Loakan Green Meadows (Updated – Better Copies of Public Documents)

When registering Loakan Green Meadows Home Owners Association Inc (LGMHOA), Quino Betong identified that all eleven of the incorporating members were CMP Off-Site Applicants.

Why did the incorporation and registration of this CMP HOA entirely exclude a large number of people who had apparently been residing since as early as 1985 on lands that should have very clearly been more correctly termed an “On-Site” CMP project?

 Why did HLURB and NHFMC not spot this obviously strange scenario?

RA7279 Section 7 Item 1 of the Implementing Guidelines for the Acquisition, Valuation, Disposition and Utilization of Lands for Socialized Housing states “Qualified beneficiaries who are actual occupants of the land shall be given the first right of first refusal.”.

The inference being that this “On-Site” CMP should instead have been more properly initiated, incorporated and registered with HLURB by “On-Site” residents/applicants, and that the registration may have been FALSIFIED by an incoming organized professional squatters group controlled thru BBGMFI.

RA7279 Section 33 states “No person who is not a bona fide resident of the area shall be a member or officer of such (Community Mortgage Program) association“.

But Betong supported his HOA registration submission by stating that he had a Residence Certificate issued in Mankayan, so he was NOT QUALIFIED. See below.

Did he own that Mankayan residence, which would prevent him from being a qualified beneficiary member of any proposed CMP, and did HLURB check that matter? We have used family relatives who live in Mankayan to check the ownership of that residence and it would seem that Betong was not qualified.

How did this Mankayan resident manage to jump the long queue of socialized housing beneficiaries registered with Baguio City Government since 1994?

Did HLURB visit and inspect the proposed CMP site to verify how many of the existing residents would be qualified CMP “On-Site” applicants before accepting a registration being submitted solely by “Off-Site” applicants?

Have HLURB and NHFMC properly ascertained whether Betong and any other proposed HOA members are validly registered socialized housing beneficiaries entitled under RA7279 to participate in the Loakan CMP “On-Site” project?

A Secretary’s Certificate dated 13 December 2004 for LGMHOA Board Resolution No. 007 stated that Roehl Mandapat, in his capacity as Administrator of LGMHOA, would be the representative in all proceedings versus illegal squatters. See below.

Mandapat also claimed to be the Administrator, Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer of BBGMFI.

Such a major CONFLICT OF INTEREST would seem unacceptable as Mandapat would potentially be PREJUDICED in favor of BBGMFI and to the detriment of any actual or potential on-site LGMHOA member, but it would clearly be beneficial to supporting any off-site organized incoming professional squatter group being brought in by BBGMFI.

Presuming that they have been informed by BBGMFI and Mandapat, why have NHFMC and HLURB allowed this conflict to occur?

The resolution was passed during a Regular Meeting held by the members on 24 November 2004.

But according to the LGMHOA By-Laws the members do not vote on Board Resolutions – they are voted on only by the directors.

The only Regular Meeting of Members is the Annual Meeting held in January each year.

Regular Board Meetings were required by the By-Laws to be held on the last Sunday of each month – but 24 November was a Wednesday!

The meeting held, whether by members, the board or both, seemingly should have been a Special Meeting preceded by an appropriate petition and written and personally delivered notification.

The meeting that was held was in violation of the By-Laws and thus was ILLEGAL AND INVALID, as were any resolutions passed during that meeting.

This is a matter that needs investigating by HLURB and NHFMC.

The resolution did not identify when a new position of Administrator was validly created or when Mandapat was validly elected to such position.

According to Article X Section 2 of the LGMHOA By-Laws, the amendment of those By-Laws or any (Officer) position thereof seemingly required a resolution that should have been voted on by members at either the Annual Meeting held in January 2003 or 2004 or at a Special Meeting.

No amendment to the By-Laws creating a new Officer position of Administrator had been submitted by LGMHOA to HLURB for approval.

Without that HLURB approval of a new Officer position or election thereto, yet another reason exists as to why Board Resolution No. 007 would be ILLEGAL AND INVALID.

Why did LGMHOA need a new Administrator position?

A HGC document submitted to HLURB identified that LGMHOA had earlier named two incorporating members as Business Manager and Assistant Business Manager.

Why effectively duplicate existing management positions?

Was it so that BBGMFI could ILLEGALLY control the affairs of LGMHOA?

The NHFMC and HLURB need to investigate.

Was Roehl Mandapat legally qualified to be a socialized housing beneficiary member of this CMP HOA pursuant to provisions of RA7279?

If not, then he could not legally and validly become a member or be elected to an Officer position of Administrator, and he could not represent them in a  court case.

Pursuant to RA7279 Section 16, and to qualify for the socialized housing program, a beneficiary must not own any real property whether in urban or rural areas.

