MANOTOK vs. BARQUE[1] (G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605; August 24, 2010; VILLARAMA, JR., J.

FACTS:
·         Piedad Estate originally owned by Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company, Ltd., La Sociedad Agricola de Ultramar, the
British-Manila Estate Company, Ltd., and the Recoleto Order of the Philippine Islands. (It is a Friar Land.)
o    The subject parcel “Lot No. 823” is part of the Piedad Estate and is located in QC.
·         On 23 December 1903, Piedad Estate was acquired by the Philippine Government pursuant to the Friar Lands Act. The certificate of
title in the name of the government was OCT No. 614. The Estate was placed under the administration of the Director of Lands.
·         Controversy arising from conflicting claims over Lot 823 began after a fire gutted portions of the Quezon City Hall on June 11,
1988 which destroyed records stored in the Office of the Register of Deeds.
·         In 1990, Manotoks filed a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of TCT No. 372302 covering Lot No. 823 with an
area of 342,945 square meters à GRANTED à TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) was issued in 1991.  
·         In 1996, 8 years after the fire the Barques filed a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 in the
name of Homer Barque also covering Lot 823.  In support of their petition, the Barques submitted copies of the alleged owner’s
duplicate of the TCT, real estate tax receipts, tax declarations and a Plan Fls 3168-D covering the property.
o    MANOTOKs opposed alleging that TCT No. 210177 was spurious. 
·         Although both titles of the Manotoks and the Barques refer to land belonging to Lot No. 823, TCT No. 210177 actually involves 2
parcels with an aggregate area of 342,945 square meters, while TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) pertains only to a 1 parcel of land, with a
similar area of 342,945 square meters.
·         1997 – Barques’ petition was DENIED. à Lot. No. 823 already registered in the name of the Manotoks.         --> Barques MR was
denied à They appealed to the LRA à LRA Reversed.
o    LRA found that the reconstitution of the Manotok title was fraudulent. Hence, it ordered the Barque title to be reconstituted. BUT
cancellation must 1st be sought in a court of competent jurisdiction of the 1991 Manotok TCT.
·         The LRA denied the Manotoks’ MR and the Barques’ prayer for immediate reconstitution.  Both the Manotoks and the Barques
appealed the LRA decision to the CA.
§  In the CA, Felicitas Manahan filed a motion to intervene and sought the dismissal of the cases claiming ownership of the subject
property.
·         2002 and 2003 à 2 separate divisions of the CA both directed the RD of QC to cancel the Reconstituted Manotok Title and to
reconstitute the Barques’ “valid, genuine and existing” TCT No. 210177.
o    Hence, the Manotoks filed the present separate petitions which were ordered consolidated on August 2, 2004.
·         December 12, 2005, SC First Division  à affirmed both decisions of the CA. à Manotoks filed MR à Denied in April 2006
Resolution.
o    Thereafter, the Manotoks filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second MR with their MR attached. à Denied in June 2006 Resolution.
Eventually entry of judgment was made in the Book of Entries of Judgment on May 2, 2006.  In the meantime, the Barques filed
multiple motions with the First Division for execution of the judgment, while the Manotoks filed an Urgent Motion to Refer Motion
for Possession to the SC En Banc (with prayer to set motion for oral arguments).  à Case was referred to the En Banc in July 2006.
·         On September 7, 2006, Felicitas Manahan and Rosendo Manahan filed a motion to intervene, to which was attached their petition in
intervention. They alleged that their predecessor-in-interest, Valentin Manahan, was issued Sale Certificate No. 511 covering Lot No.
823 and attached the findings of the NBI that the documents of the Manotoks were not as old as they were purported to be. 
Consequently, the Director of the Legal Division of the LMB recommended to the Director of the LMB the reconstituted Manotok
Title should be reverted to the state.
o    Oral arguments were held on July 24, 2007. 
·         2008 - En Banc set aside the December 2005 1st division decision and entry of judgment recalled and the CA’s Amended Decisions
in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 66642 and 66700 were reversed and set aside. The En Banc remanded the case to the CA.
o    The CA was directed to receive evidence of and focus on the issue of WON the Manotoks can trace their claim of title to a valid
alienation by the Government of Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate, which was a Friar Land. PURPOSE: to decide WON the title of the
Maotoks should be annulled.
·         CA’s findings à   None of the parties were able to prove a valid alienation of Lot 823 from the government in accordance with the
provisions of Act No. 1120 otherwise known as the “Friar Lands Act”.  Notably lacking in the deed of conveyance of the Manotoks is
the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce as required by Section 18 of the said law. Upon close scrutiny, the factual
allegations and voluminous documentary exhibits relating to the purchase of Lot 823 by the predecessors-in-interest of the claimants
revealed badges of fraud and irregularity.

BASIS FOR THEIR CLAIMS FOR OWNERSHIP:

Manotoks à Their grandfather bought Lot 823 from the Government in 1919. They have since occupied the land, built their houses and
buildings on it. The subject land is now known as Manotok Compound.
Barques à Teresita claims her father (Homer) bought land from Emiliano Setosta who had a TCT in his name.
Manahans à The lot originally belonged to his parents but was subsequently bought by his wife. They had a caretaker on the property
but she was ousted by armed men in 1950s so they just declared the property for taxation to protect their rights.

ISSUE: Who has the better right over Lot No. 823? NO ONE! It belongs to the National Government.

