Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 8
La Trinidad, Benguet

JIMMY MATEO, CARMEN Civil Case No. 03-CV-1814

MATEO, FELISA BUTAG,
ALBERT NABUS, FIDEL For:
BERRY, GLORIA LITAWEN,
DURINA AQUISIO, ANNULMENT OF DEED OF
ROSITA MAGANAN and SALE, FENCING PERMIT
ELMER PILANDO, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS,
Plaintiffs, CANCELLATION OF TAX
DECLARATION, WITH A
-versus- PRAYER FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A
THE HEIRS OF MIGUEL TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
BATO, NAMELY ANITA ORDER AND/OR
BATO, SIMPLICIIO BATO, PRELIMINARY
SUSAN BATO, IRENE BATO PROHIBITION INJUNCTION
ARMAS, and CELSO BATO, AND PRELIMINARY
BERACAH PROPERTIES, MANDATORY INJUNCTION
INC., Herein Represented by AND DAMAGES
its President, MICHAEL SIY,
THE MUNICIPAL
ASSESSOR OF ITOGON,
BENGUET, THE
PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF
THE PROVINCE OF
BENGUET, AND THE
BUILDING OFFICIAL OF
THE MUNICIPALITY OF
ITOGON, BENGUET,
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------
--x

DECISION
In the ORDER of this court dated 24 September 2009, it is stated, thus:

“WHEREFORE, finding no cogent reason to disturb its earlier Order, the

court hereby DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration of defendant Beracah
Properties for lack of merit.

This case is now considered submitted for decision.

SO ORDERED. x x x.”

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el Page 1
 Hence, this decision.

The Pleadings and Submissions of

the Parties:

For easier appreciation, the following are the more relevant pleadings
and submissions of the parties:

1. The Complaint filed by the plaintiffs on 11 March 2003;

While the Complaint included a prayer for the issuance of a temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunction, it is stated in the Order of this
court dated 18 March 2003, thus:

“x x x. Atty. Baldas manifested that defendant Beracah Properties is in the

process of constructing a fence, an activity which he would like to enjoin.

Atty, Pekas manifested that he will undertake, as an officer of the court, to

ensure that there will be no more fencing activity to be undertaken until such
time that the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction shall
have been resolved.

With this manifestation, Atty. Baldas manifested that he will not pursue his
motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. x x x.”

And in the ORDER dated 22 May 2003, it is stated, thus:

“x x x. When this case was called, Atty. Pekas for defendant Beracah
Properties manifested that the fencing activities planned by said defendant has
been completed and they will no longer undertake any further fencing activity.

He made this commitment in open court and with this commitment, Atty.
Baldas manifested that he is no longer pursuing the Motion for the issuance of
a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. x x x.”

2. The Answer and Opposition filed by defendant Beracah

Properties, Inc. on 24 April 2003;
3. The Reply filed by plaintiffs on 22 May 2003;
4. The Pre – Trial Brief (For the Plaintiffs) filed on 09 July 2003
and the Pre – Trial Brief filed by defendant Beracah Properties,
Inc. on 21 July 2003;
5. The Amended Complaint filed by plaintiffs filed on 28 August
2003, impleading the Heirs of Miguel Bato as defendants;
The trial ensued after the Pre – Trial Order was issued on 20 February
2004.

6. The Formal Offer of Evidence filed by plaintiffs on 28 August 2006 and

the Comments or Objections to Plaintiffs’ Offer of Evidence of
Defendant Beracah Properties, Inc., filed on 29 September 2006;

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 2
 7. The Manifestation and Motion to Admit Additional Exhibits filed by
plaintiffs on 29 September 2006;

In the Order of this court dated 20 September 2006, and in another

ORDER dated 11 October 2006, the exhibits offered by the plaintiffs were
admitted, except Exhibit “DD” which was withdrawn.

8. The Demurrer to Evidence filed by defendant Beracah Properties on

19 October 2006 and the Comment filed by plaintiffs on 24 November
2006;

In the ORDER dated 29 October 2006, this court denied defendant

Beracah Properties’ Demurrer to Evidence and ordered the presentation of said
defendant’s evidence.

However, in the ORDER of this court dated 16 April 2009, it is stated,

thus:

“x x x. In all the Orders granting additional dates to defendant Beracah

Properties, Inc., a warning was always indicated that should it fail to present
evidence no further postponement shall be allowed.

The court will no longer allow another postponement considering that

defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. has been given nearly a year to complete
presentation of its evidence as can be seen in the dates above-stated.

WHEREFORE, defendant Beracah properties, Inc. is deemed to have waived

its right to present further evidence and is directed to rest its case x x x.”

In another Order dated 9 July 2009, this case was considered submitted
for decision for failure of defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. to file its formal
offer of evidence and consequently was deemed to have waived its right to do
so.

9. The Motion (For Reconsideration and/or To Allow the Filing of

Memorandum; and to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction) filed by
defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. on 20 August 2009.

The Motion was denied and eventually, this case was considered
submitted for decision in the earlier mentioned ORDER of this court dated 24
September 2009.
The Antecedents:

The plaintiffs through counsel filed their Complaint 1 in this case against
defendants for Annulment of Deed of Sale and other documents. Summons
with copies of the complaint were issued, which were received by all the
defendants2. Private defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. (heretofore, “Beracah
Properties”) filed its Answer and Opposition3 through counsel.
1
The Complaint was received by the Office of the Clerk of Court of this court on March 11, 2003
2
The Sheriff’s Return of Service dated March 18 2003 signed by Henry B. Longay, Jr., show that all the defendants
received copies of the summons and the complaint.
3
The Answer was filed on April 24, 2003

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 3
 On 22 May 2003, the plaintiffs’ application for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction was heard. Atty. Antonio P. Pekas, counsel for the
defendant Beracah Properties manifested that the fencing activities planned by
his client has been completed and they will no longer undertake any further
fencing activity. With this commitment, Atty. Bartolome L. Baldas, Jr.
manifested that plaintiffs will not pursue the Motion for the Issuance of a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction4.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed their Reply 5 to the Answer and Opposition
filed by defendant Beracah Properties. With the issues having been joined, the
court issued a Notice of Pre-Trial setting the Pre-Trial Conference on July 10,
20036. However, it was learned later that defendant Miguel Bato died
prompting the plaintiffs to pray that they be allowed to amend their complaint 7.
Later, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and
Substitution8 with an Amended Complaint9 where they impleaded as defendants
the Heirs of Miguel Bato. The summons and the Amended Answer were
received by the Heirs of Miguel Bato on January 15, 2004 10.

Nonetheless, this court observed that this case is for Annulment of Deed
of Sale, an action in personam which may not survive and thus there would be
no need for substitution11. Hence, this court did not require the substitution of
Miguel Bato by his heirs.