Mandapat was not validly qualified to be a socialized housing beneficiary member or officer of LGMHOA because several TCTs for lands located within the proposed BGM CMP project were registered in the name “Lovely Ladignon-Mandapat (or variants thereof), married to Roel (sic) Mandapat”.

HLURB and NHFMC need to investigate the above illegal direct involvement of Roehl Mandapat in the operations of LGMHOA so that HOA members and other affected parties are properly protected.

A Demand to Vacate letter dated 2 June 2003 was issued by Atty. Juan Antonio Alberto III of ABS Law Office, Baguio City to a City Hall employee. See below.

That letter stated “We write for and in behalf of Baguio-Benguet Green Meadows Foundation Incorporated, as represented by Ms. Lovely Ladignon. Kindly be advised that the lot you are occupying …. is owned by Mrs. Rose Teodoro, who in turn had authorized our client to administer said lot.”.

The letter did not enclose any documents to prove the same.

The recipient thus had no reason to comply with a legally unsupported “scare letter” issued in behalf of a person named Lovely Ladignon, who did not appear to be a legally recognized authorized person and representative of BBGMFI or Rose Teodoro.

Was Lovely Ladignon authorized by board trustees to represent BBGMFI?

Most probably not, since the different name Lovely Ladignon-Mandapat was used in SEC documents for BBGMFI and according to RTC Branch 3 Ladignon testimony that name resulted from a marriage that took place earlier in October 2002. 

But if she was not authorized, then why did Atty. Alberto issue a falsified demand letter?

Why was Atty. Alberto using the misleading and possibly falsified name Lovely Ladignon, when he had also earlier in September 2002 notarized the Articles of Incorporation for BBGMFI in which the name Lovely L. Mandapat was used? Does that imply that he was a party to the use of false alias names?

The same Atty. Alberto used the name Mandapat in the November 2003 notarised application for the issue by RTC Branch 10 of duplicate copies of Llorente TCTs.

So Atty. Alberto initially used the name Mandapat in September 2002, then switched to the name Ladignon in June 2003 before  using the name Mandapat again in November 2003.

For an attorney to act in such a misleading manner perhaps requires misconduct investigation by the Philippine Bar Association. 

Was Lovely Ladignon or BBGMFI authorized to act for Rose Teodoro, and was such authority validly legally executed after the 9 May 2003 authority had been granted to Teodoro herself by the other heirs of her husband’s estate?

Most probably not, but BBGMFI are most welcome to publicly clarify this matter and the notarization book details.

But again, if she was not authorized, then why did Atty. Alberto issue a falsified demand letter?

On 30 June 2003, Lovely L. Mandapat of BBGMFI, who was claiming to act for Rose Teodoro, filed a complaint letter with Loakan Proper Barangay Council.

However, that letter was not supported with any attached document identifying that she had obtained legally valid authority to act for Rose Teodoro and other heirs of Prudencio Teodoro.

Thus, absent such a valid authorization, Mandapat may have submitted a falsified complaint.

Mandapat was also not a resident of Loakan Proper and BBGMFI was not a business registered in that barangay.

A 9 July 2003 certification issued by the City Treasurer’s Office identifies that while Lovely Ladignon De Vera Mandapat (yet another of her alias names) had been issued Business Permit No. N-0376-2002 for the year 2002 to engage in “the business of Low Cost Housing for Government Employees”, that permit had not been renewed for the elapsed period of the year 2003.

Thus Lovely Ladignon de Vera, using the suffixed surname Mandapat, that seemingly contradicts the 2007 NSO certification, had not renewed her business license and thus seemingly was not legally entitled to operate a business in Baguio City or as a consequence Loakan.

Given those anomalies, seemingly there was no legally valid reason for Loakan Proper Barangay to proceed any further with the barangay complaint matter. But it did.

Sometime later, Lovely Mandapat, who was claiming to be married to Roehl Mandapat, filed a petition with MTCC Branch 1 for enforcement of barangay agreement. That petition failed.

Atty. Alberto of ABS Law Office issued another Demand to Vacate letter dated 13 July 2004 to the City Hall employee that stated “We write you in representation of the management of Loakan Green Meadows Subdivision, owner of the realty where you are presently occupying. Kindly be reminded that you (sic) lease over the said premises has been tolerated by BBGMFI.” See below.

But was BBGMFI actually the manager, lessor or owner of the said property, and in accordance with legally valid documents, and was there any BBGMFI lease document?

Certainly the letter did not enclose any documents to prove the same.

And if there was never such a lease document, and if there was no document to substantiate that BBGMFI were the legally recognized manager and lessor of Loakan Green Meadows, then Atty. Alberto was issuing a falsified demand.

TCT66606 was still registered in the name Teodoro at that time and not BBGMFI, and there was no encumbrance on the title identifying management/lessor rights that had been asigned to BBGMFI.

