New Maysilo title issued to Spanish lady heirs

Right under the noses of its bosses at the Land Registration Authority (LRA), the Caloocan City registry of deeds appears to be doing it again – messing up the Maysilo Estate titling cases, which were once called "the mother of all land titling scams." It affects almost half of Caloocan City and Malabon combined, and a portion of Quezon City. The government also stands to lose huge parcels of lands.

Now, real estate brokers are peddling a "new" title to the public. A photocopy of it showed that on Oct. 28, 2002, the registry issued a supposedly "new" Maysilo title – TCT No. C-361618 – in the names of 10 alleged heirs of Spanish lady Maria Concepcion Vidal, a deceased co-owner of the old Maysilo Estate.

The alleged heirs and their respective shares as co-owners from the 14,391.54 sq.m. of land are identified as Bartolome Rivera, one-third share; Eleuteria Rivera, one-sixth; Pelagia Angeles, one-thirtieth; Modesto R. Angeles, one-thirtieth; Venancio R. Angeles, one-thirtieth; Felipe R. Angeles, one-thirtieth; Fidela R. Angeles, one-thirtieth; Josefa R. Aquino, one-ninth; Gregorio R. Aquino, one-ninth; Rosauro R. Aquino, one-ninth.

It was certified as a direct transfer from Original Certificate of Title No. 994 of April 19, 1917, or more than eight decades ago. Why did it take them that long?

If the "new" title was really issued, it represents a new twist, a new front in the yet unfinished battle over the Maysilo Estate titling case. But the characters or frontliners have remained the same – the Riveras, et al. ranged against the affected landowners holding titles of long standing, with the registry and the courts triggering the "war."

The previous titles of the Riveras, et al. and a number of titles emanating from them had earlier been found fraudulent by no less than the Department of Justice and the Senate of the Philippines after separate exhaustive investigations. For they overlapped previously registered titles, and OCT No. 994, the alleged "mother title" registered on April 19, 1917 is "non-existent, a fabrication" by registry of deeds officials. Only last Oct. 17, 2002, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision annulling the titles of a certain Eleuteria Rivera, which are among Maysilo Estate titles found null and void by the DOJ and the Senate.

Moreover, then Registrar of Deeds Yolanda Alfonso had issued on Sept. 6, 1996 TCT No. C-314537 in the name of Eleuteria Rivera for the same Lot 23 covering exactly 14,391.54 square meters with the same technical descriptions that the registry issued to the 10 alleged heirs of Vidal. The Alfonso-issued Rivera title, a direct transfer from OCT 994 registered on April 19, 1917, overlapped a landowner’s title to the same parcel of land. The case was filed with the Caloocan regional trial court. Later the trial court upheld the landowner’s title and annulled the Rivera title. When Rivera appealed to the Court of Appeals, its 14th division affirmed the trial court’s decision which ruled that there is only one OCT 994 and it was registered on May 3, 1917.

The latest "new" title issued a month ago by the registry to the 10 alleged heirs of a Spanish lady was signed by Registrar of Deeds Regulo B. Coloma. He had been appointed by then President Joseph Estrada after then Registrar of Deeds Yolanda Alfonso was dismissed for the Maysilo titling scandal. The deputy registrar, Norberto Vasquez Jr.,was also dismissed. Both were found to have acted "maliciously, fraudulently and in bad faith" by certifying in several titles they issued or stating in responses to queries that OCT No. 994 was registered on April 19, 1917 when they knew quite well that in fact it was registered on May 3, 1917.

Shouldn’t the LRA therefore investigate why Coloma issued a "new" title derived from a non-existent or fabricated Maysilo Estate title?

What makes the "new" title also questionable is the existing LRA Circular 97-11. It enjoins all registrars of deeds and deputy registrars of deeds to deny registration or issuance of a title even if there is a court order, which would result in the overlapping of a previously titled property or where its issuance would be highly irregular. The circular was handed down in response to a recommendation of the DOJ investigation report to prevent the issuance of more dubious or overlapping titles which purport to be direct transfers from Maysilo Estate’s original certificate of titles. LRA is an agency under DOJ, while registries of deeds function directly under LRA as its field offices.

If Coloma would have nothing to do with LRA Circular 97011, or even with the official findings of the Senate and the DOJ investigations, what was his basis for issuing the "new" Maysilo Estate title to the "heirs" of the old Spanish lady? The Original Certificate of Title No. 994 said to be dated April 19, 1917, from which the "new" title was supposedly derived, cannot be found at all in the Caloocan registry’s vault. For there is no OCT No. 994 registered or issued on April 19, 1917 with reference to the Maysilo Estate. What is being kept in the vault of the LRA – for safekeeping on DOJ’s order following the results of the investigation into the Maysilo titling scandal – is OCT No. 994 registered or issued on May 3, 1917.