18 December 2015

Angel’s camp failed to establish their ownership of #36 T. Sora – desperate indeed



ANSWERING “FALLEN ANGELS”
(“End-Time Antichrists”)
Point-by-point discussion answering those opposing
the Church Administration
part 62

WHAT HAPPENED IN
#36 TANDANG SORA
LAST DECEMBER 15?
Part Two

“Angel and Lottie failed to establish their ownership of #36 Tandang Sora,
they are very desperate indeed”
 


WHAT was supposed to take place last December 15 was a simple ocular inspection ordered by the court to determine the number and identities of the occupants of #36 Tandang Sora. The respondents Angel Manalo and company made “commotions” during that day because they were caught unprepared. What aggravated the “situation of Angel Manalo and company forcing them to make “commotion” on that day?


Angel and Lottie failed to establish their
ownership of #36 Tandang Sora

On that day, December 15, Rovic Canono, a.k.a. “Sher Lock”, posted in his FB account the following:

WHAT WENT ON BEFORE: A few months back, INC filed a case asking the court to prevent people from entering Bro. EGM house at 36 Tandang Sora, claiming that the property is owned by INC. INC thereafter stationed security guards and 2 guardhouses plus portalets to block off the 2 gates of the house. Recently, it was proven with the discovery of evidences that the true and legal owners of the property are spouses Bro. Ed and Sis. Kottie Hemedez and that INC only forged the Deed of Sale transferring the property from the Hemedez to INC. INC falsified the sale documents and made it appear that Bro. Ed signed the document in 2015 when in fact he has been deceased years ago. Back to the case, the judge ordered a Status Quo which prevents both parties from committing unnecessary acts that maybe construed as aggressive moves against each other. However INC has been violating this order by encroaching the compound with movable fences and guarded by armed men. Tomorrow Wednesday December 16 there will be a hearing wherein Sis. Lottie is set to testify and present to court the falsified documents wherein the ownership will be established once and for all, which are the Hemedez and NOT INC.

Angel Manalo’s camp claim that #36 Tandang Sora is owned by Lottie and Ed Hemedez and not INC. To back this, they further claim “it was proven with the discovery of evidences that the true and legal owners of the property are spouses Bro. Ed and Sis. Lottie Hemedez and that INC only forged the Deed of Sale transferring the property from the Hemedez to INC. INC falsified the sale documents and made it appear that Bro. Ed signed the document in 2015 when in fact he has been deceased years ago.”

With this document, Angel’s camp boasted that “Tomorrow Wednesday December 16 there will be a hearing wherein Sis. Lottie is set to testify and present to court the falsified documents wherein the ownership will be established once and for all, which are the Hemedez and NOT INC.

This document was posted in social media by angel’s camp about a month now. You can see this document posted in the timeline of the FB accounts of many “Fallen Angels, if not all. They are trying to convince the public that they own #36 Tandang Sora. However, THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO blog responded and published an article refuting Angel and Lottie’s claim. Please see the article: “Who owns #36 Tandang Sora? An in-depth analysis of the Issue”
http://theiglesianicristo.blogspot.com/2015/12/who-owns-36-tandang-sora-in-depth.html

Angel’s camp failed to respond or answer this article of THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO blog. Inspite of this, Rovic Canono boasted that this document will be presented to the court by Lottie Hemedez on December 16, 2015. Do they really have the guts to present this document to the court?


Examing the “Deed of Sale” which Angel’s camp claim as proof
that Hemedez owns the #36 Tandang Sora and not the INC

As Angel’s camp claims that this “falsified documents wherein the ownership will be established once and for all, which are the Hemedez and NOT INC.” Do these documents can truly establish that the Hemedez and not the INC who is the true owner of the #36 Tandang Sora? Why in ttuyh, they don’t have the guts to present these documents to the court? Please ponder these points:

(1) If the said documents are truly what they say as falsified and used by the INC to claim #36 Tandang Sora, HOW COME IT’S THE OTHER WAY AROUND?

