REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA ) S.

REJOINDER-AFFIDAVIT I, ROLLY L. LIWAG do hereby solemnly affirm, after being duly sworn to in accordancewith law submit this Rejoinder-Affidavit, as follows:

1. I have gone through the Reply to Respondents Counter-Affidavitdated 14 September, 2011 filed by complainant Mario T. Papa, and I am making this affidavitin rejoinder thereto; 2. Unless specifically admitted by me hereunder, each and every allegation madetherein is denied as false; 3. I say and submit that, contrary to the averments in PARAGRAPHS 1, 2 AND 3 of theReply,Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-265460 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-265459 are genuine titles duly issued by the Registry of Deeds for QuezonCity and correctly plotted by the Land Registration Authority; 4. In Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals 1, the Court reiterated the hornbook principle that acertificate of title serves as evidence of an INDEFEASIBLE TITLE to the property infavor of the person whose name appears therein; 5. Complainant is muddling up details by fallaciously equating the Original Certificateof Title No. 614, Decree No. 6667, GLRO Rec. No. 5975 issued by the LandRegistration Commission with his purported Decree No. 6667 issued by the Court of First Instance of Quezon Province, because the PIEDAD ESTATE was registered in Original Certificate of Title No. 614 in the name of the Government in 1910 underthe provisions of Act No. 496 and was placed under the administration of theDirector of Lands 2. 6.A simple perusal of the cited cases by Complainant in PARAGRAPH 2 in his Replywould show that they are

merely obiter dicta, as such, Complainant committed anerroneous invocation of jurisprudence, since the mentioned cases have already been superseded, overruled and reversed by the Supreme Court, laying to rest allquestions regarding the authenticity of the Original Certificate of Title No. 614 in Leonero et. al. v. Barba et. al.3 , wherein it held: Xxx. Firstly, Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree4 provides that a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can only be altered, modified orcancelled in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. __________________________________________________________________________________________ _______ 1G.R. No. 121038, July 22, 1999, 311 SCRA 18. 2Pinlac v. CA, G.R. No. 91486, January 19, 2001, 349 SCRA 635. 3G.R. No. 159788 : December 23, 2009. 4Presidential Decree No. 1529 page 1 of 5

In Foster-Gallego v. Galang 5, the Court held that the issue of whether a title was procured by falsification or fraud should be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose,

Xxx. Secondly, as early as 2001 in Pinlac v. Court of Appeals 6, the Court categorically struck down the PartialDecision issued in Civil Case No. Q-35672, upon which hereinpetitioners base their claim that respondents' TCTs arespurious. The Court ruled that said Partial Decision was nulland void. Thus, in Caete v. Genuino Ice Company, Inc.7, the Court emphasized that: First , their initial claim that OCT 614 of which all theother subject titles are derivatives is null and void, has beenproven wrong. As held inPinlac and other cases,OCT 614 DID LEGALLY EXISTand was previously issued in the name of thePhilippine Government in

1910 under the provisions of Act496. Second , the Ad Hoc Committee of the then Ministry of Natural Resources, which was specifically tasked to investigatethe historical background of the Piedad Estate, found that asearly as the period prior to the Second World War, all lots inthe Piedad Estate had already been disposed of. Third , the Piedad Estate has been placed under theTorrens system of land registration, which means that all lotstherein are titled. Xxx.

7.I further say and submit that Complainant is misrepresenting facts in PARAGRAPH 4; the Report of the Task Force Titulong Malinis No. 99-0151 of the LandRegistration Authority is a finding of fact after an intensive investigation conductedby an administrative agency; 8.The findings of fact of an administrative agency which have acquired expertisebecause their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded notonly respect, but finality. Such findings deserve full respect and, without justifiablereason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed; 9.Moreover, BENJAMIN V. FLESTADO is a public officer with designation of Director of the Land Registration Authority, hence, his report was undertaken in theexercise of the position, and being a public officer, enjoys the presumption of regularity in the exercise of his functions; ______________________________________ 5 G.R. No. 130228, July 27, 2004, 435 SCRA 27. 6 G.R. No. 91486, January 19, 2001, 349 SCRA 635. 7 G.R. No. 154080, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 206. page 2 of 5