Culled from the record of this case, it appears that Miguel Bato was the
claimant of a wide tract of land located at Apalan, Loakan, Itogon, Benguet,
containing an area of 398,992 square meters 12. Miguel Bato declared three
hectares of his property13 as shown by Tax Declaration No. 99-005-0072214.
Plaintiffs purchased portions of Miguel Bato’s land as shown by the Deeds of
Sale/Waiver/Conveyance Miguel Bato executed in their favor more specifically
as follows:

1. Plaintiff Jimmy Mateo bought a 47,000 square meters parcel of land

from Miguel Bato15;
2. Plaintiff Carmen Mateo bought three (3) hectares of land also from
Miguel Bato16;
3. Plaintiff Fidel Berry bought 20,092 square meters parcel of land from
Miguel Bato17;

4
May 22, 2003 Order
5
This was received on May 22, 2003
6
Notice of Pre- Trial Conference dated May 26, 2003
7
Order dated August 14, 2003.
8
This was filed on August 26, 2003
9
This was filed on August 26, 2003
10
Sheriff’s Return of Service dated January 21, 2004
11
This is shown by the Order of the Court dated August 14, 2003
12
Exhibit “A”
13
Par. 5 of the Complaint;
14
Exhibit “B”
15
Deed of Sale of an Unregistered land marked as Exhibit “C”
16
Deed of Absolute Sale marked as Exhibit “D”
17
Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land (Portion) marked as Exhibit “E”

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 4
 4. A three (3) hectares parcel of land was waived by Miguel Bato in favor
of plaintiff Albert Nabus18;
5. Plaintiffs Gloria Litawen, Roger Tinio and Perlita Tinio bought a
portion of 4.000 hectares land from Miguel Bato19;
6. Two (2)hectares of land was conveyed by Miguel Bato to plaintiff
Felisa Butag20;
7. Plaintiff Rosita Maganan purchased two (2) hectares of land from
Miguel Bato21; and
8. One (1) hectare parcel of land was waived to Elmer Pilando by Miguel
Bato22.

Plaintiffs have been in possession of the parcels of land they acquired

from Miguel Bato. They levelled portions of the land which they utilized for
agricultural purposes. They introduced improvements therein which include
residential houses and farm houses. They have utilized portions of the same for
vegetable farming. They planted fruit trees thereat, including mangoes,
oranges, bananas and others23.

It appears that from the pictures of the parcels of land acquired by the
plaintiffs from Miguel Bato, the land or the area was converted into a small
farming community.

During the last week of January or February 2003, the defendant

Beracah Properties through its hired men erected concrete posts in the subject
land in preparation for the construction of a fence 24. Although the defendant
denied this allegation in the Complaint 25, it nonetheless admitted the fencing
activity and it even admitted that said fencing activity was already finished
during the hearing on the application for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction. In fact, the counsel for defendant Beracah Properties manifested
“…that he will undertake, as an officer of the court, to ensure that there will be
no fencing activity to be undertaken until such time that the motion for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction shall have been resolved. With the said
manifestation, Atty. Baldas, counsel for the plaintiff manifested that he will not
pursue his motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order”. 26…

Defendant Beracah Properties fenced the several parcels of land acquired

by the plaintiffs from Miguel Bato. As basis for its fencing activities, Beracah
Properties argued that it bought Miguel Bato’s property as shown by an
Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land 27 Miguel Bato executed, together
with Celso Bato, Susan Bato, Irene Bato Armas and Christopher Armas.
Defendant Beracah Properties further argued that at the time of the sale, it is
not aware of any adverse claim against the property and that the supposed sales

18
Deed of Confirmation of Waiver marked as Exhibit “F”
19
Receipt marked as Exhibit “G”
20
Affidavit of Waiver marked as Exhibit “H”
21
Deed of Sale of a Portion of an Unregistered Land marked as Exhibit “I”
22
Waiver of Rights marked as Exhibit “J”
23
The improvements are shown by Exhibits “O” and series
24
Par. 9 of the Complaint
25
Par. 1.1 of the Answer where defendants denied several paragraphs of the Complaint which includes Par. 9
26
Order, March 3, 2018
27
Exhibit “Q”

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 5
of portions of the land in favor of plaintiffs as stated in the complaint were non-
existent in so far as Beracah Properties is concerned,” 28.

Still further, right after the signing of the said deed, defendant Beracah
Properties adds, among others, that it immediately took possession of the
subject land and that such was not resisted or opposed by anybody. 29; that the
aforesaid deed was approved by the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP) as can be shown on the face thereof 30; and as can be shown by
a certification, there were no improvements on the land when the same was
bought”31.

It is apparent that plaintiffs and defendant Beracah Properties are

claiming the same parcel of land. Both parties, however, anchor their respective
claim from the land claim of Miguel Bato. This court is therefore called to
determine who between the parties have a better claim over the parcel of land
subject hereof.

The Pre – Trial Conference:

On 20 February 2004, the Pre–Trial Conference 32 was conducted where

the parties stipulated, viz:

1. The defendant Beracah Properties fenced the property subject of this case;
2. That a tax declaration (or Declaration of Real Property) was issued in the
name of Beracah Properties;
3. That a fencing permit was issued to Beracah Properties.

The parties further agreed during the Pre – Trial Conference that the
following issues shall be resolved in this case, viz:

1. Which of the deeds of sale or deed of transfer or any mode of transfer

executed by Miguel Bato – that in favor of the plaintiffs or that in favor of
defendant Beracah Properties – should prevail;

2. Whether or not the parties are entitled to their claims for damages.

The Evidence for the Plaintiffs:

On April 28, 2004, plaintiff Fidel Berry testified. He identified the

“Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land (Portion)” 33 executed by Miguel Bato in
his favor where Miguel Bato sold to him on 2 October 1994 a parcel of land
with an area of 20,092 square meters. He also identified Exhibit EE 34 and

28
Answer, par. 3.1.
29
Ibid, par. 3.3
30
Ibid, par. 3.4
31
Ibid par. 3.5
32
Pre-Trial Order, February 20, 2004
33
Exhibit “E”
34
Letter of Fidel Berry to Julito Luspian

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 6
Exhibit “FF”35. Exhibits “EE” is a letter dated 4 February 2003 addressed to the
Municipal Assessor of Itogon, Benguet where Fidel Berry informed the
Municipal Assessor that he and some of the plaintiffs in this case “protested”
Tax Declaration No. 2004 (expansion), Application of Miguel Bato et. al. since
they have been occupying the same area covered by said tax declaration since
1992. Exhibit “FF” on the other hand is a letter signed by Atty. Torres Aayo
addressed to Michael Siy, President of Beracah Properties, Inc., where Atty.
Aayo informed Mr. Siy that some of the plaintiffs in this case are the occupants
of the land Beracah Properties acquired from Miguel Bato.

Fidel Berry further testified further that he has been in actual physical
possession of the land he bought from Miguel Bato.

The next witness who testified was Albert Nabus who took the witness
stand on 24 June 2004. He affirmed in open court, among others, that he
acquired a land with an area of three (3) hectares from Miguel Bato and that he
has possessed the same and he even introduced improvements thereat. He
identified a “Deed of Confirmation/Waiver” 36 executed by Miguel Bato and a
Receipt37 showing that Mr. Nabus paid some consideration to Miguel Bato for
his (Mr. Nabus) acquisition of said three (3) hectares land.

The third witness to testify was Felisa Butag who took the witness stand
on 9 July 2004. She identified an “Affidavit of Waiver” 38 dated 27 July 1999,
showing that Miguel Bato waived to her a portion of his land with an area of
two (2) hectares for and in consideration of the amount of Php24,000.00 which
Miguel Bato received from her on 17 June 1992. She further testified that she
was in possession of this land since she acquired it from Miguel Bato.

