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”
Can you sleep at night?
ReplyDelete