RATIO:
·         From the proceedings in the CA, it was established that while records of the DENR-LMB indicate the original claimant/applicant of
Lot 823 as a certain Valentin Manahan, only the Manotoks were able to produce a sale certificate in the name of their predecessors-in-
interest, certified by the LMB Records Management Division. In addition, the Manotoks submitted photocopies of original documents
entitled Assignment of Sale Certificate dated 1919, 1920 and 1923. 
·         Sale Certificate No. 1054 was not signed by the Director of Lands nor approved by the Secretary of the Interior.  The Certificates of
Assignment of Sale contained only the signature of the Director of Lands. The Manotoks belatedly secured from the National
Archives a certified copy of Deed of Conveyance No. 29204 dated December 7, 1932, which likewise lacks the approval of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as it was signed only by the Director of Lands.

Act No. 1120 SECTION 18.  No lease or sale made by Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands under the provisions of this Act shall be
valid until approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

·         It is clear from the foregoing provision and from jurisprudence that the sale of friar lands shall be valid only if approved by the
Secretary of the Interior (later the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce). 

·         In their Memorandum, the Manotoks pointed out that their photocopy of the original Deed of Conveyance No. 29204, sourced from
the National Archives, shows on the second page a poorly imprinted typewritten name over the words “Secretary of Agriculture and
 Natural Resources”, which name is illegible, and above it an even more poorly imprinted impression of what may be a stamp of the
Secretary’s approval. 
·         The Manotoks are invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of the RD’s task in issuing the TCT in the Manotok
name. The Manotoks contend that “we can assume that the Manotok deed of conveyance was in fact approved by the Department
Secretary because the register of deeds did issue TCT No. 22813 in the name of the buyer Severino Manotok.” FURTHER, the
Manotoks assert that even if we were to ignore the presumption of validity in the performance of official duty, Department
Memorandum Order No. 16-05 issued on October 27, 2005 by then DENR Secretary Michael T. Defensor, supplies the omission of
approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in deeds of conveyances over friar lands.
o    NO! These arguments fail.
·         Citing Alonso v. Cebu Country Club which applied the rule in the Solid State and Liao Casesà the absence of approval by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce in the sale certificate and assignment of sale certificate made the sale null and void ab initio. 
Necessarily, there can be no valid titles issued on the basis of such sale or assignment. 
o    SC in the MR of the Alonso case underscored that the approval is a MADATORY requirement.  Approval of the Secretary of the
Interior cannot simply be presumed or inferred from certain acts since the law is explicit in its mandate.  Petitioners have not offered
any cogent reason that would justify a deviation from this rule.

·         DENR Memorandum Order No. 16, invoked by both the Manotoks and the Manahans, states that some Deeds of Conveyance on
record in the field offices of the LMB do not bear the Secretary’s signature despite full payment for the Friar Land. They are deemed
signed or otherwise ratified by this Memo provided that the applicant really paid the purchase price and complied with all the
requirements under the Friar Lands Act.
o    The CA opined that the Manotoks cannot benefit from the above department issuance because it makes reference only to those deeds of
conveyance on file with the records of the DENR field offices.  The Manotoks’ copy of the alleged Deed of Conveyance No. 29204
issued in 1932, was sourced from the National Archives.  
·         Manotoks also point out that the Friar Lands Act itself states that the Government ceases reservation of its title once the buyer had
fully paid the price. (They were claiming that they fully paid!) Their basis is SECTION 15[2] of the Friar Lands Act.
·         Court found that the old rule would support the Manotoks contention however, the new rule Pugeda v. Trias, à “the conveyance
executed in favor of a buyer or purchaser, or the so-called certificate of sale, is a conveyance of the ownership of the property, subject
only to the resolutory condition that the sale may be cancelled if the price agreed upon is not paid for in full.
·         Clearly, it is the execution of the contract to sell and delivery of the certificate of sale that vests title and ownership to the purchaser
of friar land. Such certificate of sale must, of course, be signed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as evident from
Sections 11[3], 12[4] and the 2nd paragraph of Section 15[5], in relation to Section 18.

CONCLUSIONS
·         Manotoks could not have acquired ownership of the subject lot as they had no valid certificate of sale issued to them by the
Government because their Certificate lacks the signature of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources
·         The decades-long occupation by the Manotoks of Lot 823, their payment of real property taxes and construction of buildings, are of
no moment.  It must be noted that the Manotoks miserably failed to prove the existence of the title allegedly issued in the name of
Severino Mantotok after the latter had paid in full the purchase price.  The Manotoks did not offer any explanation as to why the only
copy of TCT No. 22813 was torn in half and no record of documents leading to its issuance can be found in the registry of deeds.  As
to the certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Caloocan, it simply described the copy presented as “DILAPIDATED” without
stating if the original copy of TCT No. 22813 actually existed in their records, nor any information on the year of issuance and name
of registered owner. 
o    As we stressed in Alonso: Prescription can never lie against the Government.

·         RE: MANAHANS àNo copy of the alleged Sale Certificate No. 511 can be found in the records of either the DENR-NCR, LMB or
National Archives.  Although the OSG submitted a certified copy of Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 511 allegedly executed by
Valentin Manahan in favor of Hilaria de Guzman, there is no competent evidence to show that the claimant Valentin Manahan or his
successors-in-interest actually occupied Lot 823, declared the land for tax purposes, or paid the taxes due thereon.
·         Even assuming arguendo the existence and validity of the alleged Sale Certificate No. 511 and Assignment of Sale Certificate No.
511 presented by the Manahans, the CA correctly observed that the claim had become stale after the lapse of 86 years from the date of
its alleged issuance.  Citing Liao v. CA “the certificates of sale x x x became stale after 10 years from its issuance” and hence cannot
be the source documents for issuance of title more than 70 years later.”