The Titulo Propriedad 4136 of Don Mariano E.

San
Pedro Estate
Dear Philippines, we have found the greater power of truth, but it is against the en
banc Decision of the Hon. Supreme Court--[“Legal status of Titulo de Propriedad 4136
of the estate of Don Mariano E. San Pedro in the light of the discovery of the 1910
Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) 374 and TCT No.57” in the name of Don Ignacio
Conrado]

The Hon. Supreme Court in its 1996 Decision en banc (on San Pedro estate) has
made it clear that the huge area of the vast lands under the mysterious Titulo Prop.
4136 is 173,000 hectares. (Pls. see the decision in G.R. No. 103727, Dec. 1996, with
sketch plan of Titulo Prop. 4136.) It also made clear that there are two confusing dates
(April 25, 1894 and April 29, 1894) involved in the San Pedro controversy, and that for
purposes of its 1996 en banc Decision, the Hon. Supreme Court affirmed “April 25,
1894” as the correct and real date, and thus (mistakenly!) declared Titulo Prop. 4136
issued on April 25, 1894 as null and void, contrary to the declaration of DENR that Titulo
De Propeidad 4136 is valid and Authentic on its report conducted under Secretary
Antonio Cerilles on the Land Classification of Quezon City in 1999 where all 7 OCT’s
that allegedly covered the land of Quezon City was declared by DENR as Null and Void
for there were no records that would prove the existence of these titles .It was only Titulo
de Propeidad 4136 which is recognized by DENR to be authentic and with records and
was certified by the NBI under questioned document report in 1963 that the signature of
Miguel Lopez Delgado and Alehandro Garcia appearing on the last page of Titulo 4136
are authentic.The opinion of Judge Fernandez stating that it was the signature certified by
the NBI as authentic and not the titulo itself is illogical and misleading, and therefore
attacking collaterally the integrity of the Titulo and the persons who signed it, how could
an authentic signature could appear on a fake document,when the signature found in a
document is authentic it follows that the document is authentic for there was no xerox
machine nor any sophisticated gadget during the Spanish time. Would Judge Fernandez
sign a fake document if he were Miguel Lopez Delgado or Alejandro Garcia of known
integrity at that time ?. The Hon. Supreme Court further clarified: “The heirs of the
late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban laid claim and have been laying claim to the ownership
of, against third persons and the Government itself, a total land area of approximately
173,000 hectares or “214,047 quiniones,” on the basis of a Spanish title, entitled “Titulo
de Propriedad Numero 4136” dated April 25, 1894. The claim, according to the San
Pedro heirs, appears to cover lands in the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Bulacan, Rizal,
Laguna and Quezon; and such Metro Manila cities as Quezon City, Caloocan City, Pasay
City, City of Pasig and City of Manila, thus affecting in general lands extending from
Malolos, Bulacan to the City Hall of Quezon City and the land area between Dingalan
Bay in the north and Tayabas Bay in the south.”

The Hon. Supreme Court made it clear: “….The heirs or successors-in-interest of

Mariano San Pedro y Esteban are not without recourse. Presidential Decree No. 892, xx,
grants all holders of Spanish Titles the right to apply for registration of their lands under
Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act, within six (6) months from
the effectivity of the Decree.” xxx “We are in accord with the appellate courts’ holding
xxx that since the Titulo was not registered under Act No. 496, otherwise known as the
Land Registration Act, said Titulo is inferior to the registered titles of the private
respondents Ocampo, Buhain and Dela Cruz (i.e. of the notorious OCT 614 and OCT
333). xxx “This Court can only surmise that the reason for the non-registration of the
Titulo under the Torrens system is the lack of the necessary documents to be presented in
order to comply with the provisions of P.D. 892. We do not discount the possibility that
the Spanish title in question is not genuine, especially since its genuineness and due
execution have not been proven. In both cases, the petitioners-heirs were not able to
present the original of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 nor a genuine copy thereof.”The
genuine copy thereof cannot be produced by the pretending petioner heirs for
they are not the real owner ,the true story about this matter is that Don Mariano
San pedro Y Esteban mortgaged the land in 1894 to his friend Don Ignacio
Conrado for the sum of P8,000.00 under Pacto de Retro redeemable within ten
years but Don Mariano San Pedro Esteban failed to redeem such land thereby
Don Ignacio Conrado foreclosed the said land in 1904 and registered the same
under Act 496 in 1909 and was issued Torrens title OCT 374 and TCT no.57
covered by Plan II-668 with decree no. recorded in Malolos Bulacan during the
American Period. Now Maria Socorro Conrado the daughter and sole heir of Don
Ignacio Conrado adjudicated the land to herself upon the death of her father Don
Ignacio Conrado and sold the land to Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development
Corporation PIADECO for short, and now PIADECO being the successor in
interest of Don Ignacio Conrado is the legal anf legitimate owner of the subject
estate under Civil case no. 3035-M which upheld the ownership of PIADECO
over the land and not its oppositor the Bureau of Forestry in the sala of Judge
Emmanuel Monuz of CFI Bulacan in 1964.Such being the case OCT4136 being
already a torrens title could no longer be subjected to PD 892. The declaration of
Supreme Court that Titulo De Propeidad 4136 as null and void and no rights
could be drived therefrom is already moot and academic for the titulo itself was
already cancelled in 1910 by virtue of OCT 374 and TCT No.57 in the name of
Don Ignacio Conrado.

