applied for a reconstitution of the title that belongs to the heirs
of Severino Manotok.
There was this simple matter of a claim that a certain
barangay in Balara belonging to the Manotok did not exist.
A team of inspectors from the Department of Agrarian Reform
was sent to the area to verify if the barrio exists. The DAR people made a
report that it does exist and in fact parts of it were planted to crops.
The Barques lied about the barrio as not existing. The DAR
proved that it does exist.
Unfortunately, Justice Santiago, ponente of the case, bought
the lie and ordered the reconstitution of the title in favor of the Heirs of
Homer Barque.
How the majority of the members of the division failed to
notice error of facts and inapplicable laws only suggests that the jurists did
not put their teeth into the subject before joining Justice Santiago in coming
up with her 16-page ponencia.
A void judgment affirmed by
SC
Justice Feliciano asks this question: "Can the Supreme Court
affirm a CA judgment that is itself void for lack of jurisdiction?"
He answers his own question by telling the en banc that "the
Court of Appeals and the LRA have no jurisdiction to decide the issue of
ownership in administrative reconstitution proceedings."
The respected jurist explains that "ownership is never in
issue in a petition for reconstitution of title."
I guess that Justice Feliciano is merely pursuing his
documented statement that a duly reconstituted title was issued to Severino
Manotok.
Justice Santiago, however, gave so much weight to the
assertion of LRA administrator Maulit that the Manotok title "is sham and
spurious" after he acknowledged that it is not.
This "sham and spurious" theory is a personal opinion that
weighed heavily on the mind of the ponente, Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago.
I never knew that the Supreme Court, Justice Santiago anyway,
may be bound by a personal opinion and take it as a major basis for making what
to me is an unjust and arbitrary decision.
Spurious plan
Justice Santiago relied heavily on the personal opinion of
the LRA administrator that the title of the Manotoks is "sham and spurious".
Strangely, she failed to notice and gave no evidentiary value
to the findings of a reconstitution officer that the plan submitted by the heirs
of Homer Barque "is a spurious document" as certified by the chief of the
geodetic surveys division, Land Management Bureau, in his letter of Feb. 19,
1997.
Bustos, the reconstituting officer, declared "wherefore, the
reconstituting officer finds sufficient justification to deny the reconstitution
of TCT No. 210177 allegedly in the name of Homer L. Barque Sr.
What did Justice Santiago have in hand? A personal opinion by
the LRA administrator that the title of the Manotoks "is spurious and sham" and
the claim of a reconstitution officer that the plan submitted by Barque is
spurious document.
I thought sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Justice Santiago, in her ponencia, took the personal opinion and ignored the
documented proof that the Barque plan is spurious.
What does one make of that?
Two divisions, two decisions
After the LRA administrator wrongly ordered the
reconstitution of the title in the name of Homer Barque and the cancellation of
the title of the Manotoks, the two parties filed separate appeals with the Court
of Appeals.
Having forgotten the details of the case, I suppose the Heirs
of Homer Barque sought an order from the CA to require the register of deeds of
Quezon City to cancel the Manotok title and have it transferred to Barque.
On the other hand, the Manotoks questioned the personal
opinion of LRA administrator that their title is "sham and spurious"
The two divisions of the CA – 2nd and 3rd both decided that
it was correct to deny administrative reconstitution, on jurisdictional reasons
as found by the LRA itself.
Strangely, as if blown by a new wind of doctrine, the two
divisions, acting on the motion for reconsideration of the Barques "reversed and
ordered the cancellation of the Manotok title for being sham and spurious, as
the LRA administrator had said as a matter of personal opinion and then ordered
the Barque title reconstituted."
What is going on here? The CA has no authority to order
reconstitution. Justice Santiago did not even know. Neither did her colleagues.
