Adverse claim

An adverse claim is a legal remedy for any person who may have a stake or claim upon registered property.
A person who has a claim upon a certain real property will make a sworn statement and file it with the register of deeds.
The register of deeds will inscribe the claim in the title so that the entire world will be informed that there is a person making a claim over a certain property.
The adverse effects of any adverse claim is that persons will be wary in dealing with registered property with an inscribed adverse claim.
Banks for instance, will not easily approve loans where the collaterals are registered property with an adverse claim.
Actually banks won't.
The general rule is that an adverse claim serves as a warning to people to be careful in dealing with registered property with an inscribed adverse claim.
But my client, Manny, a real estate broker says this general rule is not always applicable and there are exceptions.
He said that registered properties in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig for instance have adverse claims from the city of Makati.
This means that for every title of real property in Taguig, the city of Makati registered an adverse claim.
Manny says people dealing with real properties in Taguig always make sure that the titles have adverse claims by the city of Makati.
If there is no such adverse claim, a doubt ensues on the authenticity of the title.
Manny says people feel more secure if the titles of properties in Fort Bonifacio have adverse claims by the city of Makati.
This means that the property is genuine.
It means the property is valuable.
It is coveted.
Weird, right?

Inquirer picks up Perdices-Dindo suits

The Inquirer website, a partner of the Philippine Daily Inquirer has picked up the story of the swapping of suits between Dumaguete mayor Agustin Perdices and Negros Chronicle columnist Dindo P. Generoso. The story written by Inquirer Dumaguete correspondent Alex Pal is titled: "Dumaguete journalist, mayor swap civil suits"
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines has also circulated the Inquirer news article in its newsgroups and will shortly post in on its alerts on its website.

Perdices used switched, falsified public document

Contrary to what others may think, the crime of falsification is not limited to forgery.
In our Revised Penal Code, the felony of falsification could also be committed when a person engages in switching of documents.
The switching of a page or pages of a document that would make it appear that a person performed an act, when in truth that person did not perform such act, is criminal.
If the switched document would result in attributing to a person acts or statements other than those made by him in the genuine document, that would also constitute falsification.
For example, a genuine document shows a certain person signing as witness in a public document.
But the falsifier switches that document with another document where it now appears that another person, say Governor Macias, witnessed the execution of the document, instead of that other person, that is falsification of public document.
It is falsification because the falsifier made it appear that Governor Macias signed as witness to the execution of a document, when in truth, he did not.
Not only the actual falsifier is liable, but the one who used such falsified document is criminally responsible.
It would be worse if such falsification is used in judicial proceedings.
Unfortunately, this is what Mayor Agustin Perdices did.
This is what journalist Dindo Generoso discovered in the defamation suit filed by Mayor Agustin Perdices against him (Civil Case 2007-66), pending in the sala of city judge Antonio Estoconing.
Here is what happened.
Mayor Perdices filed an amended complaint against Mercedarius Dindo Generoso sometime in August 2007.
Perdices attached as his Annex “A” a purported two-page contract of services between then Governor George Arnaiz and Dindo Generoso.
The contract shows that the provincial government engaged the services of Dindo as tourism official for the six month period from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007.
However, the second page of the contract, which bore the signatures of the parties, the witnesses, and the notarization, was replaced by another document, completely alien to the contract.
As a result, the signature of Dindo was already different.
As a result, it appears that then Rep. Macias was a witness to the contract. The genuine did not show Macias as witness.
As a result of the falsification, it now appears that the contract was notarized in 2006.
In truth, the document was notarized in the year 2007.
As a result, the signature of Dindo on the second page (the fake page) is different from the signature he affixed on the first, genuine page.
Under oath, Mayor Perdices used such falsified document in his civil suit against Dindo.
Terrible.
Dindo and I just shook our heads.
Worse, during the pre-trial, the copy of the falsified public document was offered to Dindo for admission.
Knowing that the public document was falsified, since the second page was replaced with another alien (fake) page, Dindo of course refused to admit.
Dindo now is challenging Mr. Perdices, and his legal counsels to produce an original of such document, if at all such exists. (Good luck).
If unable to produce, Dindo is set to file criminal charges of falsification of public documents against Perdices and his lawyers.
The rule is that of a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification.
We don’t know how judge Estoconing will appreciate this brazen criminal act before his court. That is his call. It is his court that is being blatantly mocked.
That is not really our utmost concern.
Our concern is on matters of public policy.
Our worry is, since it is our dear Mayor Perdices who is using a falsified document---in a judicial proceeding at that---it makes us wonder.
Are there documents at city hall which are falsified also?
If ordinary citizens deal with city hall, how sure are we that falsified documents are not being used by Mayor Perdices?
How sure are we that Mayor Perdices does not use switched public documents in his dealings at city hall?
We thus deem it our civic duty as journalists to warn fellow citizens.
When you deal with city hall, or with Mayor Perdices for that matter, be wary.
Be on guard against document switching.
What a sad story to tell.