Now, beloved Philippines, and dear Portia, goddess of justice, what if, contrary to
the belief and findings of the Hon. Supreme Court, the Titulo Propriedad 4136 of
April 25, 1894 has already been submitted to, and has passed the rigid examination
of, National Bureau of Investigation in 1963 when Director of Forestry J.L. Utleg
submitted to NBI the Titulo 4136 for examination , and the findings of the NBI was the
titulo is authentic thereby the Director of Forestry awarded Private Woodland
Registration (PWR- No. 2065-New) certificate to PIADECO for logging operation .
Should the NBI found that the titulo is fake the director of forestry would no issue a
permit to PIADECO for its logging operation .Now PIADECO who is a holder of legal
title to San Pedro Estate which is now the Don Ignacio Corado estate was viciously
maligned and ruthlessly assailed by the combined forces of the unscrupulous rich and the
dark political powers of the government . The Titulo Propriedad 4136 has now gone back
to life to save and give justice to the disadvantaged and the oppressed and to help bring
the Philippines to Golden Age!

God bless the Philippines!………There is really such a Torrens title (or an Original
Certificate of Title) that was issued out of Titulo Propriedad 4136 of April 25, 1894,
and it is OCT 4136 as declared by the DENR in its report in 1999 entitled Land
Classification of Quezon City during the incumbency of president Erap Estrada not
just one, but two! (Pls. see the orderly Land Registration Case No. N-1861 and N-1876.
See also the Partial Decision of Judge Emmanuel Munoz in Oct. 12, 1970 thereon. Pls.
also see the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 374 and TCT No.57 of the Hon.
Register of Deeds of Malolos, Bulacan. The Torrens Title have long been existing since
1910 but was not known to many , and have become the object of complaint of Quieting
of Title filed in Bulacan Regional Trial Court against the false heirs, all 42 of them with
San Pedro surnames. The titles have been hidden by them false San Pedro heirs
presumably because confirmation of Don Ignacio Conrado as the “next of kin and true
legal heir" of Don Mariano E. San Pedro--with his most authentic Spanish documents,
discovered from the 400 year-old church of Sta. Ana in Taguig. Titulo Propriedad 4136
issued in April 25, 1894 had, indeed, been submitted in a Land Registration Case under
Act 496. The original of the Titulo Propriedad 4136 was necessarily shown, and
examined (as indicated in the records), and found in order, so that in 1972, after due
notice and hearing with all concerned, the Hon. fact-finding and jurisdictional court,
which is a Court “in rem”, whose decision is final and against the whole world, (after the
lapse of certain number of years), issued forth a decree for the issuance of Torrens Titles,
namely, Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) No. 0-5617 and OCT No. 0-5797. A number
of Transfer Certificates of Title have also been issued from the OCTs, (they) were
transferred to innocent purchasers for value, and have become valid and perfect titles.