On 3 August 2004, this court received from the defendant Beracah

Properties a Motion to Inhibit signed by Michael Siy. The court wondered,
however, why this was signed by Michael Siy himself when Atty. Antonio P.
Pekas has been representing him, even as Atty. Juan Antonio Reyes Alberto III
also filed his Notice of Appearance as counsel for Beracah Properties.
Nonetheless, this court denied the Motion to Inhibit 39.

With the denial of Mr. Siy’s Motion to Inhibit, plaintiff Carmen Mateo
testified on 10 November 2004 as the plaintiffs’ fourth witness. She testified
that she acquired through a “Deed of Absolute Sale” 40 a three (3) hectares land
from Miguel Bato. This “Deed of Absolute Sale” was duly approved by the
Office for Northern Cultural Communities 41. Further Miguel Bato even
executed a “Transferor’s Affidavit”42 and she herself executed a “Transferee’s

35
Letter of Atty. Torres Aayo to Michel Siy dated February 3, 2003
36
Exhibit “F”
37
Exhibit “F-1”, Formal Offer of Evidence
38
Exhibit “H”.
39
Order dated August 11, 2004
40
Exhibit “D”
41
This is shown by a Stamp Pad marking in Exhibit “D”
42
Exhibit “L”

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 7
Affidavit”43. She testified that she has possessed the land she bought from
Miguel Bato and that she and her family planted the same with vegetables,
bananas and other fruit trees. She also built a house in the subject property.

On 5 February 2005, Elmer Pilando took the witness stand as the

plaintiff’s fifth witness. He identified a “Waiver of Rights” showing that
Miguel Bato transferred to him a portion of his land with an area of One (1)
hectare on 15 June 1995. He testified that he improved this land, he planted the
same and he has been in possession thereof. On 15 April 2005, Elmer Pilando
was cross-examined by defendant Beracah Properties’ Atty. Pekas.

On 8 July 2005, Penipen Tampulay of the National Commission on

Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) testifed. The defendant’s counsel was not present
on said date. For such reason, the court “considered Atty. Pekas to have waived
his right to cross examine said witness” 44 bot on 5 April 2006, Penipen
Tampulay was cross examined by the defendant Beracah Properties’ after its
counsel moved for reconsideration which the court granted 45.

Both on direct and cross-examination, Penipen Tampulay, the plaintiff’s

sixth witness testified on a “Questioned Document Report” 46 where the issue
was the signature of then NCIP Regional Director “Leilene Marie Carantes”
appearing on that Absolute Deed of Sale Unregistered Land, consisting of three
(3) pages, dated 06 January 2003, identified as Doc. No. 48; Page No. 11; Book No.
XVII; Series of 2003 in the Notarial Book of Atty. Juan Antonio Reyes Alberto III.
This is the Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land purportedly signed by Miguel
Bato in favor of Beracah Properties, In. which was allegedly registered with the
NCIP.

In relation to the questioned signature of “Leiline Marie Carantes”, the

then Regional Director of the NCIP, the plaintiffs’ witness identified other
documents showing the true and original signature of Regional Director
Carantes. The plaintiffs’ witness testified that the signature of Regional
Director Carantes in the Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land signed by
Miguel Bato, et. al. in favor of defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. was forged.

On 11 August 2006, plaintiff Jimmy Mateo, the plaintiff’s 7 th witness,

testified. He said that he bought a land, with an area of 47,000 square meters
from Migue Bato as shown by a “Deed of Sale of an Unregistered Land” duly
approved by the NCIP47 on 22 February 1995. He possessed the said land and
improved the same. He identified pictures 48 showing his improvements and the
improvements of the other plaintiffs.

Jimmy Mateo was the last witness for the plaintiffs. The other plaintiffs,
however, did not testify. Thereafter, the plaintiffs Formal Offer of Evidence 49.

43
Exhibit “M”.
44
Order July 8, 2005
45
Order, January 20, 2006
46
Exhibit “GG”
47
Exhibit “C”
48
Exhibits “O-8, 0-9, O-10, O-1, O-21-23”

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 8
Defendant Beracah Properties opposed the formal offer of the plaintiffs 50. The
court admitted all the exhibits offered by the plaintiffs save for Exhibits “Z”,
“AA”, “BB”, “CC” and “DD” as what were initially submitted were machine
copies. Later, these documents were all admitted 51 after the plaintiffs filed a
“Manifestation and Motion to Admit Additional Exhibits” dated 29 September
2006. On record, the defendants did not question the admission of these
documents.

The Evidence of Defendant Beracah

Properties, Inc.:

After plaintiffs rested their case, defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. filed
a “Demurrer to Evidence” on 13 October 2006 where it alleged among others,
that “the deeds of sale (Exhibits “E” to “J”) upon which their claims are based
are void ab initio because the Chairman of the National Commission on
Indigenous People (NCIP) did not approve the same”. In said Demurrer to
Evidence, it cited the following exhibits as not having been approved by the
Chairman of the NCIP, viz:

A. Exhibit “E” – Deed of Sale signed by Miguel Bato in favor of Fidel Berry;
B. Exhibit “F” – Deed of Confirmation/Waiver executed by Miguel Bato in
favor of Albert Nabus;
C. Exhibit “G” – Receipt issued by Miguel Bato in favor of Gloria Litawen;
D. Exhibit “H” – Affidavit of Waiver of Rights executed by Miguel Bato in
favor of Felisa Butag;
E. Exhibit “I” – Deed of Sale of A Portion of Unregistered Land executed by
Miguel Bato in favor of Rosita Maganan;
F. Exhibit “J” – Waiver of Rights executed by Miguel Bato in favor of Elmer
Pilando.

Defendant Beracah Properties invoked Sec. 120 of the Public Land Act,
known as Commonwealth Act No. 141, as its legal basis in filing its Demurrer
to Evidence, viz:

“Conveyance and encumbrance made by persons belonging

to the so-called "non-Christian Filipinos" or national cultural
minorities, when proper, shall be valid if the person making the
conveyance or encumbrance is able to read and can understand the
language in which the instrument or conveyance or encumbrances
is written. Conveyances and encumbrances made by illiterate non-
Christian or literate non-Christians where the instrument of
conveyance or encumbrance is in a language not understood by the
said literate non-Christians shall not be valid unless duly approved
by the Chairman of the Commission on National Integration”.

49
The Formal Offer of Evidence was submitted on August 28, 2006 where the plaintiff offered in evidence Exhibits “A”
to “HH”, with some exhibits having some sub-markings
50
Comments or Objections to Plaintiffs Offer of Evidence dated September 29, 2006.
51
Order, October 11, 2006

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 9
 In their Comment52, the plaintiffs replied that “…Even if some of the
deeds executed by Miguel Bato evidencing the purchase by some of the
plaintiffs of their respective claims were not approved by the NCIP, this should
not warrant the outright dismissal of this case”.