It was Angel’s camp who wave this “document” and even presented this in public through social media and Rappler. Isn’t that this “Deed of Sale” that as they claim used by INC to claim ownership of #36 Tandang Sora should be in the hands of CENTRAL? But again, reality proves otherwise. It is them and not the INC who holds and presented these documents in the scial media, and it is them who are using these documents to back their claim.

(2)  For the sake of educating the Angel, Lottie and including their lawyers, the “deed of sale” works in a bilateral manner – both the vendor and the vendee sign as two parties in the contract. However, in the document they presented, ONLY ONE PARTY HAS SIGNED THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, that of Lolita Hemedez. The suppossed vendee or buyer, the Executive Minister of the INC as the Corporation Sole or his official representative HAS NO SIGNATURE in the said “Deed of Sale.”

When Angel’s camp presented this document to the public through social media and Rappler, they pose the question, "How the hell, can a dead man rise from the dead and sign in 2015?". Well I say the opposite. Since the name or representation of the Church did not sign on the document, and the document is in the possesssion of the fallen angels, then that absurd humor should be directed by the fallen angels to Lottie Hemedez herself. With that simple slip, they are caught in a loop vortex which they cannot make their way out.

This “deed of sale” presented by Angel’s camp, the Church cannot and will never use it as support for evicting them. On the other hand, if the Fallen Angels will use it to support their claim of land-grabbing, then that doesn’t serve their purpose as well and THEY WILL BE IN MORE TROUBLE since no signatory from CENTRAL as vendee or buyer. This will more of a problem or a liability in the side of the Fallen Angels.

(3) Of course the “deed of sale” is notarized. However, it is hard to believe that one of the experienced and "de-campanilla" litigators of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines will just notarize as quick as that. Remember the basics in the ruling on Notarial Law:

“A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed making the acknowledgment will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant. A notary public is enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. The function of a notary public, is among others, to guard against any illegal deed.” [MARINA C. GONZALES vs. ATTY. CALIXTO B. RAMOS [A.C. No. 6649. June 21, 2005].

INC has not even a mark of representation in the document, while “A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.”

The “deed of sale” was notarized; ONLY ONE PARTY HAS SIGNED THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, that of Lolita Hemedez and INC has not even a mark of representation in the document; “A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein”; and the one who notarized it is one of the experienced and "de-campanilla" litigators of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

So, who made this “deed of sale” notarized? The only party signatories of the document, that of Lolita Hemedez. Is this document genuine? According to Angel’s camp it is a fraud or a falsified document. Thus, who made or fabricated this falsified document, the signatories of the document who made it notarized, Lolita Hemedez.

Thus, the reason they don’t have the guts to present this “deed of sale” in the court, but instead using it as a propaganda material posted in social media, because they knew that this document is a falsified document and the document itself shows who falsified or fabricated the document, Lottie’s camp.



Conclusion



Thus, Angel and Lottie failed dearly in establishing ownership of #36 Tandang Sora. They don’t have any concrete evidences to back their claim. What they have are falsified documents meant only as propaganda materials, and if use in court, they will probably be slapped in the face of criminal charges like falsifying public documents and fraud. They are indeed in a very, very, very desperate situation which to establish their ownership of #36 Tandang Sora, they resort to falsifying documents and spreading lies especially in the social media, and tried to hide the truth. Then, came the court order to conduct ocular inspection of #36 Tandang Sora which they were caught unprepared. Because they are “hiding something”, no wonder they became “hysterical” and made commotions in what was supposed to be a simple ocular inspection.


Please also read or see Part Three of the article
WHAT HAPPENED IN #36 TANDANG SORA LAST DECEMBER 15?
“Desperate people will do foolish things”

1 comment:

Know why more and more people worldwide convert to Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ). Learn more about this Church and find out what makes it unique.

Learn More About Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ)