Who owns Boracay?

[borac...@gmail.com]

There is a longstanding discussion about this general subject which I
hope to bypass, at least initally. I am now interested in one specific
point.

I just received a letter which notifies me of a purported RP Supreme
Court decision number G.R. No. 140915, said to have been promulgated on
July 12 2004, which allegedly awards [simplification here] ownership of
Boracay Island, along with lots of other lands, [end simplification] to
one Jaime M. Robles, said to be hier and next of kin to one Don
Hermogenes Rodriguez Y Reyes.

I grubbed around a bit for a copy of G.R. No. 140915, but have not
found it.

A bit of further grubbing around turned up
http://www.mindanews.com/2002/09/5th/vws21torres.html

Cute.

I am interested in knowing whatever anyone else can contribute about
this.

[H Dickmann]

<borac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141388864....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

A similar issue came up in Northern Leyte.
A Spanish family was believed to own a very large area of land, including
the land where hundreds of squatters had their houses for generations. A
couple of years ago that Spanish / Filipino was murdered and some time later
a long standing worker of him produced a document stating that he had been
given this land by the Spanish and he therefore owned it.
What this man and a lot of people did not realise is that the Spanish owned
a mere 16Ha. while the rest was Government land leased to the Spanish
Family.
With very few exceptions, very large Land Owners do not actually own the
land but have leasehold title. If you want to know who owns what land, go to
the Land department and look at the titles of any given parcel of land.

[dr ngo]

"H Dickmann" <HER...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:qBXNf.955$z03...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Most definitely I need to insist that I Am Not A Lawyer at all, much less
one with expertise in Philippine law, BUT I did look at the article you
linked to, and it looks highly suspect to me:

She claims to be the great, great, great granddaughter of Don Hermogenes
Rodriguez y Reyes, first governadorcillo of the Provincia de Manila during
the Spanish times.

-- The "Provincia de Manila" probably refers to the 16th century
establishment of Spanish administration there. So (1) there's a few
generations missing; (2) it would not have had a "governadorcillo" in those
days.

Manuel Quiambao, Rodriguez's lawyer, said Don Hermogenes was given a Royal
Grant by King Philip of Spain, the Titulo de Propriedad de Terrenos of
1826-1891 or Royal Decree 01-4 Protocol.

-- King Philip (presumably Felipe II?) is 16th century. The 1826-1891 dates
_might_ refer to documents preserved in the National Archives (that's how
they tend to label files), but I make no sense of the rest of this phrase.

The decree subdivided the Philippines to four areas.

?? WTF??

The first two parts were given to the governadorcillo of Manila, the great,
great, great grandfather of Rodriguez.

-- Very dubious. Besides the reservations mentioned above, it should be
noted that the Spanish crown gave relatively few land grants in general,
especially in the vicinity of Manila. Much more common were "encomiendas,"
which were the right to collect taxes from certain groups of _people_
identified by locality, but these were not land grants.

Rodriguez claims that the Treaty of Paris recognized the decree on December
10, 1898.

-- That Treaty certainly did not mention this supposed land grant (or any
other). Its relevance is simply that the US said it would continue to
recognize prior claims valid under Spanish law.

Because of disputes and confusion over conflicting land claims, former
President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 829 which provided
that all holders of Spanish land titles or grants originally registered
under the Spanish Mortgage Law should register their lands under Act 496
also known as the Land Registration Act within the period of six months.

Rodriguez says she registered her ancient documents as legal heir of Don
Rodriguez. She claims that the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch
34, recognized and declared her, on February 9, 1994, as the sole heir and
administratrix of the Don Hermogenes Rodriguez Estate.

-- On these latter points, I have no particular expertise. It would appear
that *IF* Rodriguez did in fact own these lands as of 1898, and if proper
procedures have been followed since, this woman might indeed have some valid
claims. But that's a big *IF*

All of this, of course, assumes - in the face of all probability - that the
newspaper got the details of her claim right. But my money is on the whole
thing being a scam ... not that this opinion will help BB in court, if it
ever comes to that!