The Partial Decision of Judge Emmanuel Munoz in Civil Case No. 3035-M in
Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development Coporation(PIADECO) Vs. Director of
Forestry the judge affirmed the ownership of PIADECO under OCT 4136 and the
decision of the judge has become final and executory for failure of the director of
forestry to appeal therefrom, and in the long court battle which ended in 1968 as
acknowledged by the decision of the supreme court in G.R. No. L-24796 and G.R.
No. L-25459 in the consolidated case which favor the government petition against
the logging operation of PIADECO for the cancellation of its license by some
unscrupolous government officials but affirmed the ownership of PIADECO over
the land in question. Which decision is twisted by the government as the case that
they won over the land but reading carefully such decision it is very clear that the
land belongs to PIADECO it was the logs which the Supreme Court awarded to the
government and not the subject land because the decision of CFI Bulacan as to the
ownership of PIADECO is final for failure of the Director of Forestry to appeal
therefrom which decision was not reversed by the Honorable Supreme Court.What
the supreme court altered is the order of the CFI bulacan regarding the confiscated
logs and not the land and that is very clear if you read the Supreme Court
Decision.Determining the Titulo Propriedad 4136 issued on April 25, 1894 to be in
order,--as well as his issuance of the judicial decree for registration of the land thereof,
and the final issuance of the Original Certificates of Title to the said lands within Titulo
Propriedad 4136 issued on April 25, 1894,--is of "judicial notice" in Philippines
jurisdiction, specially to the Hon. Supreme Court. [(Pls. see Revised Rules of Court of the
Philippines, Rule 129, Sec. 1). Moreover, the said Land was recognized by the
American government under the Treaty of Paris in 1898 and continue to recognize
the same even after the American period in the Philippines it was only during the
Marcos regime that Spanish Title was abolished under PD 892 which was issued
under the barrel of the guns, that even President Marcos has no authority to
abrogate the Spanish Mortgage Law which is recognized under the Treaty of Paris if
that is so then the territory of the Philippines comes from nowhere, because under
the 1935 constitution it was declared that the territory of the Philippines was
granted under the Treaty of Paris. Presidential Decree 892 not only violated the
treaty of Paris but unconstitutional as well, this decree was issued by the dictator at
that time hence no legal basis, because it deprives the owner of the land its title
without due process of law ,this decree was issued by the late president for selfish
motives so that all its political enemies with vast tract of lands under Spanish titles
will be deprived of their properties without going through court litigations and
therefore violates the very basic rights of the people. The very short six month time
given by Marcos to holders of Spanish title to register was designed so that nobody
could actually register their title. Even the one hectare lot could not be approved in
just six months time how much more if the land is a hudred or thousand hectares.
The question of validity of Titulo Propriedad 4136 that was issued on April 25, 1894,
after the same has been duly examined and found in order by the Hon. Land Registration
Court in its "in rem" proceedings, has become "res judicata". Therefore, the "en banc"
Decision of the Honorable Supreme Court, has become “ultra vires” on its part; and,
hence, it acquired no jurisdiction on Titulo Prop. 4136. Forcing the issue would result
into grave abuse of discretion that would result into lack of jurisdiction. Neither, the Hon.
Supreme Court can now Order a new trial to correct its mistake because doing so will
result to “double jeopardy” against the judicially confirmed "next of kin” and "true legal
heir" of Don Mariano E. San Pedro, Piadeco

Thus, how the Hon. Supreme Court speaks with the voice of god, and is infallible,
and cannot err. Everything, including its seeming mistake, is part of larger design for the
good of all and the country. -- The most logical interpretation of motive in its said
controversial 1996 "en banc" Decision is that:--in as much as the land under Titulo Prop.
4136 cannot anymore revert to being “public land” (since the lands under Titulo
Propriedad 4136 have since 1894 been owned as private lands, and have actually been
registered with the Spanish Mortgage Law, and the Treaty of Paris of 1898; in addition to
the fact that it was registered under ACT 496 in 1909 by Don Ignacio Conrado and was
issued OCT4136 and most parts of the lands have already been declared “alienable and
disposable” by the Bureau of Forestry, and that it has been a time-honored principle that
“what has become private land cannot anymore become public (land)”), and since the
public-interest nationalist PIADECO has already been prepared and (actually) launched
by the judicially confirmed "next of kin” and "true legal heir" of Don Ignacio Conrado
(Wilfredo Sumulong Torres)--i.e. which the government branded as large syndicate for
they the government was not allowed by Wilfredo Torres to use his legal title to swindle
the people under the guise of the government program such as CMP (community
mortgage program)to fool the underprevelige filipino citizens.Further to democratize the
base of oligarchic power in the Philippines, assert the interest of the people, and to
preempt the lands from getting to fall in the hands of crafty landgrabbers-developers,
(and as well as to the false heirs and fraudulent San Pedro claimants),--the Hon. Supreme
Court in a stroke of statesmanship, with its mighty pen of activist judicial wisdom,
(although not easily understood and particularly discernible to most people), has forever
wrote finish to the celebrated San Pedro controversy, (but not without a happy ending,
and with ultimate poetic justice dispensed in favor of judicially confirmed "next of kin”
and "true legal heir" of Don Mariano E. San Pedro--no other than, Don Ignacio Conrado,
he who has become the last "San Pedro Patriarch").

