The testimony of witness Demetrio Vicente shows he has the right of usufruct and not ownership over the Marikina property. Article 562 of the Civil Code states: “Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.” All Vicente has is the right to enjoy Coronas’ property with the obligation of preserving its form and substance.
The following are the proofs: (1) The ownership of the Marikina property has remained with the Coronas even after 22 years. The title and tax declarations are all in the name of the Coronas; (2) Vicente’s failure to protect his right as the alleged owner is evidence enough that he does not own the Marikina property. At the time of the sale, the transfer tax was only P2,000-something, yet he never bothered to transfer the title in his name. Even if the transfer tax now has reached P200,000, this is still a small amount compared to the real property taxes he claimed he had been paying totaling P1.5 million—at P70,000 annually for 22 years. The Coronas must be the one paying the taxes, because Vicente admitted he had no money to even pay for the transfer tax for the Marikina property; (3) Staying and planting bonsai on the Marikina property are compatible with Vicente’s usufructuary rights; (4) The deed of sale of the Marikina property was not a public document. For it to be a public document, it must first be notarized by a court-commissioned notary public. The friend of Chief Justice Renato Corona was not a notary public. Moreover, the sale was never annotated on the title. Such transfer, therefore, will not bind third persons as it is neither contained in a public document nor is it annotated on the title. It would seem that deed of sale is to make Vicente a “dummy,” and not to transfer ownership; (5) There is no evidence that Vicente had P3.5 million in the bank when he bought the Marikina property. Likewise, is there evidence he paid in manager’s check for the Marikina property. Finally, Vicente never named the alleged broker/agent who intervened in the sale of the Marikina property. If Vicente was meant only to be a “dummy,” Corona has to find a way to counter quickly what he admitted—that Vicente was a buyer for a consideration. Now we read in the Inquirer: “Witness Demetrio Vicente is keen on leaving Marikina property.” Is this part of the Chief Justice’s “quick-counter”?
—DENNIS ROAN,
dennis.roan@yahoo.com