IANAL Pig

[rbg54]

SC-G.R. No.140915 is a minute resolution that DENIED Jaime Robles' Petition because of a wrong mode of appeal. The Supreme Court ruling stemmed from an original petition entitled "Special Proceedings No. IR-1110: In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estate) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et. al./For: Heirship, Administratorship and Settlement of the Estate." The original petition was filed with RTC Branch 34, Iriga City on 1989, and an AMENDED DECISION on August 13, 1999 was issued a Certificate of Finality on January 17, 2000. The prevailing party was HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ and his two other co-heirs Certeza Rodriguez and Rosalina Pellosis. Jaime Robles was disqualified as an heir being an alleged "sixth degree collateral descendant", and Article 10:10 of the Philippine Civil Code limited the collateral descendants to the fifth degree. There was an adjudication of ownership on the said case regarding lands belonging to the Estate, specifically on most parts of Luzon and several areas of the Visayas, and the proof of the ownership was the one surrendered for "safekeeping" to the Marcos government in February 23, 1976, known as "Titulo de Propriedad de Terrenos de 1826-1864-1891-1894, Royal Decree 01-4 Protocol."

For a more detailed information, you can best check Supreme Court G.R. No.182645 dated December 4, 2009 and June 22, 2011, both of which was held final and executory in the Entry of Judgment dated September 12, 2011. Although on that case the SC petitioner Rene Pascual, who bought a portion of the property from the Estate, was denied, the AMENDED DECISION of RTC Branch 34 Iriga City was declared IMMUTABLE by the June 22, 2011 SC Decision. check out my blog at "hrrodriguez estate issues & facts" here at google. I have several scanned photocopies of the minute resolutions you are seeking. Regarding the SC Decisions, you can check them at the Supreme Court website. If you want to know more info, you can get in touch at my mobile #09073785578. Thanks. rbg54

[rbg54]

On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:36:28 PM UTC+8, rbg54 wrote:
> The Hermogenes Rodriguez Estate heirs never intended this controversy, but some impostors like Victoria Malubay Peralta a.k.a. known as Victoria "Baby" Rodriguez, whose CA Petition for Mandamus and Certiorari was dismissed; Jaime Robles, who went forum shopping from one SC Division to another, but in vain was DENIED by all three divisions and who lately claimed victory in SC-G.R. No. 182645 of June 22, 2011 is obviously misguided, for almost everyone did not notice, including Jaime Robles himself,that before SC Petitioner Rene Pascual was dismissed as a non-party to the original case at RTC Branch 34 Iriga City, there was a discussion regarding the "immutability of finality of judgments", which discussed the SC case "Mocorro vs. Ramirez", citing that there are only three exemptions to the rule on immutability, which are as follows: 1)clerical errors; 2)nunc-pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party;and 3)void judgment. After this discussion, the Supreme Court stated "UNLIKE THE AUGUST 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION,(which was found by the CA a complete nullity), THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE INSTANT CASE(Special Proceedings IR-1110, from which the Amended Decision resulted from) FALLS UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS ENUMERATED ABOVE." In other words, the Amended Decision was already IMMUTABLE, lapsing into finality, having committed no errors, as opposed to the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No.57417 dated April 16, 2002 filed by Jaime Robles(which adversely ruled against the Amended Decision), this said CA Decision was an erroneous judgment, Robles not having perfected his appeal when he DID NOT FILE A RECORD ON APPEAL. The first Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No.182645 dated December 4, 2009 NULLIFIED the CA Decision and the February 21, 2007 RTC Branch 34 Court Order which implemented it, and REINSTATED the RTC Branch 34 Iriga AMENDED DECISION. You can verify and validate my information by checking again the Supreme Court website in their jurisprudence. To further prove this, the ponente, the Hon. Justice Diosdado Peralta even used the SC Decision of December 4, 2009 in the SC case "Jerry Ong vs. PDIC." There are other claimants, like the Carola Favila Santos group, an Entry of Judgment in SC-G.R. No. 140271 dated February 22, 2000 DENIED thier petition for certiorari against Henry Rodriguez; there is also the SC case G.R. 142477: Florencia Rodriguez vs. Hon. Lore V. Bagalacsa et.al. a petition for Mandamus and Certiorari which was DENIED by the Supreme Court in the Entry of Judgment dated September 4, 2000 for the Resolution dated July 31, 2000... Please, don't just believe me, validate what I am explaining on all of this. Don't just believe any claims or letters written by these so called claimants, have them all validated. Thanks.