And, thus how our faith in the Hon. Supreme Court has been strengthened even
more, but only after we have fully understood the whole intent and ramifications of their
1996 "en banc" Decision on the San Pedro controversy. Indeed, the Hon. Supreme Court
dispenses justice to all but ultimately (and mercifully) sides with the disadvantaged
people, and that, today, all rejoice because the people themselves will be served and
benefited by the dramatic resolution on the ownership of the vast tracts of land in
question. On the side of the judicially confirmed next of kin and true legal heirs, we know
of the great sacrifices they have made for the country, and they are always like today
serving as mere instruments for greater cause and of social justice. It is befitting to
remember now that Don Ignacio Conrado died a decent man; he was poor, but he served
the country well, during World War II .

In the manner of seeking justice from the Courts of law, Don Ignacio Conrado was
honest and was above-board in his petitions with the Hon. Courts. Don Ignacio
Conrado did not have the advantage of service of top law firms that require high
compensation, he signed his own petitions to government, but he had the original and
authentic Spanish documents of heirship with Don Mariano E. San Pedro, which he
submitted to the Hon. Courts of law, under Judge Pedro Concepcion hues auxillar of
Manila—the case being ‘res judicata’ and the truth won the day for him.

In regard to the trial on appeal in the Hon. Supreme Court that was initiated by
Pedro Ignacio, alias Engracio F. San Pedro, PIADECO being not a party prevy to the
case has lauded the decision to finish the controversy of San Pedro Estate being mis
represented by Don Engracio San Pedro the pretending heir of Don Mariano San Pedro
Esteban. Who is well known of selling the land to innocent buyer. For it is not the
program of PIADECO to sell the land but to give the land to the land less under its legal
title OCT 4136 a torrens title and not a Spanish Title claim by San Pedro heirs. The
ownership of PIADECO was already recognized by the Honorable Supreme Court in
1968 in GR No. L-24796 and therefore ‘res judicata’.Piadeco being the successor in
interest of Don Ignacio Conrado who foreclosed the San Pedro Estate in 1904 was the
real and lawful owner of the intestate. This was Guaranteed by the government itself
when the Central Bank through the Land Bank of the Philippines issued the Capital bonds
to San Pedro Estate and its successor Piadeco.
Rewards in the fight against unscrupulous land syndicates and as well as against
false heirs and fraudulent claimants. As a result, Don Ignacio Conrado kinship and
heirship with Don Mariano San Pedro Y Esteban had been fully established and
confirmed. Being the one who foreclosed the San Pedro Estate, Don Ignacio Conrado the
lawful owner and its successor Pinagcamaligan Indo Agro Development
Corporation(PIADECO) is the legitimate owner of the subject estate under torrens titles
OCT 374 and TCT 57 derived from Spanish Title when the said land was registered in
1909 under Act 496 by Don Ignacio Conrado. Wilfredo Torres being the Chairman and
President of PIADECO being the defender of the poor against unlawful ejectment and
demolition fought the unscrupulous governement officials not with arms but with his
legal title to the land in his battle in the court of justice but the poor people who depends
on him were many times deprived of their rights by the hoodloms in robe , using the En
Banc Decision of the Supreme Court to mislead the justice system .The En Banc
Decision of the Supreme Court in 1996 declaring Titulo De Propeidad 4136 as null and
void cannot be applied to Torrens title derived from such Spanish Title. In fact its
declaration is just moot and academic why ? because Titulo De Propeidad 4136 was
already cancelled as early as 1909 by virtue of OCT 374 and TCT no. 57 so that no rights
could be derived therefrom because all its rights was already transfered to Torrens title of
Don Ignacio Conrado.In the said decision also the Supreme Court declared that proof of
compliance with PD 892 is the Certificate of Title which is again moot and academic
because certificate of titles were already issued in 1910 out of the Spanish Title 4136,
and the Decision of the Supreme court in 1996 cannot defeat the decision of the Land
Registration Court in 1909 because those justices that renders the decision were not yet
born during that time. Mr. Wilfredo Torres because he was look upon by the poor as
Robin Hood the defender of their rights was branded by Mr. Marcos as Land grabber and
syndicate which until now was continued by the corrupt government officials in our
present time.

