Rudith Ann W. Quiachon

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 11th Judicial Region Branch 15 Davao City REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Region XI, Davao City, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 34,382-12 -versus- FOR: CANCELLATION OF TITLES/REVERSION HEIRS OF ROQUE VICENTE B. CALIZO, represented by MELVA M.D. CALIZO and the Register of Deeds. Defendants. x-----------------------------------x MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Of the Decision Dated June 20, 2022) COMES NOW, plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully states THAT: PURPOSE The subject matter of this Motion for Reconsideration is the Decision of this Honorable Court dated June 20,2022, which reads: “Equally, the evidence presented and offered by the State failed squarely to overcome the presumption of regularity of the issuance of the subject free patent and title in favor of Roque Vicente B. Calizo. Since the State failed to establish the required burden of proof that fraud and misrepresentation were attendant in securing the patent, OCT no. P-2836 and derivative titles must be accorded full faith. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is ordered DISMISSED for want of evidence.” MATERIAL DATES The Order of this Honorable Court dated June 20, 2022 was served through electronic mail on June 27, 2022. The fifteenth (15th) day or the last day within which the plaintiff can move for the reconsideration of the said Order is until July 12, 2022. Thus, this Motion for Reconsideration is timely filed. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION Availing of the rights enshrined under Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, plaintiff moves for the reconsideration of the Order dated June 20,2022 based on the following grounds: I. The honorable court erred when it ruled that the material issue in the instant case is the existence of false statements or material facts in the Free Patent Application of Roque Vicente Calizo; II. The honorable Court erred when it ruled that the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of fraud and misrepresentation in the free patent application of Roque Vicente Calizo; III. The Honorable Court erred when it ruled that the Plaintiff failed to prove that irregularity existed in the issuance of the free patent and title in favor of Roque Vicente Calizo; DISCUSSION Anent the first and second ground: The court erred when it ruled that the material issue in this case is the existence of false statements in the free patent application of the late Roque Vicente Calizo, which is not the case. Rather, the position of the Plaintiff is the omission by Calizo of certain material facts in his application, to wit: the existence of mangroves trees in Lot no. F-(VIII-1)-14643. Under Section 91 of Commonwealth Act no. 141, when the State issues titles, grants or concessions, the same may be canceled not only by the grantee’s acts of providing false statements on material facts in his/her application, but also by his/her omission of facts which may alter, change or modify the consideration of the State in evaluating a patent application. Section 91 provides: Sec. 91. The statements made in the application shall be considered as essential conditions and parts of any concession, title or permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statements therein or omission of facts altering, changing, or modifying the consideration of the facts set forth in such statements and any subsequent modification, alteration or change of material facts set forth in the application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title or permit granted. xxx The presence of mangrove trees is a material fact which must be declared in any patent application as mangrove forests are considered inalienable lands and cannot be titled.. Section 16 of Presidential Decree no. 705, otherwise known as the Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines, states: Sec. 16. Areas Needed for Forest Purposes- The following lands, even if they are below eighteen per cent (18%) in slope, are needed for forest purposes, and may not, therefore, be classified as alienable and disposable land, to wit: xxx 8) Strips of mangrove or swamplands at least twenty (20) meters wide, along shorelines facing oceans, lakes, and other bodies of water, and strips of land at least twenty (20) meters wide facing lakes. Although the application of the Calizo was not presented, the omission can be conclusively presumed, because if he did declare the presence of the mangrove trees, he would not have been granted a patent for the portion of land covered by the mangrove trees. Thus, this deliberate and fraudulent omission by Calizo of the presence of mangrove trees in the property creates the existence of fraud in his application as fraud is an act of giving of false representation and pretenses, by way of words or by conduct, which are false or misleading, or by concealment of facts which should have been disclosed, with the intention to deceive so that any third person who acts upon such false pretenses will suffer legal injury. Hence, when Calizo intentionally omitted the fact that mangrove trees abound the property, the State was led to believe that the property is entirely alienable and disposable and by acting on such belief, ultimately led to the issuance of the free patent and the original certificate of title of a property, thereby depriving the State of a portion of the public domain. To further bolster that there was fraud in the application of Calizo are the testimonies of the members of the Fisherfolks Association of Lizada Beach, Inc. that mangroves have already abound in the area when they entered and occupied the same as early as 1974. This is supported by not less than thirty (30) photographs showing the full-grown and enormous mangroves in the property totaling to about Five (500) hundred pieces, more or less, located inside the land, both in the Judicial Affidavit of Violeta C. Liza and in the Investigation Report of Lopez Moreover, Investigating Officer Lopez submitted an Investigation Report stating that: Facts and records would readily show a natural leaning supporting the contention that the Original Certificate of Title No. P-2836 was fraudulently acquired by the late Roque Vicente Calizo. Predominantly, observable in the area is the large marshy/underwater portion of the land which is thickly covered by large mangrove trees. Mangrove areas are classified as forest and are not subject to title under the Torrens system of registration. Also, in his Judicial Affidavit of March 23, 2017, Engr. Beethoven S. Bersabel corroborates the presence of 500 mangrove trees, more or less, within the property during the relocation survey he conducted on August 24, 2007. He described the mangroves, thus: “some submerged while some are near the beach line” and “some are big and fully grown already while some are still small trees.”. The testimony of expert witness DMO III Redentor Magno is also enlightening on the growth of mangrove trees. In his Judicial Affidavit, Magno discusses the period within which a mangrove tree grows. To quote: “A mangrove tree is considered fully grown 3 years after planting. The growth of mangroves depends on the mangrove species and the growth conditions. Other species can grow pretty quick and reach up to two meters or more within two to three years.” While Atty. Calizo claims that the mangrove trees on the subject land were planted by her late husband after Typhoon “Titang” hit the area in 1972, testimonies of the members of the Fisherfolks Association of Lizada Beach, Inc. state that mangroves have already abound in the area when they entered and occupied the same as early as 1974. This leads to no other conclusion but that the mangroves in the subject land already existed prior to 1972, and such already existed even before Typhoon “Titang” and possibly during the time Calizo applied for a free patent over the property. Thus, the belief of Lopez that this condition of the area was not disclosed by the registered owner in his application for title over the subject property that caused the inclusion of the mangrove area in the title. The Plaintiff thus opines that it has sufficiently discharged its burden of proving its imputation of fraud against Calizo. The imputation of fraud in civil cases requires the presentation of clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegations will not suffice to sustain the existence of fraud1. Anent the third ground: Although the presumption of regularity of official acts is an important pillar in government dealings as it is an aid to the effective and unhampered administration of government function, such presumption cannot be raised as a defense especially when the State will be prejudiced by the application of the said presumption such as when it stands to lose public land that was irregularly awarded to a private person. The Plaintiff thus raises the defense that the State shall not be bound by the mistakes or errors of its officers or agents in the exercise of their functions2. Taking into consideration the presence of fraud in the application of Calizo, as mentioned in the arguments above, the State can no longer turn a blind eye on the fact that there exists an irregularity in the issuance of the patent and title to Calizo, that is why remedies such as actions for reversion and actions for annulment of title are given to the State as the law recognizes that irregularities in the government dealings cannot be entirely prevented. Although this is a situation where both parties paint different pictures: The defendants defending that the titles to the property were validly issued as the mangrove trees were planted years after the patent and title was issued. On the other hand, the Fisherfolks Association of Lizada Beach, Inc. claims that the mangroves have already abound in the area when they entered and occupied the same as early as 1974. It is clear that between the two parties, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the State since the evidence presented by the Plaintiff abound in its favor, to wit: (1) The Investigation Report of Investigator Lopez, (2) the Judicial Affidavit of the representatives of Fisherfolks Association, (3) the Judicial Affidavit of Expert Witness Redentor Magno, and (4) Judicial Affidavit of Engr. Beethoven S. Bersabel and (5) 30 photographs of the property. The findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings are made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, should not be disturbed3. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that the Decision dated June 20,2022 be reconsidered and SET ASIDE and a new one be issued in favor if the Plaintiff. Such other relief deem just and equitable under the premises. This 12th day of July 2022 in Davao City, Philippines. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XI - LEGAL DIVISION Counsel for the Plaintiff Km. 7, Lanang, Davao City Telephone No.:-; Cellular No.:- Email address:- By: ATTY. JENIKA H. ELMAN-IÑIGO Roll of Attorneys no. 62811 IBP Lifetime Member Roll no. 015524 PTR OR no-; 01/05/2022 MCLE Compliance No. VII- Contact No- Email address:- & ATTY. RUDITH ANN W. QUIACHON-SABORNIDO Roll of Attorneys no. 74316 IBP O.R. no. 165697 ; 10/14/2021 PTR no-; 01/10/2022 MCLE No. VII- Contact no:- Email address:- NOTICE/SUBMISSION THE HONORABLE CLERK OF COURT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) 11th Judicial Region Branch 15, Davao City ATTY. GRACE LINA A. FUENTES Marlboro Drive (Former ACES Office) Tahimik Drive, Matina Davao City GREETINGS: PLEASE take notice that the undersigned submits the foregoing MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof, without further appearance and oral arguments of counsel. JENIKA H. ELMAN-IÑIGO RUDITH ANN W. QUIACHON-SABORNIDO Copy furnished: THE HONORABLE CLERK OF COURT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) 11th Judicial Region Branch 15, Davao City ATTY. GRACE LINA A. FUENTES Marlboro Drive (Former ACES Office) Tahimik Drive, Matina Davao City HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village Makati City EXPLANATION Copies of the foregoing MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION have been filed with the Honorable Court and served to the counsel of the Defendants by registered mail, due to time and distance constraints and for lack of personnel, which makes personal service impractical. JENIKA H. ELMAN-IÑIGO RUDITH ANN W. QUIACHON-SABORNIDO