The court thereafter denied the Demurrer to Evidence filed by defendant

Beracah Properties as shown in its Order dated November 29, 2006. It then set
the presentation of defendant Beracah Properties’ evidence on 25 January 2007.
After several settings, defendant Beracah Properties finally started to present its
evidence. Maria Lina Angeles, an employee of the NCIP was Beracah
Properties’ first witness. She took the witness stand on 27 September 2007.
When she testified, she identified Exhibit “9” or the Absolute Deed of Sale of
Unregistered Land, consisting of three pages executed by Miguel Bato, et. al. in
favor of defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. and dated 06 January 2003. She
also identified the stamp of the NCIP, with the word “Approved” which was
marked as Exhibit “9-a”. She further identified Exhibit “10”, TSN, consisting
of 11 pages, which is the transcript of the conversation of what transpired when
the NCIP approved the said Deed of Sale.

Also, on 31 January 2008, Justina Felipe Eulogio of the NCIP testified

for the defendant Beracah. However, despite several settings given to Beracah
Properties to present its evidence, it did not present any other evidence. In the
Order of the court dated 11 September 2008, Atty. Pekas, counsel for Beracah
Properties, was warned that should he fail to present his evidence on 20 and 28
November 2008, he will be made to rest his case. The settings for November
2008 were cancelled on Motion 53 of Atty. Pekas and reset to 23 January 2009.
The setting on 23 January 2009 was cancelled with the warning that “defendant
Beracah Properties should be ready to present its evidence on said date (26
February 2009) as no other postponement shall be allowed”. However, the 26
February 2009 was reset to 16 April 2009.

On 16 April 2009, the court heard this case. Atty. Benito Umila appeared
for defendant Beracah Properties supposedly in collaboration with Atty. Pekas.
Atty. Baldas for the plaintiffs also appeared. As the defendant Beracah failed to
present further evidence, the court issued an order which reads: “Beracah
Properties is deemed to have waived its right to present evidence and is
directed to rest its case within ten (10) days” 54. However, even with the Order
for defendant Beracah to rest its case and file its formal offer of evidence
within ten (10) days from notice, it failed to file the same. Hence, in the Order
dated 9 July 2009, the court considered “Atty. Pekas as having waived his right
to file his formal offer”. In the same Order, the court considered the case
submitted for decision.

On 20 August 2009, Atty. Pekas for the defendant Beracah filed a

“Motion 1. For Reconsideration and/or to Allow the Filing of Memorandum;
and 2. Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction”. Plaintiffs thereafter filed their

52
Dated November 22, 2006, received by the RTC-OCC, La Trinidad, Benguet on November 24, 2006
53
This was filed on November 21, 2008
54
Order, dated April 16, 2009

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 10
Comment55. In the Order of this court dated 24 September 2009, the court
denied the said Motion… filed by the defendant Beracah Properties. As shown
in the said Order, this case was “…considered submitted for decision”.

There is in the records of this case another “Motion for Reconsideration”

dated 10 December 2009 signed by Atty. Antonio P. Pekas, counsel for
Beracah Properties, which was received on 1/8/2010 by this court. This court
will say that this should be considered technically a “second motion for
reconsideration” that is filed out of time. It is a “second motion for
reconsideration” as it seeks to reconsider an order denying a motion for
reconsideration – the Order of this court dated 24 September 2009 which earlier
denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Beracah Properties on 20
August 2009. Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, it is
provided that "…No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final
resolution by the same party shall be entertained”.

Furthermore, defendant Beracah’s counsel alleged that he received the

order dated 24 September 2009, which is the subject of his latest Motion for
Reconsideration, on 20 October 2009 but he filed said latest Motion for
Reconsideration only on 1/8/2010, or after the lapse of more than two (2)
months from receipt of the Order sought to be reconsidered. Clearly, this was
filed out of time because Section 1 of Rule 52 provides that “…A party may
file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within fifteen
(15) days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party”.

Consequently, since the “Motion for Reconsideration” dated 10

December 2009 was filed out time and the fact that it was a second motion for
reconsideration, the same should be considered as not having been filed at all.
Thus, as earlier ruled by this court, this case was submitted for decision as of
24 September 2009.

The Issues for Resolution:

As agreed by the parties during the Pre – Trial Conference, the following
issues shall be resolved in this case, viz:

3. Which of the deeds of sale or deed of transfer or any mode of transfer

executed by Miguel Bato – that in favor of the plaintiffs or that in favor of
defendant Beracah Properties – should prevail;

4. Whether or not the parties are entitled to their claim for damages.

The Court’s Ruling:

Upon evaluation by this court of the evidence presented and formally

offered by the parties proving the facts and circumstances in this case, this

55
This was filed on September 22, 2009

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 11
court resolves there is more than sufficient preponderance of evidence to rule in
favor of the plaintiffs.

At the onset, it should be clear that based on the records, defendant

Beracah Properties failed to formally offer any documentary exhibit or
evidence. While it presented witnesses from the NCIP, this court finds there
were no witnesses presented to rebut the allegations of the plaintiffs, like as to
how the plaintiffs acquired their landholdings from Miguel Bato, how the
plaintiffs took possession of said landholdings, how the plaintiffs were able to
introduce substantial improvements without any contest from Miguel Bato or
the latter’s heirs, and finally, a witness who would have explained how
defendant Beracah Properties fenced the parcels of land possessed by the
plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Fidel Berry, Albert Nabus, Felisa Butag, Carmen Mateo, Elmer
Pilando and Jimmy Mateo all testified that they acquired certain parcels of
land, all located at Apalan, Itogon, Benguet, from Miguel Bato in the early and
middle 1990s. As shown by the evidence so far presented, all the plaintiffs took
possession of the landholdings they acquired from Miguel Bato. They
improved the same by planting it with several crops, vegetables and fruit trees,
and by building farm houses and even residential houses. Exhibits “O” and
series which prove the improvements made by the plaintiffs show a “small
farming community” with small houses56. These pictures depict a well-
developed farming community.

Fruit trees such as lemons, oranges, “Indian” mangoes, bananas and

others have been planted57. Terraces were carved out from the mountain side
which show extensive vegetable farms or gardens planted with different
vegetables58. Improvements made by the plaintiffs are therefore plentiful and
substantial.

On the other hand, defendant Beracah Properties claim that it also

acquired a parcel of land, with an area of thirty thousand square meters or three
hectares, also from Miguel Bato on 6 January 2003 59. As testified by the
plaintiffs, through hired men, Beracah Properties fenced the perimeter of what
they allegedly acquired from Miguel Bato. The fence, which are made of
cement posts and barb wires are shown by Exhibits “O-5”, “O-15, “O-16” and
“O-17”. It also show wooden markers pinned on pine trees with the phrase,
“Private Property, No Trespassing”60. Aside from the fence, however,
defendant Beracah Properties has not introduced any improvement on the
subject land.

With the foregoing backgrounder, this court now resolves the issue
“Which of the deeds of sale or deed of transfer or any mode of transfer executed by
Miguel Bato – that in favor of the plaintiffs or that in favor of defendant Beracah
Properties – should prevail?
56
Exhibits “O”, “O-1”, “O-13”, “O-14”, “O-18”, “O-19” and “O-20”
57
Exhibits “O-1”, “O-2”, “O-4”, “O-7”, “O-23”
58
Exhibits ‘O-1”, “O-4”, “O-10”, “O-11”, “O-21”, “O-22
59
Exhibit “Q” for plaintiffs; Exhibit “1” for private defendant
60
Exhibits “14” and “17”

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 12
 Since this court finds there was a “double sale” made by Miguel Bato to
the plaintiffs on one side and the defendant Beracah Properties on the other
side, this court will refer to the provisions of the Civil Code pertaining to the
so-called “double sale” of properties.

