ANSWERING “FALLEN ANGELS”
Point-by-point discussion answering those opposing
the Church Administration
REFUTING FALLEN ANGELS’ ALLEGATION OF LAND-GRABBING BY FRAUD AND FALSIFICATION AGAINST THE PRESENT CHURCH ADMINISTRATION
FROM simple charges of misappropriation of finances, you are now making allegation of land-grabbing against the present Church Administration. The term “land-grabbing” has negative cannotations. Here, we can see that the End-Time Antichrists (the “Fallen Angels”) using this term to paint an evil picture of the present Church Administration.
The basic definition of “land grabbing” is the aggressive taking of land or property by force or by fraud. It is improbable that your allegation of “land-grabbing” had been done with force because if so, Lottie Hemedez should not have been in #36 Tandang Sora Avenue. They should have been forcibly-evicted in that contended property. Thus, it is already expected that they will go to the other type in their attempt to discredit the present Church Administration; that is, Land-grabbing by fraud. For that reason, they showed a set of documents:
(1) The death certificate of Mr. Ed Hemedez
(2) The cancelled TCT way-back 1995 which allegedly shows Hemedez's conjugal ownership
(3) The dubious deed of sale in 2015
(4) Entry into the Registry of Deeds in 2015
(5) The New TCT showing INC ownership
(6) The Tax Declaration of the #36 T Sora - paid by Mrs. Hemedez
Using these documents, the induction they do to arrive to the conclusion of land-grabbing is this:
"#36 Tandang Sora Avenue originally belongs to Hemedez (showing document 2), then the INC grabbed it by falsification of sale (showing document 3), and now its their's (Document 4 and 5). They cheated us because Mr Hemedez died in 2013 (Document 1) when in fact we are the one's who pay tax (Document 6)."
WHO PRODUCED THESE DOCUMENTS?
The evidences that End-Time Antichrists (“Fallen Angels”) and their supporters posted in the social media are just but a reiteration of what Bless Grace Hernandez. A.k.a. “Benito Affleck” had produced. This person is wanted by the Law from estafa (swindling) and illegal recruitment. See “Who is Benito Affleck?” [http://theiglesianicristo.blogspot.com/2015/11/exposing-end-time-antichrists-benito.html].
HOW AUTHENTIC THEIR EVIDENCES ARE?
The first and foremost that a thinking man would drive out is to appeal better copy of the document in terms of clarity. If they cannot furnish something that is at par with what we ask for then that signals losing their cause of making us believe. Remember that in this kind of case, the authenticity crushes all other doubts.
Well then if they can't furnish one, then let's settle at this moment for what is readily available from them. On the other hand here is the opposite. Let us examine the document based on the criteria given by Ms. Ruby Valdez, one of the land registration examiners from the Land Registration Authority of the Philippines as cited by Gargoles Law Office.and condensed from the Tips on how to spot fake titles by Philippine Star Updated March 6, 2015:
"The papers used for authentic land titles in the Philippines are supplied by the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas. These papers are physically unique from all other kinds of papers that you can buy from stores. Here are the things you should look for:
a. The texture is similar to that of a bank check
b. It has a faint watermark that says “LRA“
c. If it’s an old title (before the newer e-Titles being used today), the color of the paper is light yellow.
d. If it’s an e-Title, the color should be pale straw
e. Tiny fibers and dots should be noticeable
f. And these fibers should fluoresce or shine slightly when subjected to UV light."
Examining Exhibit A
“Transfer Certificate of Title N-143501”
Surely the TCT presented by Hernandez will not pass through any of these since what they present is just a xerox copy and is intangible in the cyberspace. Now let's see with the things to watch out for:
(1) If it’s a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), it should indicate “Judicial Form No. 109-D“.
(2) The serial number label (SN No.) should be in red color, while the digits should be in black for the owner’s duplicate.
(3) The last two digits of the page number in the upper right hand side should correspond to the last two digits of the TCT number.
(4) The red/blue border should be slightly embossed and not flatly printed.
(5) For e-Titles, all entries should be computer encoded and printed, unlike the old versions which were manually type-written
(6) The seal on the lower left hand side should be dark red and does not blot when a little water check is done.
With these simple guidelines let us check out their “Transfer Certificate of Title N-143501”:
EXAMINING Exhibit B
The “Deed of Sale”
The usual scenario for “land-grabbing” case is the land-grabber will falsify the documents, will used the documents, and will be forcibly-evicted in the contended property. However, in the case of the allegation of the End-Time Antichrists (the “Fallen Angels”), this must have been the same scenario had the Church Administration wanted to grab the land from them. But, HOW COME IT’S THE OTHER WAY AROUND?
It was the Fallen Angels who wave this “document” and have the guts to present this in public. Isn’t that the “Deed of Sale” that will supplement the claim of new TCT N004-2015005510 should be in the hands of CENTRAL to be used in evicting the Manalo siblings? But again, reality proves otherwise. The land is of the Church and the Manalo siblings are there. They were never evicted.
It is not a new thing that Fallen Angels take hold of the “Deed of Sale” to fortify their claim that they were deprived of land through forgery and misrepresentation [see: Villamar, Penuliar vs. People G.R. No. 178652]. However, THE EVIDENCE ITSELF WORKED ITS WAY AGAINST THEM.
