Ang Tala Estate ay nasa ilalim ng OCT 543. Ang Pangarap Village ay bahagi ng Tala Estate na nasa ilalim ng batas Friar Land Act 1120 enacted by the US Congress in 1902 and Commonwealth Act 32 enacted by the National Assembly of The Philippines in September 15, 1956.
In 1938, the 808 hectares portion of Tala Estate, which includes Pangarap Village, was intended for Leper Colony under Commonwealth Act 161 enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines on the 1st Day of January 1937.
From 1938 to 1971, it was a Leper’s Colony.
On May 3, 1971 (BEFORE the proclamation of PD293) the 808 hectare Tala Estate, including Pangarap Village, was reserved for government uses as well as for housing and resettlement site under Presidential Proclamation Order No. 843 (Pangarap was then proclaimed as a resettlement site.)
QUESTIONS:
· Paano nabili ng Carmel ang Pangarap Village noong 1958 gayong ang Pangarap ay nasa ilalim ng CA 161 mula 1938 hanggang 1971 bilang isang Leper Colony ?
· At kung ang lupa ni Carmel ay hindi galing sa gobyerno (Third Party Buyer) at ito ay galing kay Paquita Eusebio, maari bang mapatituluhan ni Paquita Eusebio at ng Carmel Farms ang Pangarap Village gayong ang nasabing lupa ay nasa ilalim ng CA 161 bilang isang Leper Colony?
FACT:
COMMONWEALTH ACT 32 SECTION 2 STATES THAT:
“Xxx The person who, at the time of subdivision survey (BSD 04-000011), are actual and bonafide occupants of any portion of the Friar Lands Estate, not exceeding 10 hectares, shall be given preference to purchase the portion thereof occupied at a private sale and at a price to be fixed in such case, by the director of Land Management Bureau, Xxx”
QUESTIONS:
· Paano nabili ng Carmel Farm ang Pangarap Village under CA 32 (Land for the Landless Act) as amended gayong sa Section 2 ng nasabing Act ay nililimita lamang sa 10 hektarya ang pagbili ng lupa at ang bonafide occupant ang siyang priority.
· Sino ang nagdeclare na ang Pangarap ay open for disposition and sale bago PD293?
· May kapangyarihan ba ang Carmel na mamili ng lupa (Pangarap) kahit ito ay hindi pa idinidiklarang open for disposition and sale?
FACT:
Supreme Court Decision GR No. 70484, p.6:
“There is no dispute about the fact that title to the land purchased by Carmel was actually issued to it by the Government.”
QUESTIONS:
- Kung ito ay tama, bakit ang TCT ng Carmel ay lumalabas na hindi direktang galing sa Mother Title (OCT 543)?
- Kung hindi siya nagmula sa OCT 543 nangangahulugan na may pinagmulan ito bilang isang THIRD PARTY BUYER?
SUPPLEMENT:
Tracing back the TCT’s of Carmel, it appears that Carmel’s TCT’s was derived from TCT NO. 35827 to 35842 registered in the name of Paquita Villareal Eusebio. Then TCT’s of Paquita Villareal was derived from TCT No. 25761 to 25774 in the name of Ildefonso Villareal and TCT’s of Villareal was derived from OCT 543 in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
- Sino ngayon ang may balanse/utang sa Gobyerno? Si Eusebio, Villareal, o si Carmel?
FACT:
Supreme Court Decision GR No. 70484, p.6:
“It may well be the fact that Carmel really did fail to make full payment of the price of the land purchased by it from the Government pursuant to the provisions of Act 1120. This is a possibility that cannot be totally discounted.”
QUESTION:
· Kanino ba talaga may utang ang Carmel – sa gobyerno ba bilang direct purchaser o kay Paquita Villareal Eusebio? O kay Ildefonso Villareal bilang third party buyer?
***Tandaan natin: Inamin ng abogado ng Carmel sa nasabing hearing ng Committee on Justice ng Kongreso noong Mayo 15, 2002 na sila ay “third party purchaser.”
Subalit mababasa sa SC decision, paragraph 2, p. 2, ang ganito:
“ * * Carmel, which had earlier purchased from the Government the land it had subsequently subdivided into several lots for sale to the public (The Tuasons being among the buyers). The land bought by Carmel was part of the Tala Estate (one of the so-called Friar Lands). Carmel had bought the land under Act No. 1120 and C.A. No. 32, as amended.”
FACT:
Both the LMB and RD in Pasig were not able to produce documents regarding the Deed of Conveyance and Sales Certificate between the Government and the original purchaser Ildefonso Villareal
QUESTIONS:
· Are there really documents (Deed of Conveyance and Sales Certificates) issued by the Government to the original purchaser Ildefonso Villareal as claimed by Luis Araneta based on his letter to the late President Marcos dated January 3, 1974? If so, why is it that both the RD and LMB have no records regarding the said documents?
· How would the proclamation of the 808-hectare Tala Estate, intended for the Government purposes as well as housing and resettlement site, affects the acquisition of titles by Carmel Farms, Inc?
- Is there really a deed of sale entered between Carmel and Pacquita Eusebio?
· Considering that the land claimed by Carmel is part of a reserved domain as a leper colony since 1937, how could Carmel acquired such title? Is there any violation of the law?
· Why is it that Carmel failed to present any documents to claim its ownership over Pangarap in the Case of “People of the Philippines vs. Petra Abella, et. Al.?”
· Why there is such certification issued by the RD regarding the non-application of revival of TCT’s of Carmel?
· Why the inscription on the title of Carmel dated February 17, 1988 was discovered only on 1998 when the filing of ejectment cases against the people of Pangarap was initiated? Is there anomaly in this inscription? If there be so, who shall be held responsible on this?
- Does the declaration of the invalidity and unconstitutionality of PD 293 contains an injunctive writ invalidating all sales certificates and all transfer certificates issued under the said PD 293?
- Does the Register of Deeds’ annotation declaring all TCTs issued under PD 293 as “dimmed invalidated not yet cancelled” impliedly and explicitly complied the SC decision?
- Is the Register of Deeds in the position to cancel the annotation inscribed at the back of the title of Carmel on the memorandum declaring the title null and void and considered canceled?