Article 1544 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:

“If the same thing should have been sold to different

vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may
have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property.

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall

belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it
in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain

to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in
the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith. (1473)”

The first paragraph of Article 1544 is not applicable as this pertains to

personal properties. Is the second paragraph – “Should it be immovable
property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good
faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property”, applicable?

The plaintiffs’ “deeds of conveyances”, which Miguel Bato executed in

their favor, are as follows:

1. Jimmy Mateo – Exhibit “C” or a Deed of Sale of an Unregistered Land

dated 22 February 1995. This was approved by Atty. David Daoas of the
Office for Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC);
2. Carmen Mateo – Exhibit “D” or a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 22
February 1995. This was approved by Atty. Daoas of the Office for
Northern Cultural Communities;

3. Fidel B. Berry – Exhibit “E” or a Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land

(Portion) dated 3 October 1994;

4. Albert Nabus – Exhibit “F” or a Deed of Confirmation/Waiver dated 25

September 1994;

5. Gloria Litawen, representing Roger Tino and Perlita Tino – Exhibit “G”
or a Receipt dated 29 June 1992;

6. Felisa Butag – Exhibit “H” or an “Affidavit of Waiver” dated 27 July

1999;

7. Rosita Maganan – Exhibit “I” or a Deed of Sale of a Portion of an

Unregistered Land dated 2 June 1994;

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 13
 8. Elmer M. Pilando – Exhibit “J” or a Waiver of Rights dated 15 June
1995;

9. Durina Aquisio – Exhibit “K” or a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 22

February 1995. This was approved by Atty. Daoas of the ONCC.

In this case, the plaintiffs have not registered their respective deeds of
conveyances registration means any entry made in the Books of Registry 61. The
deeds of sale/transfers/conveyances in the possession of the plaintiffs were not
entered into the books of the office Registry of Deeds for the province of
Benguet. Nonetheless, some bear the “approval” by the ONCC, which is the
precursor of now the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP). But
this approval by the ONCC/NCIP is not the registration contemplated by law.

In the case of plaintiff Carmen Mateo, it appears that she paid the capital
gains tax for her land purchase as shown by a Certificate Authorizing
Registration62 issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue but she was not able to
register the same. Thus, the mere existence of the Certificate issued by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue cannot be equated to registration.

Defendant Beracah Properties has not formally offered any exhibit in its
defense but plaintiffs offered in evidence the Absolute Deed of Sale of
Unregistered Land or Exhibit “Q” which Miguel Bato, et. al. executed in favor
of Beracah Properties, Inc. on 6 January 2003. Plaintiffs offered this evidence
because it is the Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land it seeks to be
nullified. This Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land (3 pages, found on
page 39-41, case records) was submitted to the Municipal Assessor’s Office of
Itogon, Benguet which resulted to the issuance of Declaration of Real Property
with Assessment of Real Property (ARP) No. 99-005-02416 63 and the
cancellation of the Assessment of Real Property (ARP) No. 99-005-00722 64 in
the name of Miguel Bato.

But then again, it should be stressed that the submission of the Absolute
Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land Deed of Sale (Exhibit “Q”, 3 pages, found
on page 39-41, case records) with the Municipal Assessor’s Office and the
subsequent cancellation of the Declaration of Real Property with ARP No. 99-
005-00722 in the name of Miguel Bato and issuance of Declaration of Real
Property with ARP No. 99-005-02416 in the name of Beracah Properties, Inc.
is not the registration contemplated by Art. 1544. Again, this is because Article
1544 contemplates a registration of registered or titled properties with the
Office of the Registry of Deeds. The land owned by Miguel Bato is not
registered as no title was presented in court as evidence.

The Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land (Exhibit “Q”) executed

by Miguel Bato in favor of defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. provides:

61
Civil Code of the Philippines by Edgardo Paras, 14th Edition, page 176
62
Exhibit “N”
63
Exhibit “P”
64
Exhibit “B”

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 14
 “That the said land is not registered under Act No. 496
under the Spanish Mortgage Law, but is agreed that this
instrument maybe registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds
of Benguet, pursuant to the provision of Act No. 3344, as amended,
or other pertinent laws”.

Although the deed itself provides that the same shall be registered with
the Register of Deeds, there is no proof on record to show that it was indeed
registered with the Registry of Deeds. Defendant Beracah Properties did not
present any witness who should have testified, or any document which would
have proven, if the deed was truly registered with the Office of the Registry of
Deeds. Further, defendant Beracah did not even formally offer any exhibit.
Hence, there is nothing from the records to show that indeed, the Absolute
Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land (Exhibit “Q”, 3 pages, found on page 39-41,
case records) supposedly in favor of defendant Beracah was registered with the
office of the Registry of Deeds of Benguet province.

The Hon. Supreme Court, quoting Justice Vitug in his book,

Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, ruled that:

“The registration contemplated under Art. 1544 has been

held to refer to registration under Act 496 Land Registration Act
(now PD 1529) which considers the act of registration as the
operative act that binds the land (see Mediante v. Rosabal, 1 O.G.
[12] 900,  Garcia v. Rosabal, 73 Phil 694). On lands covered by the
Torrens System, the purchaser acquires such rights and interest as
they appear in the certificate of title, unaffected by any prior lien
or encumbrance not noted therein. The purchaser is not required to
explore farther than what the Torrens title, upon its face, indicates.
The only exception is where the purchaser has actual knowledge of
a flaw or defect in the title of the seller or of such liens or
encumbrances which, as to him, is equivalent to registration (see
Sec. 39, Act 496; Bernales v. IAC, G.R. 75336, 18 October
1988; Hernandez v. Sales, 69 Phil 744;  Tajonera v. Court of
Appeals, L-26677, 27 March 1981)65. 

Still, granting for argument’s sake that Beracah Properties act of

obtaining a Tax Declaration in its name is equated to registration or akin to
registration, the element of good faith should be taken into consideration
because the second paragraph of Article 1544 is unequivocal: “…the
ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first
recorded it in the Registry of Property” (italics supplied). In other words, the
element of good faith should be present first before valid registration shall be
made. The wisdom of the Hon. Supreme Court is enlightening 66:

We agree with the appellate court’s finding that petitioners

are purchasers in bad faith. Article 1544 of the New Civil Code
provides that: "If the same thing should have been sold to different
vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may
65
G.R. NO. 15440 ; June 21, 2004 Spouses NOEL and JULIE ABRIGO v. ROMANA DE VERA.

66
G.R. No. 95843, September 2, 1992: Abarquez vs. CA

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 15
 have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property. "Should it be immovable property, the
ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith
first recorded it in the Registry of Property. "Should there be no
inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good
faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the
person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith."
Although it is an established fact that the first sale to respondent
spouses Israel was only notarized and registered after petitioners
had already registered their Deed of Sale with the Registry of
Deeds, respondent spouses Israel have a better right against the
petitioner because the element of good faith was lacking as regards
the latter since the aforementioned article only grants preferential
rights to the second vendee provided said vendee acted in good
faith when he bought the property, which is not present in the case
at bar. As aptly observed by the appellate court: ". . . This Court
had occasions to rule that if a vendee in a double sale registers the
sale after he has acquired knowledge that there was a previous
sale, the registration will constitute a registration in bad faith and
will not confer upon him any right. It is as if there had been no
registration, and the vendee who first took possession of the real
property in good faith shall be preferred (Palar[n]ca v. Director of
Lands, 43 Phil. 554; Fernandez v. Mercader, 43 Phil. 146[9];
Cagaoan v. Cagaoan, 43 Phil. 554; Fernandez v. Mercader, 43
Phil. 581).." . ." "In the present case, there is no question that the
Israels bought the small lot and upon making the down payment
immediately took possession thereof. As shown above, before they
bought the big lot, the Abarquezes already knew that there were
houses erected on the small lot. The Abarquezes engaged the
services of Engr. Lagsa to make a relocation survey, and this
geodetic engineer showed the Abarquezes the perimeter or the
extent of the big lot. In his answer to the fourth-party complaint,
Engr. Lagsa admitted that he was asked by Ms. Ebarle to prepare
two plans and technical descriptions, one covering the small lot
and the other for the big lot. In effect, Engr. Lagsa was engaged by
both Ms. Ebarle and the Abarquezes to prepare the plans for the
lots. We cannot believe that the Abarquezes did not know that Ms.
Ebarle had already sold the small lot to the Israels. "Thus, in
accordance with the ruling in Salvaro v. Tanega, supra, the
registration by appellees in bad faith of the deed of sale over the
big lot, which included the small lot, did not confer on them any
preferential right to said small lot since there was no valid
registration to speak of at all."

This court now concludes that defendant Beracah Properties was never
in good faith when it purchased the landholdings of Migue Bato. From their
testimonies, the plaintiffs were in possession of the subject land prior to the
“second sale” made by Miguel Bato in favor of Beracah Properties. Apparently,
Beracah Properties is aware of this fact. With this knowledge, Beracah
Properties was in bad faith when it bought the three hectares land from Miguel
Bato.

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 16
 To further see if Beracah Properties was in good faith, this court will
take a look at the Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land executed by
Miguel Bato, et. al. in favor of Beracah Properties. The same provides that the
land sold by Miguel Bato to Beracah Properties consists of THIRTY
THOUSAND SQUARE METERS OR THREE HECTARES, more or less. As
shown by ARP No. 99-005-00722 in the name of Miguel Bato, the same
indicates an area of 3.000 or three hectares 67. However, when the Declaration of
Real Property with Assessment of Real Property (ARP) No. 99-005-02416 was
issued in the name of Beracah Properties, the area ballooned to 39.4414 square
meters.

This court is puzzled here. While the Absolute Deed of Sale of

Unregistered Land Deed of Sale clearly indicates an area of THIRTY
THOUSAND SQUARE METERS or THREE HECTARES, more or less,
supposedly bought by defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. from Miguel Bato, et.
al., the Declaration of Real Property with Assessment of Real Property (ARP)
No. 99-005-02416 issued in the name of Beracah Properties apparently as a
result of the Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land, indicates an area that
ballooned to 39.4414 square meters. And worse, is it 39.4414 or 394,414 as
stated in the CERTIFICATION (Exhibit “R”) issued by Barangay Captain
Carbonel Walis and in an AFFIDAVIT (Exhibit “S”) of Marcial Monang and
Melanio Bilit?
Whether it is 39.4414 or 394,414, the element of good faith is erased
when the land bought by a buyer would substantially increase in area when the
tax declaration is prepared and issued to the said buyer. This court can only
surmise this happened with the “participation” of the employees of the
Assessor’s Office of Itogon when the Declaration of Real Property with ARP
No. 99-005-02416 was issued in the name of “Beracah Properties, Inc., By
Michael Siy, (President)”, where the area indicated has ballooned to an
inexplicable 39.4414 hectares.

It is unthinkable how a three hectares property would “grow” to a

39.4414 hectares if there was the element of good faith by the buyer and by the
pubic officers who worked out the issuance of the Declaration of Real Property
with ARP No. 99-005-02416 in the name of “Beracah Properties, Inc. For how
could there be good faith when a land bought originally with an area of 3
hectares or 30,000 square meters would increase to 394,414 square meters or
39.414 hectares.

To say again, and perusing the documents formally offered by the

plaintiffs, this court is amazed on how a 3 hectares property turned into
39.4414 hectares, a difference of more than 36 hectares. The bad faith by
Beracah Properties in its acquisition of the landholdings became manifest in the
documents it submitted with the Municipal Assessor’s Office of Itogaon,
Benguet to support the issuance of a tax declaration/ARP in its name, viz:

1. CERTIFICATION68 issued by Carbonel Walis, then Barangay Captain

of Loacan, that Miguel Bato is the owner and in present possession of
67
Exhibit “B”
68
Exhibit “R”

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 17
 a property situated at Tocmo, Loakan, Itogon, Benguet with an area of
394,414 square meters. This document show that the land of Migue
Bato is located at Tocmo, Loakan. When the Declaration of Real
Property of Beracah Properties was issued, it now shows the location
as Apalan, Loakan, Itogon, Benguet. What is puzzling is the area
mentioned in the CERTIFICATION jibes with the area shown in the
ARP of Beracah Properties;

2. AFFIDAVIT69 of Marcial Monang and Melanio Bilit that “Miguel

Bato, a land applicant over a parcel of land situated at Tocmo,
Loakan, Itogon, Itogon, Benguet with an area of 394,414 square
meters. Again, like the CERTIFICATION issued by Barangay Captain
Walis, the land of Miguel Bato is located in Tocmo, Loakan. When the
ARP of Beracah Properties was issued, it indicates the location as
Apalan, Loakan and not Tocmo, Loakan.

Definitely, Tocmo and Apalan pertains to different places In Loakan.

Could it be that the location of Miguel Bato’s landholdings of 394,414 is really
located at Tocmo? Or is it possible that the location – Tocmo – was
“transferred” to Apalan, as what Miguel Bato really owned is located in
Apalan? The effect, however, is that the transfer of the location of what
Beracah Properties bought is that it has “license” to fence the plaintiffs’
properties. Using its Declaration of Real Proerpty, Beracah would now claim
the properties the plaintiffs acquired from Miguel Bato.

3. Undertaking70 of Michael O. Siy to hold talks or conciliation process to

settle differences with respect to the land he bought from Miguel Bato;

With whom shall Michael O. Siy talk to? To Miguel Bato? To the latter’s heirs
who also signed the Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land? Definitely, this
document bares the knowledge of Michael O. Siy of the presence of earlier buyers.
This is the “smoking gun” of the bad faith of Michael O. Siy or Beracah Properties,
Inc. because this document will prove that there are occupants of the land Mr. Siy or
Beracah Properties bought from Miguel Bato but that Michael O. Siy proposed to
hold talks or conciliation process with these occupants, the plaintiffs.

Otherwise stated, when Michael Siy stated that they will “hold talks or
conciliation processes to settle our differences”, he was clearly referring to
occupants of the land they bought from Miguel Bato. For who else should he
“hold talks with” or conduct “conciliation processes” but to the people who
were occupying the land it bought from Miguel Bato. When Michael O. Siy
signed the said “Undertaking”, it means he was aware or had knowledge that
there were “problems” or “occupants” of the land his company bought. This
should have been a “red flag” which should have warned Beracah Properties.