One of their primary “comrade,” Jesus Sasam Ponce asked in his comment in “Benito Affleck’s post regarding this, “BA (Benito Affleck), sino kaya ang pumirma bilang legal representative ng INC?” Jesus Samsam Ponce hit the nail in the head, of course of “Benito Affleck” (Bless Grace Hernandez). Look carefully at the “document.” Yes indeed. Where in the document did the Church, the Corporation Sole, or the Representative signed their names? NONE.
For the sake of educating the Fallen Angels, the “deed of sale” works in a bilateral manner – both the vendor and the vendee sign as two parties in the contract. In the document presented by Bless Grace Hernandez, only one party has signed the deed of absolute sale, that of Lolita Hemedez.
When the fallen angels follow the faulty induction aforementioned, 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 Bless Grace Hernandez (wanted by the Law for estafa), 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.
This is indeed a falsified Deed of Sale
LOTTIE'S CAMP FACES MORE PROBLEMS
In claiming that #36 Tandang Sora Avenue is owned by Lottie and Ed Hemedez, and in showing documents like the “Transfer Certificate of Title N-143501” but dated only 1995, and the “Deed of Sale” dated 2015, these posed more problems face by Lottie’s camp instead of proving their claim. PONDER THESE:
(1) They claim that a land-grabbing by fraud took place simply by showing an allegedly “falsified deed of sale”. If there is indeed a land-grabbing by fraud or falsification, the first thing that they had done should have been to file suits. However, they did not. The alleged evidences by Grace Bless Hernandez (a.k.a. “Benito Affleck,” wanted by the Law for estafa) were posted in the Social Media with the imputation that the Church did land-grabbing, falsification and misrepresentation.
(2) Now speaking of truth of the imputaion, about the “deed of sale” you produced, why is it that the only area where you show clearly is the portion where the Hemedez couple sign as vendors with one unnamed witness and notarized by Atty. Cecilio Lumantao on April 21, 2015? Why no signature of the vendee, the Corporation Sole of the INC or his represntative?
(3) If #36 Tandang Sora was truly owned by Lottie and Ed Hemedez, why can’t Hemedez or Hernandez furnish online the “Deed of Absolute Sale of Registered Land” which is open-source and clear for all?
(4) Did our beloved KA ERDY leave some kind of private inheritance to you? That question acts in a double-bladed manner. Before, the Fallen Angels try to reap sympathy by saying that there is none and then here you go now, claiming the contended land. So which is which?
(5) Now maybe you will once again use the scapegoat that the property was bought by the monies of Mr. Hemedez. Granting without conceding then this begs the question “From whom did the Hemedez couple acquire that land, the #36 Tandang Sora whose cadastre is provided in the aforementioned TCT?” The Fallen Angels might ask, is that really necessary? Yes indeed. Its because what they do is an assertion of ownership during the time around 1995.
(6) The TCT they produced shows that the couple acquire the land, #36 Tandang Sora, only in 1995. However, we have concrete evidences that the land was owned by the Iglesia Ni Cristo prior to 1995.
(a) The land was already in the possession of the Church since 1970s. The Church constructed “barracks” for volunteer workers and their family in the said land in 1975-1977. The Church already constructed concrete wall in the said land in the late 1970s. Lottie and Ed were married only in 1980s, thus it is impossible that the land was already owned by the couple as early as 1970s. Actually, their TCT is dated only 1995.
(b) If we will consult the Original Certificate of Title, the number 36 is included in OCT 614 DN 6667 RN 5975. If we are going to refer to G.R. No. L-61969 July 25, 1984 Augustina Dela Cruz et al vs Lucia Dela Cruz, INC and honorable CA. That vast tract of land was formerly part of the Piedad Estate. The Tandang Sora Avenue today, was formerly Sitio Banlat, Caloocan, Province of Rizal. It is virtually impossible that Hemedez directly acquired it from being a part of Piedad Estate (government purchased through Friar Lands Act, Public Act No. 1120 which was enacted on April 26, 1904).
(c ) According to G.R. No. L-61969 July 25, 1984 Augustina Dela Cruz et al vs Lucia Dela Cruz, INC and honorable CA, there was a dispute over #36 Tandang Sora Avenue, however, the Philippine Supreme Court decided and concurred in favor of the INC.
Thus, indeed, the Iglesia Ni Cristo owns #36 Tandang Sora prior to 1995. If the land was owned by the IGLESIA NI CRISTO prior to 1995, then why don't they furnish with a deed of sale signed by KA ERDY as a corporation sole and as a vendor of the property? If they bought it from some other person, the same rule applies.
Why do I warrant them to furnish a copy of the Deed Sale to validate the Hemedez’s ownership prior to 1995? Let us remember that in many civil cases and disputes of land, it is in the act of selling where the problems usually arise. A classic example, is that G.R. Nos. 74226-27 July 27, 1989 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. MIZPAH R. REYES, or in G.R. No. 122973 (July 18, 2000) DIONISIO C. LADIGNON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LUZVIMINDA C. DIMAUN. In such cases, escalating to the SC, one of the primary requirements is the proof that the disputed land is indeed owned by the claimant.
If Lottie’s camp can't produce this, they cannot remove the impression on them that they keep on doing dirty acts and framing up others for it. Looking straight to the eye, If they can't, then they further forment the possibility that it was them who illegally falsified the transfer of #36 Tandang Sora from the CHURCH.