04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly HONORABLE COURT BUT TO THE UNCONTROVERTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE RESPONDENT'S ADMISSIONS AS WELL. II. IN REJECTING THE PETITIONERS' CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDHOLDINGS IN DISPUTE, THE COURT A QUO HAS GONE BEYOND THE ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENT AND HAS IN EFFECT COLLATERALLY ATTACKED AND NULLIFIED THE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE IN THE NAMES OF PETITIONERS' ANCESTORS, CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE.[36] III. THE COURT A QUO'S IMPOSITION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PRESENTATION OF AN EXECUTIVE DECLARATION OF ALIENABILITY AS A CONDITION TO THE RECOGNITION OF PETITIONERS' ALREADY PERFECTED CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.[37] IV. THE COURT A QUO'S RULING WITHHOLDING RECOGNITION OF PETITIONERS' PERFECTED CLAIMS TO THEIR CALAUIT LANDHOLDINGS RUNS COUNTER TO THE CONTROLLING CASE OF Sta. Monica Industrial and Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals INVOLVING CLOSELY SIMILAR FACTS.[38] V. THE COURT A QUO VIOLATED THE BASIC RULES OF EVIDENCE AND CONTRAVENED SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE IN ADMITTING THE UNNOTARIZED RESETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IN DISPUTE DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOT A SINGLE WITNESS WAS PRESENTED TO DISCLOSE THEIR SOURCE AND TO ATTEST TO THEIR DUE EXECUTION AND DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF THE OFFICIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THEIR COMPLETENESS AS OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.[39] VI. THE DECISION HAS IGNORED THE UNREBUTTED TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND THE DOCUMENTED ADMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT ESTABLISHING THE VIOLENCE, THREATS, FRAUD AND DECEIT EMPLOYED TO COMPEL PETITIONERS TO SUBMIT TO THEIR RELOCATION, AND WARRANTING A DECLARATION OF THE NULLITY OF THE RESETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, ASSUMING THEIR EXECUTION BY PETITIONERS. VII. THE COURT A QUO FURTHER IGNORED THE UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND THE DOCUMENTED ADMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT, ESTABLISHING THE NON-ARABLE CHARACTER OF THE LANDS ALLOTTED TO PETITIONERS IN THE RESETTLEMENT SITES AND THE SUB HUMAN CONDITIONS PREVAILING THEREIN WHICH JUSTIFIED THE UNILATERAL RESCISSION OF THE RESETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, ASSUMING ARGUENDO THEIR EXECUTION BY PETITIONERS.[40] VIII. THE TRIAL COURT AND [THE] COURT OF APPEALS HA[VE] ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION IN GRANTING RESPONDENT THE RIGHT TO EVICT PETITIONERS AGAIN AND TO HAVE THEM RELOCATED IN "A MORE SUITABLE" RESETTLEMENT SITE.[41] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61037 8/19