[rbg54]

On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:44:04 PM UTC+8, rbg54 wrote:
> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 7:36:28 PM UTC+8, rbg54 wrote:
>

> > The Hermogenes Rodriguez Estate heirs never intended this controversy, but some impostors like Victoria Malubay Peralta a.k.a. known as Victoria "Baby" Rodriguez, whose CA Petition for Mandamus and Certiorari was dismissed; Jaime Robles, who went forum shopping from one SC Division to another, but in vain was DENIED by all three divisions, but who lately claimed victory in SC-G.R. No. 182645 of June 22, 2011 and is obviously misguided, for almost everyone did not notice, including Jaime Robles himself,that before SC Petitioner Rene Pascual was dismissed as a non-party to the original case at RTC Branch 34 Iriga City, there was a discussion regarding the "immutability of finality of judgments", which discussed the SC case "Mocorro vs. Ramirez", citing that there are only three exemptions to the rule on immutability, which are as follows: 1)clerical errors; 2)nunc-pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party;and 3)void judgment. After this discussion, the Supreme Court stated "UNLIKE THE AUGUST 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION,(which was found by the CA a complete nullity), THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE INSTANT CASE(Special Proceedings IR-1110, from which the Amended Decision resulted from) FALLS UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS ENUMERATED ABOVE." In other words, the Amended Decision was already IMMUTABLE, lapsing into finality, having committed no errors, as opposed to the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No.57417 dated April 16, 2002 filed by Jaime Robles(which adversely ruled against the Amended Decision), this said CA Decision was an erroneous judgment, Robles not having perfected his appeal when he DID NOT FILE A RECORD ON APPEAL. The first Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No.182645 dated December 4, 2009 NULLIFIED the CA Decision and the February 21, 2007 RTC Branch 34 Court Order which implemented it, and REINSTATED the RTC Branch 34 Iriga AMENDED DECISION. You can verify and validate my information by checking again the Supreme Court website in their jurisprudence. To further prove this, the ponente, the Hon. Justice Diosdado Peralta even used the SC Decision of December 4, 2009 in the SC case "Jerry Ong vs. PDIC." There are other claimants, like the Carola Favila Santos group, an Entry of Judgment in SC-G.R. No. 140271 dated February 22, 2000 DENIED thier petition for certiorari against Henry Rodriguez; there is also the SC case G.R. 142477: Florencia Rodriguez vs. Hon. Lore V. Bagalacsa et.al. a petition for Mandamus and Certiorari which was DENIED by the Supreme Court in the Entry of Judgment dated September 4, 2000 for the Resolution dated July 31, 2000... Please, don't just believe me, validate what I am explaining on all of this. Don't just believe any claims or letters written by these so called claimants, have them all validated. Thanks.

[vynnlaur...@gmail.com]

Ang mga KATUTUBONG ATI ang orihinal at tunay na May ari ng Isla ng Boracay. Dumating ang mga Kastila dala ang Ideyang Papel na Titulo, At ayun, may mga titulo and/or tax declaration ang mga ibang taong pumasok sa Boracay.

Wala nang natira sa mga Tribong Ati, buti at napatituluhan ng pamahalaan ang may 2 hektarya para sa kanila sa pamamagitan ng CADT.

nough said. period.