The recipient thus still had absolutely no reason to comply with a legally unsupported scare letter issued on behalf of BBGMFI.

NHFMC should investigate whether BBGMFI and Lovely Ladignon had any legal authority to cause the issue of any Demand to Vacate letters, because no CMP project should involve the use of unsupported and illegal coercive threats.

RA7279 Section 28 specifically states “Eviction or demolition as a practise shall be discouraged”.

Loakan Green Meadows Homeowners Association Inc (LGMHOA) Resolution No. 007 also referred to “compromise or amicable settlement” and “alternative modes of dispute resolution”.

Yet Roehl Mandapat seemingly ignored those provisions.

While LGMHOA did not itself issue or cause to be issued any Demand to Vacate letter to the City Hall employee, on 12 January 2005 Roehl Mandapat filed a civil case purportedly on behalf of LGMHOA seeking ejectment (or eviction) of that employee who he alleged was squatting within the CMP project site.

When filing that complaint, Mandapat failed to disclose to the court that LGMHOA were in the process of executing a mortgage deed in favor of BBGMFI, who he was treasurer of, and which was actually executed at the later date of 1 February 2005.  He thus failed to declare his pecuniary interests. See mortgage deed below.

 

 

If LGHOA did not fully pay for the property until February 2005 then it may not have had full legal capacity to sue, and the court was most probably deceived by Mandapat, and that deception may have been criminal in nature.

NHFMC need to investigate.

Did Roehl Mandapat have the authorization of the members of LGMHOA to independently determine which named persons were illegal squatters?

Resolution No. 007 did not grant him that authority.

Therefore another LGMHOA resolution passed by the members would have been needed specifically naming that person as an alleged illegal squatter.

No such resolution was submitted by Mandapat to the court as evidence, so Mandapat’s capacity to sue does not appear to have been fully and properly demonstrated, and his complaint ought to have correctly been dismissed.

Although other LGMHOA resolutions are not available as public documents, it remains quite probable that Mandapat, without the involvement of NHFMC and LGMHOA, used Resolution No. 007 to inappropriately and illegally make his own independent decision that the City Hall employee was a squatter.

The lack of a LGMHOA Demand to Vacate letter would be consistent with any lack of existence of a LGMHOA resolution that the City Hall employee was an alleged illegal squatter.

The City Hall employee, who is related to a beneficiary member of LGMHOA, is unaware of such a resolution being passed.

Why didn’t President Quino Betong represent LGMHOA in that filed case instead of Roehl Mandapat?

Perhaps Reverend Quino M. Betong of the Assemblies of God would be embarrassed by the uncharitable and ungodly nature of filing an ejectment case, or alternatively maybe he was not aware that it had been filed.

But if Mandapat was not legally entitled to be a member or officer of LGMHOA, and the Secretary’s Certificate and Resolution No. 007 were anomalous and not legally admissible, and if there was no additional resolution in which LGMHOA members voted in favor of that specifically named City Hall employee being alleged to be a professional squatter, then it seems Mandapat may have had no valid legal capacity to represent LGMHOA or to file that ejection case.

Indeed, if Betong is not a validly qualified On-Site CMP beneficiary, then he too may not have been been able to file the ejection complaint – may be that is why he did not want to do so?

It seems there was clearly an underlying basic element of doubt regarding the calidity of the filed complaint that should have been further questioned by the court, and even now should be fully investigated by NHFMC and HLURB.

Pursuant to RA7279, Mandapat and LGMHOA should have established before the court that the defendant was actually a professional squatter.

This did not happen.

Why didn’t LGMHOA demonstrate to the court with documents how it had ascertained that the City Hall employee had been a professional squatter since he first occupied his lands in 1985?

Why did the Court decision not make reference to adherence to RA7279 provisions and intent, and NHFMC regulations?

Was the court being deceived by Mandapat?

The City Hall employee has documents to show that he commenced making installment payments in 1984 in consideration for the purchase of his occupied lands from Samuel Carantes.

He also obtained a 1992 barangay certification regarding his residency since 1985.

The existence of those installment payments and residency certification indicate that, pursuant to RA7279, he could not be classified as a professional squatter.

Thus, how could Roehl Mandapat (with or without LGMHOA members agreement) have reached any proper opinion that he was a professional squatter without first getting HLURB and NHFMC involved in joint deliberations with the affected person?

Indeed, if as alleged by Mandapat, that person was a squatter, then by applying the same logic many members of LGMHOA, who similarly first occupied their lands would also be equally classified as professional squatters – a matter that NHFMC may need to investigate?

Why has Betong or LGMHOA never written to this City Hall employee formally inviting him to be a CMP member and providing him with written details of how the CMP will operate and be managed, detailed projected cost breakdowns, Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws and NHFMC Rules and Regulations?

