Spring can’t rise higher than
source
In pointing out that the First Division of the Supreme Court
erred in ordering the cancellation of the land title of the heirs of Severino
Manotok and a new one issued in favor of the heirs of Homer Barque, retired
Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano cited a long string of precedents
to prove that the Supreme Court was wrong in affirming the findings of the Court
of Appeals.
In Caraan v Court of Appeals, Justice Feliciano declared that
the "later reconstitution (would have) no legal effect and validity because (of
the) prior reconstitution."
Citing this particular precedent, Feliciano said in his
memorandum to the Court en banc "the fact that there already existed a perfectly
valid reconstituted title … will make subsequent petition (by the heirs of Homer
Barque) for reconstitution void and without any force and effect."
He added that "all subsequent certificates of title (derived
from the latter reconstituted title) are also void because of the legal truism
that the spring cannot rise higher than its source."
The former justice was trying to clarify to the Court that
the Manotoks had a reconstituted title long before the heirs of Barque filed a
petition for reconstitution.
He pointed out that granting the heirs of Barque a petition
for reconstitution would have the effect of a collateral attack on a valid
title.
Wrong doctrine
The heirs of Homer Barque told the Supreme Court it acted
correctly in affirming the CA ruling "because a remand to the RTC will be
"circuitous and purely dilatory" following the doctrine enunciated in Ortigas v.
Velasco. Feliciano declared that the Court applied the wrong doctrine.
He explained in his memorandum that in Ortigas, "the Court
nullified (Molina’s) reconstituted title because the Ortigas Torrens title (both
titles covering the same property) has been the subject of, and consistently
upheld by the Court in several cases for nullification of title that were
originally lodged before the appropriate forum which had the jurisdiction to
sustain the validity of the Ortigas title.
Pursuing the Ortigas precedent, Justice Feliciano quoted the
ruling of the Court:
"There is no debate about the fact that the land being
claimed by Molina lies within that titled in the name of Ortigas and its
predecessor in interest. Now, the latter’s documents of ownership have been
passed upon, and sanctioned and sustained by this Court more than once.
"These dispositions and adjudgments now operate to put its
title to the lands thereby covered and embraced beyond the pale of further
judiciary inquiry."
The Manotok case is remarkably dissimilar to Ortigas,
according to Justice Feliciano.
Not estopped
Justice Consuelo Y. Santiago sustained the claim of the heirs
of Homer Barque that the Manotoks are estopped from assailing the order of the
LRA and the CA because they actively participated in the proceedings.
Wrong, says Justice Feliciano, who said in his memorandum
that "the estopped argument makes no sense as to the LRA proceedings, because
the LRA did not purport to exercise jurisdiction to cancel title. On the
contrary, it claimed it had no jurisdiction."
Neither can estoppel be applied with the Court of Appeals,
explains Justice Feliciano. He said that "since the Manotoks have from the
outset explicitly questioned the idea of having the validity of their title
ruled upon in an administrative reconstitution case and which the CA in fact
sustained in its original decision."
Justice Feliciano, now close to 80 years old, declared that
"from the reconstitution officer to the LRA, the Manotoks never conceded that
the LRA had authority to adjudge the validity of their title; instead, they
insisted that it is the regional trial court in a direct proceeding which had
the authority and jurisdiction to rule on the validity of their certificate of
title."
Based on opinion
Justice Feliciano rants at the fact that the judgment of the
Court of Appeals is "worse for having relied, not on any LRA finding, but merely
on (LRA) administrator Maulit’s personal opinion that the Manotoks’ title was
‘sham and spurious" which he gratuitously based on alleged deficiencies in the
information reflected in the Manotok officially-issued title."
The alleged deficiencies do not, Feliciano said, "prove
either that the property … had not been conveyed to them (Manotoks) or that
their certificate of title is fake.
The point, the retired jurist said, is that the genuineness
of the title of the Manotoks, having been issued by the LRA, is conclusively
proved by the LRA records.
How it became sham and spurious based on deficiencies and how
the First Division of the Supreme Court bought it hook, line and sinker, has
been a constant source of curiosity on how the Court could be so negligent of
the background of the case, none of which argues for the heirs of Homer Barque.
This and many other omissions probably convinced the Chief
Justice to grant Feliciano’s request for oral arguments.
We can expect Justice Santiago who has more than 35 years
experience in the bench, to argue her case with intensity.
We just have to wait and see how the en banc will look at her
ponencia.
The anomaly
The decision is blatantly wrong for violating a provision of
law that all judicial reconstitution of titles belong exclusively to the
regional trial court.
Inferior courts like RTCs try and test facts submitted by the
litigants. Because this provision was skipped, in fact ignored and violated, the
Supreme Court affirmed a Court of Appeals ruling which was not based on any
trial of facts or results of judicial hearings.
We feel we have to repeat that the LRA initially issued a
decision favoring the Manotoks. It changed its mind and ruled in favor of the
heirs of Homer Barque.
After both parties appealed, the two divisions of the Court
of Appeals first ruled again in favor of the Manotoks. Like the LRA, it changed
its mind. The Supreme Court approved the turn-around.
Even if the Manotoks had won the case every step of the way
that the Barques went through, the decision would still be questionable for one
reason.
It failed to comply with the requirement that judicial
reconstitution is a sole function and exclusive jurisdiction of the regional
trial courts.
It is presumed that the RTC will examine the facts and make a
decision. The aggrieved party can appeal to the Court of Appeals.
This case is curious because what was appealed to the CA
which is a judicial body was an administrative decision made the LRA.
