ToledoCourtCaseHistory
the following is a summary of the court cases regarding the lots that the crystal estate owns in toledo, namely 4126(54ha), 4127(6ha), 4143(10ha), 4129(3.5ha), 3816(6ha), 3817(.12ha), 3820(.4ha), and 4130-E(.4ha). the source of information are the court decisions and orders of cases r-1666, t-215, and t-381.
in 1941, ocang sued rafols over 1 hectar of land and damages.
in 1954, ocang won the case. the 1 hectar was awarded to ocang, and rafols was ordered by the court to pay P30k in damages.
rafols was already dead. so in march of 1957, a public auction on parcels of land owned by rafols (now lots 3816, 3817, 3820, 4143, 4129, 4126, and 4127), was held so ocang can be paid. ocang was the highest bidder so in october of 1957, the auctioned parcels were awarded to ocang. however, by law, the administrator of rafols estate has 1 year to redeem the auctioned parcels
in may 17 1958, rafols assigned their right of redemption to crystal via a deed of assignment, and it was approved by the court. crystal then exercised his right to redeem by paying the sheriff P11,200 using a check. a copy of the check and receipt was presented in court. a deed of redemption was awarded to crystal on may 23 1958.
ocang did not pay her lawyer, so on may 26, 1958, ocang's lawyer filed a lien to prevent ocang from withdrawing the P11,200 paid by crystal. the court approved the lien.
on december 11 1958, pelagia ocang filed a motion to withdraw the P11,200 (held by the sheriff) paid by crystal. this is evidence that ocang has acknowledged the redemption awarded to crystal.
however, by law, the administrator of rafols estate can demand an accounting for the income that ocang benefited from possessing the auctioned parcels during the 7 months (october of 1957 to may of 1958). so the court required pelagia ocang to submit an accounting before she can withdraw the P11,200. but ocang refused to render an accounting.
on febuary 17 1959, pelagia ocang's children and their lawyer atty panares wrote a letter to crystal requesting that the P11,200 be be paid directly to them, and not to their mother pelagia, and that any payment crystal makes to them will be chargeable to the P11,200 already with the sheriff. it is on record, and various receipts shows that crystal paid atty panares and the children of pelagia various amounts that totalled P13,027. however, pelagia ocang retracted from this agreement.
on 1963, there was a cadastral survey on the auctioned lands for the FIRST TIME and the lands were all assigned in the name of RAYMUNDO CRYSTAL VS. PELAGIA OCANG. this means any sale or transaction involving 4126, 4127, 3816, 3817, 4143 and 4129 between 1963 and 1982 is not necessarily valid because there was no court decision and finality yet on the case. the sale can only be valid if the seller won the case.
note that prior to the cadastral survey in 1963, the tax decs had no area specified, just description of boundaries
on january 25 1968, ocang filed for free patent titles for 3816 and 3817, which were issued on august 5 1968.
on june 23 1969, ocang filed a motion for writ of possession, which was granted by the court. crystal filed for reconsideration but was denied. crystal petitioned in the court of appeals but in september 13 1972, the court of appeals decided there was no valid redemption and declared ocang as the absolute owner of the auctioned parcels. on november 3 1972, crystal petitioned in the supreme court. on febuary 25 1975, the supreme court affirmed the court of appeals decision declaring ocang as the absolute owner. (i think the documents on these cases that are very favorable to ocang are what ocang kept using to trick buyers. most likely this is how fr. menchaves was tricked into paying for the 20ha in 4126)
crystal filed a motion for reconsideration. on june 18 1976, the supreme court reconsidered it's decision and called upon the trial court to make a judgement based SOLELY upon the following issues:
1) did ocang receive payment directly or indirectly? if yes, that means the redemption is valid.
2) if the redemption is not valid, who made the improvements? if crystal made the improvements, ocang should not have been given possession until crystal was fully reimbursed for the improvements. (note that since the redemption, the total value as declared in the tax decs increased from P1,140 to P7,987,201 because thousands of trees were planted by lolo, lola, tito bertie, maldo, and jasper's dad). however, if the redemption was valid, this issue is irrelevant.
numerous trials were held where raymundo crystal, disamparados crystal, atty panares, pelagia ocang and her daughter pacita degracia testified and evidence were presented.
on december 2 1982, the court issued a decision in favor of crystal. this 1982 decision was made final and executory on march 20 1989. on august 31 1995, the 1982 decision was affirmed by the court of appeals in toto (meaning word for word). on april 28 2014, there was a court order to issue a certificate of finality for the 1982 decision. on april 29 2014, the certificate of finality for the 1982 decision was issued.
in the 1982 decision, the court explained the following:
1) ocang's claim that the P11,200 check issued by crystal bounced is without merit because the checks that crystal issued does not have a stamp "dishonored for lack of fund". therefore, the checks themselves are strong evidence that there was sufficient funds.
2) ocang and her daughter's claim that they heard the bank teller say that crystal's account had no sufficent fund is inconsistent with their testimony that they were both sitting in the lobby and did not accompany the sheriff to the teller window and that they were too far away to hear what the sheriff and teller were saying.