At the very onset therefor, Beracah Properties, Inc. or its president

Michael O. Siy, should have exercised extreme caution more so that what it
was buying is not a registered land. As has been ruled by the Hon. Supreme
Court, “…When a second buyer of a parcel of land merely alleges that he did

69
Exhibit “S”
70
Exhibit “T”

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 18
not know it had been previously bought by another but that the first buyer was
already on the land when the second buyer came along, the second buyer
should have investigated the nature of the first buyer’s possession. Since he
failed to exercise the ordinary care expected of a buyer of real estate, he must
suffer the consequence”71. The consequence surely would be the nullification of
its deed of conveyance.

In like manner, as it is obvious that Beracah Properties knew beforehand

that there were occupants in the land it purchased from Miguel Bato, et. al., it
should have investigated the nature of the possession of these occupants. It
cannot be enough that its President, Michael O. Siy, signs an “Undertaking” but
ignore the occupants of the land he or Beracah purchased. That being the case,
defendant Beracah must suffer the consequences.

The Hon. Supreme Court ruled in a similar situation, albeit involving a

contract of real estate mortgage:

A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact that could

create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is not a mortgagee in
good faith. A mortgagee cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a
reasonable man on his guard and claim that he acted in good faith under
the belief that there was no defect in the title of the mortgagor. His mere
refusal to believe that such defect exists or the willful closing of his eyes to
the possibility of the existence of a defect in the mortgagor's title will not
make him an innocent mortgagee for value if it afterwards develops that
the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the
defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with that measure
of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a
like situation72.

4. Letter73 of Julito Luspian, Municipal Government Dept. Head,

Assessor’s Office submitted to the Provincial Assessor of Benguet. In
this letter, Assessor Luspian attested that they “conducted an ocular
inspection on January 10, 2003 x x x of a parcel of land located at
Apalan with an area of 39.414 has. This letter mentions of an
Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons and Certification by the Punong
Barangay. Again, the court has to observe that the Certification and
the Affidavit mentioned of a land located at Tocmo and not at Apalan.

5. Letter74 addressed to the Provincial Assessor of the Province of

Benguet signed by Michael Siy, which provides that he is an “applicant
over portion of the Cordillera Forest Reserve/Forest zone and he
belongs to the indigenous ibaloi/kankaney tribe of Benguet.

Clearly, Mr. Siy was representing Beracah Properties when he applied

for the Declaration of Real Property in question. This court opines that a

71
Civil Code of the Philippines by Edgardo L. Paras Fourth Edition at page 174 citing the case of Caram vs. Laureta,
L-28740, February 24, 1981
72
G.R. No. 205271, September 02, 2015 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. BELLE
CORPORATION, Respondent.
73
Exhibit “W”
74
Exhibit “V

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 19
juridical person cannot apply for the issuance of a tax declaration or declaration
of real property over a portion of the Cordillera Forest Reserve/Forest Zone.

Also, if this court may deviate a little bit, and as Mr. Siy did not testify,
this court cannot determine whether he is really a member of the
Ibaloi/Kankanaey tribe in Benguet. There is nothing in the records that would
show that the office of the Provincial Assessor of Benguet province undertook
due investigation to determine if Mr. Siy belongs to the Ibaloi/Kankanaey tribe
of Benguet.

And again, the letter of Mr. Siy mentioned that the land subject of his
application is located at Tocmo, Itogon and not at Apalan. It boggles the mind
that the Declaration of Real Property with Assessment of Real Property (ARP)
No. 99-005-02416 issued to Beracah Properties shows the location of the
subject land as Apalan when the application indicates that what was applied for
is located in Tocmo.

To repeat, the foregoing documents show an elaborate and what appears

to be an illicit scheme resulting in the issuance of the Declaration of Real
Property with Assessment of Real Property (ARP) No. 99-005-02416 in favor
of defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. embracing a land purportedly located in
Apalan, Itogon, Benguet, even as what was attested to by Punong Barangay
Carbonel Walis, Marcial Monang, Melanio Bilit, Itogon Municipal Assessor
Julito Luspian, and Michael Siy is that the land applied for is located in Tocmo
with an area of 394,414 square meters.

Unfortunately, there is the alleged involvement of the NCIP in this. On

the upper right portion of the Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land 75
executed by Miguel Bato in favor of Beracah Properties, Inc., a stamp marking
with the signature of Atty. Leilene Marie R. Carantes, then NCIP Regional
Director, appears. This marking wants to show that the Absolute Deed of Sale
of Unregistered Land was approved by the NCIP.

When Penipen Tampulay testified, he identified a “Questioned

Document Report No. 205-30376” issued by the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI). The questioned signatures submitted for examination is the
signature of “LEILENE MARIE R. CARANTES” appearing in a Deed of Sale
of Unregistered Land77, consisting of three (3) pages, dated 06 January 2003,
identified as Doc. No. 48; Page No. 11; Book No. XVII; Series of 2003, in the
Notarial Registry of Atty. Juan Antonio Reyes Alberto III x x x”.

Penipen Tampulay testified that the signature of Atty. Carantes in said

questioned document was forged. She attested that the sample signatures
appearing in other documents, not the one appearing in the Absolute Deed of
Sale of Unregistered Land, are the correct and genuine signatures of Atty.
Carantes. Along with her testimony, Penipen Tampulay identified several
documents showing the “sample” genuine signatures of Director Carantes.
75
Marked as Exhibit “1” for the defendant
76
Exhibit “GG”
77
Marked as Exhibit “1” for the defendant

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 20
 Based on the sample signatures and the questioned document which is
the Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land, the NBI concluded: “…The
questioned and the sample specimen signatures of “LEILENE MARIE R.
CARANTES” were not written by one and the same person”78. The conclusion
of NBI is that the signature of Director Carantes in the Absolute Deed of Sale
of Unregistered Land was forged.

As held by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Manansala
(105 Phil. 1253), it is an established rule that when a person has in his
possession a falsified document and makes use of the same, the presumption or
inference is justified that such person is the forger 79. In like manner, as it is
Beracah Properties, Inc. or its President Michael Siy who is the beneficiary or
is in possession of the document with the falsified signature of Director
Carantes, it is presumed that the forged signature of Director Carantes is the
doing of Beracah Properties, Inc., or its President Michael Siy, or anyone acting
in its behalf.

With the conclusion of the NBI, there is more than sufficient evidence to
show that defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. or its President Michael Siy was
in bad faith. And since the signature of the NCIP Regional Director Atty.
Leilene Marie Carantes in the Absolute Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land was
forged, the transfer of the land subject of the said Absolute Deed of Sale of
Unregistered Land supposedly in favor of Beracah Properties, Inc. should be
nullified.

Going back to the Demurrer to Evidence filed by the defendant Beracah

where it argued that the deeds of sale/transfer/conveyance in favor of some of
the plaintiffs are invalid as these were not approved by the NCIP pursuant to
Sec. 120 of the Public Land Act, Commonwealth Act No. 141, it is in the same
vein that the NCIP also did not approve the deed of conveyance in favor of
Beracah Properties. As has been said oftentimes, he who comes with equity
must come to court with clean hands.

