SC asked to reopen Maysilo case

Quoting the Latin aphorism "He who over looks a fault, invites the commission of another," Government Corporate Counsel Amado D. Valdez appealed to the Supreme Court last week to reopen a 1992 decision that has plunged about half of the land areas of Caloocan City and Malabon and portions of Quezon City into turmoil and in danger of falling into the hands of "syndicated landgrabbers."

Valdez asked the High Court to admit a motion to review and reopen the case, on behalf of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), one of the scores of aggrieved government and private land title holders.

Affected by the Court’s decision, aside from the privately titled lands, are some 450 hectares covered by 1,254 land titles of the national government. These comprise roads and national highways, including portions of the North Expressway and EDSA, the sites of the Bonifacio Monument, public markets and public areas.

The decision

The Court’s decision had ruled that there are two Original Certificates of Title No. 994 covering the old Maysilo, Estate, one dated May 3, 1917, and the other dated April 19, 1917. Relied upon were the certifications of top Caloocan City registry officials. The central files of the Land Registration Authority which has supervision and control over the Caloocan registry of deeds were not even checked by MWSS counsel. At the time, an LRA verification committee had already found fraudulent titling transfers from original Maysilo Estate titles.

In the MWSS case, the Court affirmed the title of one Jose B. Dimson. It was derived from an Oct 994 registered on April 19, 1917. The MWSS title originated from Oct 994 issued on May 3, 1917, or 15 days later. Applying the settled titling principle that a title earlier registered is superior to another title issued later, the Court held that Dimson’s title was valid and superior to the MWSS’s two-decade old title to its huge compound in Caloocan City.

"Certain events have unfolded since the promulgation of that judgment which have brought to light how even the Honorable Supreme Court was misled into the web of deceit spun by land titling syndicates," Valdez pointed out.

Fact finding

Three years after the Court ruling, a Department of Justice fact-finding committee found that there is only one OCT NO. 994 issued with reference to the Maysilo Estate and its date of issuance is May 3, 1917. The following year, the Senate committee on justice, and human rights and on urban planning, housing and resettlements which conducted its own investigation in aid of legislation of the Maysilo Estate irregularities, made the same findings as the DOJ fact-finding committee.

The investigation report of the two committees which were approved by the Senate, recommended that the DOJ findings be accorded the respect they deserve since it was the result of a joint undertaking of the DOJ proper, the Office of the Solicitor General and the Land Registration Authority, "the last Office of the Solicitor General and the Land Registry Authority, "the last two offices being directly mandated by law to protect the public interest in land title registration." The Senate committees asked that a copy of their report title registration." The Senate committees asked that a copy of their report and that of DOJ be transmitted to the Supreme Court. The LRA records clearly showed the existence of only one OCT 944 over the Maysilo Estate and it is dated May 3, 1017.

As an offshoot of the these findings, two Caloocan City registry officials were administratively charged, investigated and found guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. They issued "false and fraudulent certifications that OCT 994 was issued on April 19, 1917 when in truth and in fact, it was issued on May 3, 1917."

The late Senate President Marcelo B. Fernan who chaired the justice and human rights committee, described the Maysilo land titling mess as the "the mother of all land titling scams" in the country.

File suits

Both the Senate and DOJ reports had urged the Office of the Solicitor General to file court suits to cancel titles issued by Caloocan City registry officials to Dimson, Lilia D. Sevilla, Estelito Hiolito, CLT Realty Development Corp., and Eleuteria Rivera. Both reports found their titles to be "null and void for overlapping other titles covering the same land parcels which were legally and validly issued to other persons more than 40 to 70 years earlier.

Government Corporate Counsel Valdez said that the DOJ and Senate investigation results "have thrown light to the true facts" on OCT 994 and the circumstances surrounding the issuance of overlapping derivative transfer certificates of title covering the Maysilo Estate." Then he stressed, "These findings are the official acts of the Executive and Legislative branches of government and are therefore proper subjects of mandatory judicial notice without need for introduction of evidence under the rules of court."

Case reopened

Reopening the case, the official said, "will set the facts straight, allow truth to prevail and justice rendered accordingly." Unless the Court’s decision is reconsidered and set aside, "the fraud committed by unscrupulous landgrabbers in connivance with the likes of Vasquez (deputy registrar of deeds Norberto Vasquez Jr.) will continue to perpetuate itself as "the mother of all land titling scams."

Valdez added, ‘Certainly, the integrity and stability of the Torrens system of land registration in this jurisdiction cannot be compromised."

As early as 1981, the LRA verification committee found that titles allegedly representing direct transfers from the Maysilo Estate OCT 994 had been issued through fraud and misrepresentation. The title holders had claimed buying the lands from the alleged children of one Bartolome Rivera. Rivera, along with eight other relatives, in turn claimed being heirs of a Spanish lady who owned a large portion of the original Maysilo Estate.

They claimed their titles were direct transfers from OCT 994, although the records showed that at the time of the transactions, the original lots and titles from OCT 994 had long been legitimately transferred to other persons or companies. Despite LRA findings, particularly on how their claims overlapped earlier titles, several courts had granted the petitions of these claimants and ordered the registry of deeds to issue the titles.

Some claimants have succeeded in getting regional trial courts and the registrar’s office to issue them titles supposedly derived from OCT 994 issued on April 19, 1917. Now, they are using the Supreme Court decision in the MWSS case to oust hundreds of legitimate holders of titles derived from OCT 994 dated May 3, 1917.