Daddy demanding support from own child

Let's talk about "Support" in our Family Code.

Under the Family law, support comprises everything indispensable for (1) sustenance, (2) dwelling, (2) clothing, (3) medical attendance, (4) education and (5) transportation.
In short, support is to be given to a family member when it is needed for continued existence.
It is normal that minor children, specially when they are still in school, have to be accorded support by parents.
It is not also abnormal that a parent seeks support from his children, specially when he is already old, and has no means of getting income for his food and continued existence.
What is abnormal, though, is when a parent, who is exercising a profession, earning income, in the fit of health, demands support from his own children.
There is a story about a former high ranking city official, who, while engaging in his private profession, filed a complaint against his own child. Daddy is demanding that he be supported by his own child.
The child, I heard from the grapevine, is very suspicious as to why the daddy, who has a profession of his own, is earning income, as able-bodied (baskug), and is a good provider, is demanding support.
The child strongly suspects that the father filed a complaint seeking support in order to help maintain his “chiquiting”. Daddy is Mr. Valentino.
That is why the child resisted giving extra money to daddy.
The internal parent-child squabble has jumped out of the domestic window and has turned into a pending case where daddy is the complainant for Support pendente lite, while the child is respondent.

Support pendente lite means daddy is asking that support be given "while the case is pending."

Ikaw giyud daddy... sobra na pod nang imo...
The presiding officer handling the complaint is bewildered.
I think daddy "groovy", the former city official, has a distorted understanding of the concept of Support in our law.
Daddy ought to be reminded that support is demandable only for things which are indispensable for sustenance and continued existence, not for maintenance of extra-curricular activities.
According to a report I got, in one proceeding, the child reportedly complained that daddy is maintaining a young lady whose age is not far from that of the child.
The complaining daddy reportedly retorted, slyly: “Alang-alang manguyab ta ug tigulang.”
Guess who the daddy "groovy" is?
e-mail: elmarjay@pldtdsl.net

Court acquits alleged drug pushers

A regional trial court in Dumaguete City has acquitted two accused of drug selling.
The reason for their acquittal was that the prosecution lacked the evidence to prove the charges that the accused indeed sold or poseessed drugs.
The court found that while the charge was that the accused sold nine packs of shabu, only frive packs were presented.
The court also was not convinced of the conspiracy charge by the prosecution.
Here is the press relase submitted by lawyer Raymund Mercado who acted as counsel for the acquitted:

LAW PROTECTS DRUG
SUSPECT - SET FREE

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAST JANUARY 23, 2008 DISMISSED THE CASES AGAINST KHALIL OROZCO y VILLARIZA and CORNELIO GRAPA y ROSALES FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 [DRUG SELLING] AND SECTION 11 [ILLEGAL POSSESSION] REPUBLIC ACT 9165 AFTER ACTING FAVORABLY ON THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE FILED BY THE MERCADO & PARTNERS LAW FIRM THROUGH ITS’ SENIOR PARTNER ATTY. RAYMUND J.A. MERCADO.

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 30 PRESIDED OVER BY HON. JUDGE CRESENCIO TAN GAVE CREDENCE ON THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE FILED BY THE MERCADO & PARTNERS LAW FIRM ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

1. THE NUMBER OF ALLEGED PLASTIC SACHET OF SHABU CONFISCATED ON THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 NUMBERED ONLY FIVE BUT THE CRIMINAL INFORMATIONS FILED IN COURT FOR THE TWO [2] CASES TOTALLED NINE [9] IN ALL. THUS, THE ELEMENT OF CORPUS DELICTI REQUIRED IN DRUG CASES HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHED.

2. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE CONSPIRARY OF THE TWO ACCUSED IN THE CASE OF DRUG SELLING. THE COURT ADDED THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER ON THE PARTICIPATION OF ACCUSED GRAPA IN ANY WAY IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED. MERE PRESENCE OF A PERSON AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME DOES NOT MAKE HIM A CONSPIRATOR FOR CONSPIRARY TRANSCENDS COMPANIONSHIP.

THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE DRIVE AGAINTS ILLEGAL DRUGS DESERVES EVERYBODY SUPPORT. DRUG ADDICTION IS DETESTABLE IN ANY SOCIETY. HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS THE DUTY TO PROTECT THE ACCUSED WHERE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED FAILED TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.