ORDER October 19, 1989 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT National Capital Judicial Region Branch 111, Pasay City WILSON ORFINADA CIVIL CASE NO. 3957-P Plaintiffs For: Quieting of Titles Reconveyance of Real -VS- Properties with Reconstitution of OCT No MACARIO RODRIGUEZ ET AL T 01-4 and TCT No T 408 THE HEIRS OF DON MIGUEL AND T-498 in accordance HERMOGENES ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ with Rep. Act No. 26 DOÑA AURORA FABELA Y CORDOVA in the name of Don PATRICIA TIONGSON/RICARDO and Prince Lacan Ulrijal SEVERINO MANOTOK Bolkiah Tagean Tallano/ PONCIANO/DR NICANOR PADILLA Acop/ Don Esteban CONDRADO POTENCIANO & HEIRS Benitez Tallano FELIMON AGUILAR/MANNY VILLAR & CO. ) FORTUNATO SANTIAGO AND MARIA ) PANTANILLA P. SANTIAGO AND HEIRS ) MARCOS ESTANISLAO AND MAURICIO ) DE LOS SANTOS/ANTONIO & EULALIO RAGUA ) DON MARIANO SAN PEDRO Y ESTEBAN ) AND MARIA SOCORRO CONDRADO HEIRS ) THE HEIRS OF FLORENCIA RODRIGUEZ ) DON ESTEBAN BENITEZ TALLANO and ) HARRY STONEHILL ET.AL. ) ENGRACIO SAN PEDRO AND HEIRS ) THE ADMINISTRATOR OF BICUTAN ) MARKET/ MAYSILO ESTATE, ET. AL. ) PEDRO GREGORIO / AGAPITO BONSON ) AND HEIRS / BALBINO FRANCISCO ) PEDRO ROJAS ESTATE AND HEIRS ) EUGENIO MARCELO / JUAN JOSEF ) SANTIAGO GARCIA AND HEIRS ) MARIANO NONES AND HEIRS ) ORTIGAS AND COMPANY PARTNERSHIP/ ) THE AYALA Y CIA AND CO., THE V.V. ) SOLIVEN REALTY AND CO., INC., ) JOSE YAO CAMPOS AND COMPANY ) GREGORIO ARANETA AND CO., INC., ) THE ADMINISTRATOR OF PASAY AND ) TRIPLE ESTATES / AND THE MARICABAN ) ESTATE / PERPETUA AND PERFECTO ) AQUINO, ET. AL., ANTONIO FAEL THE ) ADMINISTRATOR OF SAN PEDRO ESTATE ) JOSE SALVADOR / MAGNO FERNANDEZ/ ) CANDIDA DE GUIA AND HER TENANTS ) HARRY STONEHILLS/ TRUSTEE/ MORGAGEE ) DOÑA DOLORES OCHOA CASAL AND ) DELFIN CASAL ET AL /SIMONA ESTATE ) AND THE HEIRS / EXEQUIEL DELA CRUZ ) AND HEIRS/GERVACIO LOMBO, ) FRANCISCO SORIANO / QUINTN MEJIA/ ) CATALINA ESTANISLAO AND THE HEIRS/ ) JUANA CRUZ AND HEIRS/ GABINO JAVIER ) AND HEIRS/THE MODESTO, EULALIO, TOMAS ) APOLONIO, PEDRO, FRANCISCO, AND )` ANTONIO CRUZ, RAFAEL SARAO, ) JOSE OLIVER AND THE HEIRS ) DOMINADOR DE OCANPO BUHAIN, ET.AL. ) MANUEL QUIOGUE, ESTANISLAO, ) EDUARDO AND BERNABE CARDOSO AND ) THE HEIRS, ANTONIO AQUIAL, ) FELIX AND CLAUDIO OSORIO AND HEIRS ) REGINO DELA CRUZ / GIL SANTIAGO ) MARCIANO TUAZON AND J. TUAZON AND ) COMPANY, JULIAN AND JUAN FRANCISCO ) SARAO MOTORS/ FRANCISCO MOTORS CORP. ) PHILIPPINE SHARE COMPANY ) PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ) CORNELIO BERING/ YANCO BERING ET AL ) DR. FRANCISCO Y. PANOL/ AND ALL PERSONS ) UNDER THEM/VICENTE BAYAN AND THE HEIRS ) ANGEL AND CRISOSTOMO BAUTISTA AND HEIRS ) FAIRLAND CEV. CORPORATION AND HO. CITY ) MAYOR JUN SIMON AND CITY GOVT. OF Q.C. ) TEODORO LIM, FELIX BAEZ AND HEIRS ) VALINTINO GAJUDO/ CANDIDO CLEOFAS ) FORT WILLIAM MCKINLEY AND THE ) MANILA RAILROADS COMPANY ) UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES ) THRU HONORABLE SOLICITOR GENERAL/ ) THE DENR AND THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND ) REGISTRATION COMMISSION/ THE REGISTER ) OF DEEDS OF ANGELES CITY/HON.REGISTER OF ) DEEDS OF BAGUIO CITY/CITY GOVT. OF MLA ) THE CITY GOVT. OF BAGUIO/ THE CITY GOVT. ) OF PASAY AND MAYOR PABLO CUNETA/ ) THE PROV. GOVT.OF CAVITE/THE MUN. GOVT. ) OF DASMARINAS/THE MUN GOVT. OF IMUS, CAVITE ) THE MUN. GOVERNMENT OF ROSARIO, CAVITE ) THE MUN GOVT. OF BACOOR/THE CITY GOVT. ) AND THE HON. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ) TAGAYTAY OF CAVITE PROVINCE ) THE HON MAYOR AND CITY GOVT. OF PALAYAN ) THE PROV.GOVT. OF PALAWAN ) THTE HON. ADMINISTRATOR OF MMDA ) THE HONORABLE DIRECTOR OF BUREAU ) OF LANDS.THE DEPT OF PUBLIC WORK AND ) HIGHWAY/THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) AND TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN ) Defendants ) DON ANNACLETO MADRIGAL ACOP ) PRINCE JULIAN MORDEN TALLANO ) DEFENDANTS/ITERVENORS ) X----------------------------------------------------------------------X O R D E R The Republic of the Philippines, movant in this interlocutory action, thru theOffice of the Solicitor General, on February 7, 1989, filed a Motion For New Trial to set aside the Intervenor’s Motion for the issuance of Third Alias Writ of Execution and or for the Annulment of Judgment/Decision With Comprise Agreement of February 4, 1972, availing the wisdom in the manner and under the Circumstances provided in Section 145, 16 and 147 of the Code of Civil Procedures row Rule 37 and of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court and against the Intervenor, Prince Julian Morden Tallano- Principal Party In Interest under LRC/CIVIL Case No. 3957-P, with injuctive mode restraining the intended issuance of Third Alias Writ of Execution, Possession and Demolition for and in favor of the legitimate land owner, the TALLANO CLANS embracing vast track of TALA ESTATE and its Titles covered by OCT No. T-01-4, TCT No. T 408 and TCT No. T 498. Further averred by the Movant, Republic of the Philippines, an Aggrieved party in a Registration procedings may avail himself such legal remedy, a Motion For New Trial, which is an equivalent to MOtion For Reconsideration, is sustainable invoking the virtue of Section 14, of Act 496, as amended by Section 1 of Act No. 1484, expressly provides that in Registration proceedings the trial court may grant a new trial in any case that has not passed to the appellate Court, in the manner and under circumstances cited above. However, the respondent/Intervenor in the case at bar, in the person of Prince Julian Morden Tallano, a Court Appointed Judicial Adminstrator of the aforementioned TALA ESTATE, and an appointed EXECUTOR by and through the Assistance of the Legal Counsel on record, Atty. Liberato Bauto, likewise had submitted an OMNIBUS MOTION WITH LEAVE OF COURT TO ADMIT his opposition to the motion of the Office of Solicitor General, and with Prayers to issuea WRIT OF PRELIMINARY PROHIBITORY MANDATORY INJUNCTION against the Republic of the Philippines and all defeated party or parties which said motion has been provided within the ambit of Sec. 1, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, as cited in a Bengzon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.L-82568, May 31, 1988, 161, SCRA 745, which states that a writ of preliminary injuction, as an ancillary or preventive remedy may only be resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his right or interest and for no other purpose dueing the pendency of the principal action, that there must be a valid and clear showing by the complaint vased on the following: 1) There must be right in esse or the existence of the rights to be protected 2) The act against which the injuction to be directed is a violation of such right (Sales vs. Security and Exchange Commission, G.R. 54330, Jan. 13,1989, National Power Corporation vs. Vera, G.R. No. 83558, February 27, 1989. For the petitioner to be entitled to the injunctive writ, they must show that there exists a right to be protected and that the facts against which the injunction is directed are violative of such right (National Corporation vs. Vera, 170, SC RA 721 (February 27, 1989); Araneta vs. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil. 328 (1957). And in the motion of the Court Appointed Judicial Administrator, Prince Julian Morden Tallano, the following as it have been prayed of r are to be resolved pursuant to the dictum of the law and jurisprudence; here to wit: 1) DENYING THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR FOR THE ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT REFERRED TO DECISION WITH COMPROMISE AGREEMENT TO SET ASIDE SAID MOTION ON THE GROUND OF LACK JURISDICTION AND SAID MOTION BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID AND BE DENIED ON THE GROUND OF LACHES. ESTOPPELS AND THE SAID MOTION HAD BEEN FILED OUT OF TIME, WHILE, THE OSG had ably participated the proceedings so to question Jurisdiction has barred by the rules. 2) COMMANDING THE HON. LAND REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATION, ITS SUBORDINATE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCES, CITIES OR MUNICIPALITIES, to issue a corresponding segregated land title derivative form either OCT No. T01-4, TCT No. T 408 and TCT No. T 498 for and in the name of the heirs of the so called registered owners, represented by their Court Appointed Judicial Administrator, whose real Properties evidenced by land titles aforementioned. 3) Likewise commanding the Office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Department of Finance and its Instrumental Office Agencies ; the Office of Provincial, City and Municipal Treasurers and Assessors, to implement and adopt the TAX EXEMPTION in term of realty Tax in favor of the TALA ESTATE owner, embodied in Presidential Proclamation/Decree No. 2016, in as much as portion of the TALA ESTATE has been utilized and still utilizing into Urban and Agricultural Land Reform Program and Development for the interest of the government and concerns government agencies and its instrumentalities. 4) And that government agencies, specifically Register of Deeds, that have jurisdiction to cancel all sales patent purported to be legitimate sales patent covering portion of the TALA ESTATE issued by the Republic of the Philippines through former Presidents, from the very birth of this Republic up to this time, where both the depose and now the incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines remained indiscriminately issuing sales patent and or Free Patent, particularly, President Ferdinand E. Marcos, which necessitate the declaration of the Court for nullity and for quieting of all land titles,; OCT/TCT that over lapsed the title of the Tala Estate and the clans’ ownership embodied in the DECISION WITH COMPROMISE AGREEMENT of February 4, 1972. This includes the issuance of recontructed copy of ruined Cadastral Plan/PSU 2031, and Survey Plan II-01, of which said plan was amended into Plan II-69, shall be well repected together with undertaking to release the copies of reconstituted OCT No. T 01-4, TCT No. T 408 and TCT No. 498 embracing lands in Metro Manila, portion of Region 3, Region IV, IV-A particularly covering the CRISOSTOMO ESTATE in Cabanatuan City with that of OCT No.