Final justice is poetic justice. And lastly, since the syndicates and the unscrupulous
malefactors of the Titulo Propriedad 4136 have greatly abused and exploited the name of
our beloved Don Mariano E. San Pedro, i.e. in amassing hundred thousand hectares, and
in adversely occupying vast tracts of land (as inventoried in the 1976 Order of Judge
Fernandez), and in the collection of double II plans in the name of Don Conrado Ignacio:
it is the stand of this representation and of the Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development
Corporation Inc., in regard to ownership of those lands, that: The law on agency holds!
And we declare, that, howsoever much they have acquired and however far they have
gone to exploit the name of Don Mariano San Pedro, there will we come over to
prosecute the interest of the San Pedro estate—which is now owned, administered and
held in trust by the Pinagcamaligan Indo Agro Development Corporation. —- Sharing a
legacy dedicated to Philippines progress and world understanding .PIADECO whose
program aims for the poor and under privilege filipino citizens to distribute the land to
the land less and the land is not for sale but to be given, this is the reason why some of
the government officials has tried many times to destroy Wilfredo Torres being the
chairman of PIADECO, because many unscrupulous high ranking government officials
could not manipulate him to advance their selfish motives to sell the lands at staggering
prices to the corrupt developers, And therefore branded him as syndicate just like Mr.
Marcos did when Wilfredo Torres refused to sell the San Pedro estate to Marcos in 1968.

_____________

In this connection: the 50,000 has. lands in the provinces of Quezon, Rizal and Laguna
could not have been validly acquired by Green Square Properties Corporation from any
supposed seller it transacted that only misrepresented the San Pedro estate. (Pls. see
G.R. No. 139274, Oct. 2001.) The original Tax Declaration issued in favor of the
successors of Don Mariano San Pedro is, and remains, valid.

We must bear in mind that such Tax Declaration for the 50,000 has. property in Quezon
Rizal and Laguna provinces are in the name of successors of Don Mariano E. San Pedro.
They are here alive, judicially confirmed as “next of kin” and “true legal heirs” of Don
Mariano, and vested with power to succeed the deceased and to administer the San Pedro
estate.

Now that the provincial government of Quezon has received mandate from Hon.
Supreme Court in refusing to honor tax payments by Green Square, then,--the real,
original and legal right and privilege of ownership remain with the said true owners of
the property, or of the San Pedro estate,—whose present institutional judicial
administrator is the Pinagcamaligan Indo- Agro Development Corporation Inc.

The provincial government (in violation of the Constitutional right to property of the
judicially confirmed next of kin and true legal heirs of Don Mariano San Pedro) cannot
invalidate it now in the aftermath of the criminal sales transactions between said
fraudulent parties.

The fraudulent alleged-administrator, who is supposedly an officer of the Court, but does
not have any legal mandate on record (or whose mandate has expired on the date of sales-
transaction with Green Square, in August 1996), together with the Hon. Court who
approved the transaction, must bear full responsibility of the criminal act of large-scale
estafa. (The legal San Pedro estate, much less the Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro
Development Corporation, is innocent and clean on this sales-transaction, they are the
victims here, and should not be visited by the consequences of guilt of the fraudulent
parties in the said criminal sales-transaction.)

For its part, Green Square, a company involved in realty business as it is, if it is not a
colluding co-conspirator in the criminal transaction, must have exercised caution and
should always bear in mind the adage of “Caveat emptor”, even as (particularly) because
of its greed, it chose not to transact with the rightful owner, Don Alejandro P. San Pedro,
Sr., who, at the right time, had just been determined as next of kin and true legal heir of
Don Mariano E. San Pedro, in addition to being appointed by the jurisdictional and fact-
finding Hon. Court as the new Special Administrator of the “estate of Don Mariano E.
San Pedro”. [(Pls. see Bulacan RTC, Br. 15, Spec. Proc. Case No. 312-B, Pres. Judge
Carlos Ofilada, Court Order, dated Jan. 31, 1996, with bond posted, and issued Letters of
Special Administration dated April 15, 1996. Pls. compare said dates with Green Square’s
date of fraudulent-acquisition--August 1996, but from one only misrepresenting the legal
estate of Don Mariano E. San Pedro.)]

Retrieved from "