I put my topic here since the case is about our land and I hope I'll be able to put it in brief yet clear lines. Here we go:
Around thirteen years ago, my distant cousin approached my parents especially my mother for help. Their land is situated behind ours and their access is through the lot of our neighbor. There were other access points before that but it's definitely not on our lot.
Now, my cousin requested that my mother right a letter authorizing them to pass through our land. My mother out of good faith drafted the letter and gave it to them. The purpose of the letter by the way, is for my cousin's submission with the Pag-IBIG to draw a loan from them to pay for the land since they need to buy it.
Nothing came of the loan after thirteen years but what troubled us was when we sold a portion of our lot, we found that our land title had an annotation for a right of way in favor of my distant cousin's lot which they just got full title to just last 2010. Around 2005, we started to request that the annotation be stricken out. They did promise to do so but we never heard of it. We filed a complaint with the barangay to have it stricken out but nothing came out of it as well. Soon enough in 2010, they approached us requesting that they be allowed to purchase a portion of our land for their pathway but we declined. A month or so after that, they filed a case against us compelling us to sell them a portion of our land.
Our lawyer from the Public Attorney's Office told us that we have a strong case against them and by how they filed the case, the Municipal Trial Court has no jurisdiction over it and that they may have to dismiss it. However, today (May 16, 2011) we received a decision that we have to give way to them apart from paying damages.
I'm sorry if I do not have the details of the decision we received (my mother and I talked about it on the cellphone this morning) but I do think that their case really has no merit. Besides, my father did not sign off on that letter my mother gave them and the document they produced which they alleged to have been signed by my mother was an "authorization" which my mother does not ever recall signing (we think it is forged).
However, my mother mentioned to me that one of the merits they have cited on the decision was that the annotation for the right of way was inscribed on the title before a portion was sold which I personally don't think is of any merit at all.
I already told my mother to visit our lawyer today and file an appeal with the Regional Trial Court. The bottom line here is I need to understand why the Municipal Trial Court made such a decision against us because I cannot digest it (apart from the reasons I'm thinking of which I am holding in reserve).
Whew! This is long. Again, I'm so sorry if I was not able to make really brief. I hope you'd bear with me on this.
Again, many thanks!