3) since the sheriff issued an OFFICIAL RECEIPT, crystal's redemption payment is valid. moreover, the supreme court has declared that a check is a valid instrument for payment of a redemption. therefore the redemption is valid. therefore crystal is the absolute owner of the auctioned parcels. all other arguments are moot and academic according to the judge.
4) it was not crystal's fault that ocang was not able to withdraw the P11,200. it was ocang's fault for refusing to submit an accounting for any income they made during the 7 months the parcels where in their possession.
5) in fact, all this time (since 1958), the P11,200 check crystal issued kept getting stale and the sheriff would request crystal to reissue another check but receipts show that crystal religiously issued another check to the sheriff, until crystal finally deposited P11,200 cash to the sheriff in 1974.
6) evidence shows that crystal acted in good faith based on the several payment advances he made to pelagia ocang's children and lawyer that totalled P13,027. ocang's claim that the advances were mere loans has no purpose and ocang's former lawyer admitted in court that ocang's claims are not true.
7) with regards to the issue on who made the improvements, ocang never claimed they made any improvement, while crystal made several claims. therefore, the court has no choice but to decide that it was crystal who made the improvements.
now that the court has established that the redemption was valid, the court needs to decide on ocang's claim that the 60ha lot 4126 is the 1ha lot that they won from the rafols in 1954. the court decided heavily in favor of crystal due to the following reasons:
1) when the crystals took possession of the auctioned lots in 1958, the ocang's never filed a complaint that crystal was occupying the 1ha they won from the rafols. ocang's first mention about it was in 1977 even if the entire time, crystal was making tremendous improvements and planting thousands of trees.
2) the 1963 cadastral survey of 4126 was made in the name of "raymundo crystal vs pelagia ocang". so it cannot be the same lot that ocang won from rafols, or it would have been under "ocang vs rafols". moreover, the ocang-rafols case that awarded the 1ha to ocang was already finalized in 1954, and the cadastral survey was done on 1963.
3) ocang claims her grandfather increased the 1ha to 60ha by tilling it. the court decision explained that there is no such law or rule and even if there is, records show ocang only had possession on 4126 for 7 months so it's impossible for their grandfather to have tilled 60ha in 7 months.
4) ocang testified that the assessor increased their 1ha claim to 16.5ha because they tilled the land. but 4126 is 60ha so ocang's claim is inconsistent with the facts.
5) the lawyer of rafols also pointed out during the hearing that the 60ha 4126 is one of the auction lands that crystal redeemed, not the 1ha awarded to ocang
6) the redemption mentions one of the auctioned lots is bounded by ilag river. if you take out 4126, then there will be no more auctioned lots mentioned in the redemption that is bounded by ilag river. on the other hand, the 1ha awarded by court to ocang does not mention any ilag river boundary.
7) crystal's testimonies are supported by facts - that 4126 used to be just 1 lot but 4127 claimed by inocencio jimenez who lost the court case to the crystals in the court of agrarian relations.
8) the deed of redemption had no area because there was no cadastral survey yet, but by law pursuant to 1542 of the civil code, crystal should be awarded the WHOLE AREA after the cadastral survey.
therefore, the court issued the following final decision:
1) ocang has been fully paid and the deed of redemption is valid, and raymundo crystal and wife disamparados crystal is declared owner of 3816 (now 3816 and 3817), 4129, 4143, 4126 and 4127.
2) decision also acknowledges the various cash advances so the P11,200 with sheriff should go to crystal and ocang should pay crystal P20k in damages and P10k in atty fees, for total of P30k.
on november 10 1988, ocang filed case t-215, quieting of title against crystal, using pretty much the same arguments and evidence in case r-1666. on march 21 1991, the court declared that the properties involved in the case are the same properties covered in case r-1666, for which there already is a certificate of finality in favor of crystal, so the case was dismissed.
(t-215 IS SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT CASE 1352, filed RECENTLY by alferez etal against the crystal estate. since the tax dec of alferez et al and fr. menchavez traces back to ocang, that means all their deed of sale and tax decs are invalid, especially that the properties involved were still under the name "raymundo crystal vs. pelagia ocang" when these transactions occured. there is no doubt that case 1352 recently filed by alferez etal will also be dismissed, just like case t-215)
on march 21 1989, a certificate of sale was issued awarding crystal 4130-E, a 4,000sqm (.4ha) lot as payment from ocang for the P30k damages and atty fees. this should SERVE AS A LESSON to alferez et al, and it would be in their best interest to withdraw the case.
this .4ha 4130-E lot is by the national road and connects to lot 4129 (3.5ha). in between 4129 and the 60ha 4126 is a 5ha lot owned by garces. i offered the garces right of way to the national road if they give us right of way to 4126. they agreed. so now all our lots in toledo have right of way which which increased the value from P100 million to P250 million. this means the P30k in damages lolo demanded increased the valueof the estate by a whopping P150 million.
on june 24 1992, crystal filed case t-381 to cancel the free patents issued to ocang for lots 3816 and 3817 (republic of the philippines vs. ocang). in the june 9 2006 decision, the court declared that ocang filed the free patent through fraud and misrepresentation and ordered the titles canceled. on may 24 2007, a certificate of finality was issued for case t-381. ROD have already issued titles under the name of crystal.