How could Betong expect any potential LGMHOA member to make a properly considered decision to join a CMP HOA without first being provided with copies of such basic information?

Why has NHFMC and HLURB not ensured the proper dissemination of CMP information to all potential beneficiaries?

Even if this potential member was occupying the CMP site, as Mandapat alleged, but he has denied, then as he would be a potential CMP “On-Site” Applicant, he legally had the first right of first refusal to be a CMP beneficiary – a more eminent right than Betong, a declared Mankayan resident and CMP “Off-Site” Applicant, had himself.

Betong, other officers and members of LGMHOA need reminding by HLURB and NHFMC of the penalties for violating the provisions of RA7279.

The ejectment case was decided entirely upon Mandapat’s Position Paper without its legal validity or apparent incompleteness being subject to proper questioning by the defendant or his attorney, because by using procedural rules the Position Paper of the defendant, including his payment receipts, a TSA application and other supporting documents was set aside by the judge.

But how can an ejectment order be logically issued by a judge when the representative of the plaintiff organization may not have been a legally valid representative and he does not submit a document evidencing that that organization has specifically resolved that the named defendant is an alleged squatter?

Surely a Judge should properly consider such matters otherwise any decision he makes is liekly to be unsound.

The court decision was also issued after a hearing when Plaintiff Mandapat did not turn up, which perhaps reflected the fact that he had already resigned from BBGMFI and quite possibly no longer represented LGMHOA.

Assuming that he had resigned, why did LGMHOA members not vote on a resolution for a replacement representative and advise the court accordingly, unless alternatively, as seems likely. they did not know the case had been filed or that hearings were taking place.

The judge should have ordered LGMHOA and its attorney to advise why Mandapat did not attend before he concluded his decision on the case in favor of Mandapat?

Unfortunately, the City Hall employee was let down by public attorneys who apparently failed to file his position paper on time.

However, a court is permitted to use its discretion and set aside those procedural time limitations in such negligence circumstances, particularly when the application of a technical procedure deprives the defendant of due process of law and results in outright deprivation of his alleged property.

There are existing case precedents such as Salonga vs Court of Appeals.

The judge also ordered the City Hall employee to pay Php 15,000 per month rental for the use of a mere 455 sq. m of supposedly low cost housing land.

Strangely, the judge does not seem to have ascertained from Mandapat the actual purchase price paid for the CMP lands by LGMHOA prior to ordering payment of the exact rental that had been claimed.

Had he done so, and by using simple arithmetic, he could have ascertained that the amount being claimed by Mandapat equated to a whopping rental return of 45% per annum!

By golly, hardly consistent with a low cost socialized CMP housing project site!

And most certainly a decision that would be inconsistent with the objectives of the CMP Program and the NHFMC/SHFC

A case of ill-considered or unfair and unreasonable judgment or should we all be rushing to purchase land to rent at an excessive profit in Loakan?

Was the judge paid off for such an unfair decision?

Further, if as was alleged by the City Hall employee, he really does live outside the boundaries of TCT84474, then how can that one-sided court judgment ever be physically enforced?

Surely it would have been better, more professional, practical, fair and reasonable for the court at its first hearing, and before any position papers were ordered or submitted, to have ordered a joint geodetic survey witnessed by Bureau of Lands and NHFMC officials.

Given the close association between Lovely Ladignon-Mandapat and another Judge (Borreta) perhaps the Supreme Court need to review how this case against the City Hall employee has been handled, particularly the reliance on a procedural matter and seeming failure of the judge to take into account RA7279 provisions. Perhaps the two judges belong to the same fraternity?

Irrespective of any lack of full consideration given to the matter by the courts, it would seem that the NHFMC and HLURB need to intervene and ensure that LGMHOA act in a responsible, fair and reasonable manner by properly following RA7279 CMP rules and regulations, otherwise the integrity of the CMP scheme will be compromised.

NHFMC and HLURB need to become actively involved and investigate the manner of any attempted ejection by “off-site” applicants of a person alleged to be occupying part of a proposed “On-site” CMP project, particularly the failure by LGMHOA and Mandapat to disclose to the court necessary compliance with any over-riding provisions of RA7279, the major conflict of interest involving Roehl Mandapat, and whether he was validly qualified to be appointed Administrator for LGMHOA or represent it and file a court case against a specific named person.

Did BBGMFI, LGMHOA and Mandapat correctly advise NHFMC and HLURB of the existence of that land ownership dispute which had not been settled at the time funding was granted/approved by NHFMC?

NHFMC guidelines indicate that projects subject to land ownership disputes cannot be approved for funding.

So was funding falsely and illegally obtained because BBGMFI withheld information on the land ownership dispute from NHFMC?

NHFMC need to investigate.

Just another matter that COA and the Ombudsman can also investigate. It would not be the first time that COA has ruled that NHFMC funds have been illegally disbursed.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: