republic v shai

8/17/2019 Republic v SHAI

1/3

Republic v. Southside Homeowners Association, Inc.

G.R. No. 156951 • September 22, 2006 • Garcia, J.

NATURE: Two consolidated cases.

• G.R. No. 156951: Petition for review under Rule 45 from the CA decision affirming RTC’s dismissal of the

Republic’s complaint.

• G.R. No. 173408: Contempt proceedings against Lt. Gen. Esperon.

FACTS:

• July 12, 1957: Pres. Carlos P. Garcia issuedProclamation No. 423 establishing a military reservation (For

William McKinley, nowFort Andres Bonifacio Military Reservation [FBMR]).

• The proclamation withdrew from sale or settlement and reserved for military purposes, under the administration of

the Chief of Staff of the AFP certain parcels of land:

o Parcel No. 2

o Parcel No. 3-A – 15,912,684 sq. m.

o Parcel No. 4-A – 7,660,128 sq. m.

Excludes American Battle Monument Cemetery, Traffic Circle, and Diplomatic & Consular Area.

• 1965: Proclamations No. 461 and 462 excluded certain portions of the land from the operation of Proclamation

No. 423.o AFP Officer’s Village

o AFP EM’s Village

• 1922: Congress enacted the Bases Conversion and Development Act (BCDA, RA 7227).

o BCDA authorized to dispose of certain portions of Fort Bonifacio 6 months after approval of the Act.

• This case concerns an area of 39.99 hectares known as theJUSMAG Housing Area.

o Occupied by military officers and their families.

• Southside Homeowners Association, Inc. (SHAI) is composed mostly of AFP.

• Oct. 30, 1991: RD of Rizal issuedTCT No. 15084 on the basis of a deed of sale purportedly executed by LMB

Director Abelardo G. Palad, Jr. in favor of SHAI.

o P30/ sq. m. = P11,997,660.

• DOJ invested reported land scams at the FBMR. The Oct. 30, 1991 deed of sale was sent to the NBI for

examination.

o Result: Palad’s signature is the product of TRACING PROCESS by CARBON-OUTLINE METHOD.

• Oct. 16, 1993: Pres. Ramos issuedMemorandum Order No. 173 directing the OSG to institute cancellation

proceedings concerning TCT No. 15084.

• Nov. 15, 1993: The OSG filed the complaint for nullification and cancellation of title before the Pasig RTC. Alleging

the nullity of the title, the OSG averred that:

o Palad’s signature on the deed of sale was a forgery;

o There are no records with the LMB of the application to purchase and the payment of the purchase price

and

o The property is inalienable as it forms part of the military reservation established underProclamation No. 423.

SHAI: The deed of sale is a valid document which the Republic is estopped to deny.

o Also presented receipts to reflect payment of the purchase price.

Pre-trial: Issues limited to the genuineness and due execution of the deed of sale and TCT.

Witnesses for the Republic:

o NBI Document Examiner Constantino: Signature is a forgery.

o Director Palad: He did not sign the same, let alone before a notary public outside the LMB. Also, the land

is inalienable.

Witnesses for SHAI:


2/3

o Police Inspector Caimbon: Signature is genuine.

o SHAI President Santos: Applications to purchase were signed and filed with a certain Engr. Eugenia

Balis.

o Also presented a letter purportedly authored by Dir. Palad opining that the TCT must be genuine as i

emanated from the RD of Rizal. He later denied authorship.

RTC: Dismissed the complaint. (Oct. 7, 1997)

CA: Affirmed. (Jan. 28, 2003)

• Hence this appeal by the Republic, alleging that the CA completely ignored, overlooked and/or grossly

misappreciated facts of substance which, if duly considered, will materially affect the outcome of this case.

• According to SHAI, the issue of inalienability of the area in dispute is outside the issue agreed upon at pre-trial.

ISSUES + RULING:

WoN the issue of inalienability of the disputed portion of land may still be litigated in the present case. YES.

• This case falls under the exception to the rule that Rule 45 petitions are limited to questions of law, specifically:

o When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which if properly

considered would justify a different conclusion.

• Besides, the Court has the inherent power to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its

operations whenever the demands of justice so require.• The rationale behind the rule that issues must be limited to those discussed at pre-trial is to prevent surprise

Here, the element of surprise is not present as the issue of inalienability was raised in the Republic’s complaint.

• Moreover, Palad was examined as to the issue. SHAI did not object to his testimony.

WoN the JUSMAG area may be the subject of disposition. NO. It is still part of the military reservation, hence, not

alienable and disposable.

• Under Sec. 83 of the Public Land Act, the President, by proclamation, may designate any tract or tracts of land of

the public domain as reservations for the use of the Republic or any of its branches, or for quasi-public uses or

purposes.

o Land reserved as such will be non-alienable, not subject to sale or other disposition.

Consistent with the foregoing postulates, jurisprudence teaches that a military reservation, like the

FBMR, or a part thereof is not open to private appropriation or disposition and, therefore, not registrable,

unless it is in the meantime reclassified and declared as disposable and alienable public land.

o Until reclassified by law or presidential proclamation, its status as part of a military reservation remains,

even if it is not used as a military camp or for defense.

• SHAI: The JUSMAG area isprivate property of the government, removed from the concept of public domain.

• SC: SHAI’s evidence belies this claim.

o Technical description in TCT No. 15084: the parcel of land isa portion of Parcel 3 of plan Psu-2031.

o To recall, Proclamation No. 423 listed Parcel No. 3 as falling within its coverage.

• The Republic only had to prove that Parcel No. 3 has been reserved for military purposes. The evidence of this

fact is Proclamation No. 423, of which the Court can take judicial notice.• SHAI failed to specifically deny the Republic’s allegation that the JUSMAG area is part of the coverage of

Proclamation No. 423.

o The defendant must specify each material factual allegation the truth of which he absolutely denies and,

whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he will rely to support his

denial.

• SHAI had the burden of proving that the parcels of land covered by TCT No. 15084 had already been withdrawn

from the reservation or excluded from the coverage of Proclamation NO. 423.

o It failed to prove that there exists any presidential act specifically withdrawing the disputed parcels from

the coverage of Proclamation No. 423.


3/3

o Instead, SHAI actually made a judicial admission:

In a letter addressed to the SHAI President, the possibility of exclusion of the Southside Housing

Area from the military reservation was discussed.

• The CA was swayed by SHAI’s assertion that since Proclamations No. 461 and 172 excluded the total area of

4,436,678 sq. m. from the coverage of Proclamation No. 423, the JUSMAG area should be deemed excluded

since what will be left is only 16 ha.

o Per the SC’s count, Proclamation No. 423 reserved for military purposes roughly a total area

of25,875,000square meters, not 7,053,143. On the other hand, Proclamation Nos. 461 and 172

excluded a combined area of6,892,338square meters.

o SHAI’s conclusion is merely speculative.

• The October 30, 1991 Deed of Sale purportedly executed by Palad, assuming for the nonce its authenticity, could

not plausibly be the requisite classifying medium converting the JUSMAG area into a disposable parcel.

o The Republic cannot be estopped from questioning the validity of the deed of sale.

o It is not usually estopped by the mistake or error on the part of its officials or agents.

Since the parcels of land in question allegedly sold to the private respondent are, or at least at the time of

the supposed transaction were, still part of the FBMR, the purported sale is necessarily voidab initio.

Assuming arguendo that the JUSMAG area is alienable and disposable, WoN SHAI may acquire the same. NO.

• §3, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution forbids private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of thepublic domain, except through lease for a limited period.

o The reason for the ban is not very clear under existing jurisprudence.

WoN Dir. Palad’s signature on the Oct. 30, 1991 deed of sale is authentic. NO.

• Palad categorically declared that his said signature on the deed is a forgery.

o NBI and PNP experts cancel each other out.

• Palad signed in Manila (LMB office), but the deed of sale was notarized the same day in Pasig.

o Entire process completed in one day.

o Why would a bureau head go to another city just to have a deed of sale notarized?

• There is no record of the requisite public land application to purchase required under §89 of the Public Land Act.

• The Official Receipt No. 6030203C presented by SHAI does not pertain to the LMB. Neither is it attached or

appended to any of SHAI’s pleadings.

• The entire amount (11 million) was apparently paid in P500 and P100 denominations.

• Engr. Eugenia Balis, the purported facilitator of this transaction, was never presented in court.

WoN Lt. General Esperon should be cited in contempt. NO.

• The question raised by the petitioners therein respecting the ownership of the JUSMAG area and, accordingly, of

the right of the petitioning retired military officers to remain in the housing units each may be occupying is now

moot and academic.

DISPOSITION: Reversed. TCT No. 15084 is VOID.

republic v shai

Documents