Granting for argument’s sake that defendant Beracah Properties was in

good faith, it should be clear that what it acquired from Miguel Bato is only
three hectares. As belatedly admitted by the Batos when they amicably settled
this dispute with some of the plaintiffs, what was supposedly sold to defendant
Beracah Properties, Inc. was the three (3) hectares share of Susan Bato and not
the whole land80.

With the foregoing disquisition, when Miguel Bato, et. al. purportedly
sold his property on 06 January 2003 to defendant Beracah Properties, Inc., he
could not have validly sold said property because he no longer owns the same
at that time since he already conveyed said portions to the plaintiffs. As ruled

78
Italics and underlining ours
79
G.R. No. 178652, December 8, 2010POUSES REVELO VILLAMAR and CORAZON PENULIAR-
VILLAMAR, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
80
Exhibit “HH”

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 21
by the Hon. Supreme Court81: “Under Act No. 3344, registration of
instruments affecting unregistered lands is without prejudice to a third party
with a better right. The afore-quoted phrase has been held by this Court to
mean that the mere registration of a sale in one’s favor does not give him any
right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner of the land having
previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale was
unrecorded”.

In the present case, it is obvious that the plaintiffs have a better right
over the defendant Beracah Properties, Inc.. This is because plaintiffs have
prior “titles” as shown by their Deeds of Sale/Conveyances/Transfers which
were signed by Miguel Bato, et. al., coupled with the plaintiffs’ actual physical
possession, before Miguel Bato, et. al. signed the Absolute Deed of Sale of
Unregistered Land in favor of defendant Beracah Properties, Inc.

This court believes and so rules that the last paragraph of Article 1544,
which provides: “Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to
the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence
thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good
faith”, is applicable. This is because this particular part of the codal provision
does not distinguish whether the subject of the double sale is a “registered
land” or “unregistered land”, there being no qualification stated except the
qualification of good faith. Unlike the preceding paragraph in Article 1544, the
last paragraph just mentions that the buyer “x x x who was “first in possession
and in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title shall be
the owner”.

In the present case, it is obvious that the plaintiffs were “first in

possession” over the lands in question. Based on their unrebutted testimonies,
they were in actual possession of their respective portions when the defendant
Beracah’s men fenced their property in the later part of January 2003 or the
early part of February 2003.

Moreover, as effectively shown by their exhibits, the plaintiffs have

introduced extensive improvements in the areas conveyed to them by Miguel
Bato, et. al. It is clear they, the plaintiffs, transformed the land into a farming
community. They “transformed” the land to be “plantable” so they planted
vegetables, fruit trees and other agricultural crops. They even built houses
thereat.

Even with all these, the defendant Beracah’s men simply went to the
plaintiffs’ place and enclosed their properties with barb wires. Certainly,
defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. or any representative was never in
possession of the subject parcels of land, because all it can show is a fence
made of barb wires and concrete posts, erected long after the prior actual
physical and constructive possession and introduction of very substantial
improvements of plaintiffs.

81
Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Palileo G.R. No. 83432, May 20, 1991

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 22
 It should be stated that defendant Beracah Properties failed to present
any witness to rebut the testimonies of the plaintiffs as to the latter’s possession
and improvements over the parcels of land they acquired from Miguel Bato.
While it presented on 31 January 2008 one Justina Felipe Eulogio of the NCIP,
Ms. Felipe only testified on how Miguel Bato allegedly signed the Absolute
Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land. Ms. Felipe had no personal knowledge as
to who was first in possession of the subject parcels of land.

In the absence of any witness presented by the defendant Beracah to

support its claim except its bare allegations in its pleadings, it surely has not
proven any claim of possession.

As shown by the Deed of Sale of an Unregistered Land dated 22 February

1995 (Jimmy Mateo); Deed of Absolute Sale dated 22 February 1995 (Carmen
Mateo: Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land (Portion) dated 3 October 1994 (Fidel B.
Berry); Deed of Confirmation/Waiver dated 25 September 1994 (Albert Nabus);
Receipt dated 29 June 1992 (Gloria Litawen, representing Roger Tino and Perlita
Tino); Affidavit of Waiver dated 27 July 1999 (Felisa Butag); Deed of Sale of a
Portion of an Unregistered Land dated 2 June 1994 (Rosita Maganan); Waiver of
Rights dated 15 June 1995 (Elmer M. Pilando); Deed of Absolute Sale dated 22
February 1995 (Durina Aquisio), all executed by Miguel Bato in favor of the
plaintiffs, these were executed between the years 1992 to 1999. The Absolute
Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land in favor defendant Beracah was executed in
2003.

Clearly therefore, all the plaintiffs were in prior possession of the subject
land when compared to that of defendant Beracah Properties which only put up
a fence over the subject property after the signing of its Absolute Deed of Sale
of Unregistered Land in 06 January 2003. Consequently, defendant Beracah
Properties, Inc. should be ordered to remove its fence in the subject property.

In so far as the issue on damages, this court finds no reason to award

damages to any of the parties since their respective claims on this regard were
not duly proven.

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises, facts and circumstances

considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Declaring as NULL and VOID the Absolute Deed of Sale of

Unregistered Land dated 06 January 2003 (Exhibit “Q” for the
plaintiffs) signed by Miguel Bato, Celso Bato, Susan Bato, Irene
Bato Armas, and Christopher Armas, as vendors, and by
defendant Beracah Properties, Inc. represented by its President
Michael O. Siy, as vendee;

2. Declaring as NULL and VOID the Declaration of Real Property

with Assessment of Real Property No. (ARP) 99-005-02416 in the
name of Beracah Properties, Inc. where the Administrator is
indicated as Michael O. Siy (President) and all derivative

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 23
 assessments and/or tax declaration or declarations of real property
which the office of the Municipal Assessor of Itogon, Benguet
and the office of the Provincial Assessor of Benguet may have
issued; and consequently,
3. Directing the defendant office of the Municipal Assessor of the
municipality of Itogon, Benguet and the defendant office of the
Provincial Assessor of Benguet to cancel the Declaration of Real
Property with Assessment of Real Property No. 99-005-02416 in
the name of Beracah Properties, Inc. where the Administrator is
indicated as Michael Siy (President) and all assessments or tax
declarations or declarations of real property derived from it;

4. Directing the defendant office of the Municipal Assessor of the

municipality of Itogon, Benguet and the defendant office of the
Provincial Assessor of Benguet to issue to all the plaintiffs their
respective Declaration of Real Property with Assessment of Real
Property No., if not yet issued, over the parcels of land they now
respectively occupy which they bought from Miguel Bato, upon
application by the said plaintiffs and upon compliance by them of
the necessary reasonable requirements.

5. Directing the cancellation of the Fencing Permit with Permit No.

2003–02–003 (Exhibit “Y” for the plaintiffs) issued to defendant
Beracah Properties, Inc.; and consequently,

6. Ordering defendant Beracah Properties, Inc., through its President

or Chairperson or Chief Executive Officer, to remove the fence it
put up or erected surrounding the property in litigation.

The claims for damages of the parties are denied. Costs against the
defendant Beracah Properties, Inc.

Furnish copies of this DECISION to all the parties and counsels.

SO ORDERED.

Done in Chambers, La Trinidad, Benguet, this 31 st day of March 2020.

RUFUS GAYO MALECDAN JR.

Acting Judge

Jimmy Mateo et. al. vs. Heirs of Miguel Bato & Beracah Properties et. el . 24