@JohnD
For "I have run the Manila Marathon", we would say "Nakatakbo NA ako ng Manila Marathon". We would, therefore, say "I have run" as "I was already able to run".
"I ran the Manila Marathon" would be "Tumakbo ako ng Manila Marathon" and "na" is not needed unless it's "I already ran...".
With "nakatakbo" we would be referring to an unspecified time in the past. I think that's the same idea behind the present perfect tense.
We would be using "tumakbo" if it happened at a specific period in time in the past or at a time immediately preceding the present time.
"Tumakbo ako ng Manila Marathon kahapon." = I ran the Manila Marathon yesterday.
Q: "Saan ka galing?" = Where did you come from?
A: "Tumakbo ako ng Manila Marathon" = I ran the Manila Marathon (that's where I came from).
If the person answered this with "Nakatakbo ako ng Manila Marathon", it would be inconsistent with the question. It's the same as answering with "I was able to run the Manila Marathon".
I believe "naka" is always actor-focused when it means "to be able to". "Nakal
uto na ako ng almusal" is "I have cooked breakfast" in the been-there-done-that sense. It can also mean "I have already cooked breakfast (just a while ago)."
"Nakal
uto ko ang breakfast", with "nakal
uto" considered as object-focused and hence followed by "ko", does not make sense in the real world. However, in a fantasy world, that may be read as "N
ákal
uto ko ang breakfast" (note the additional stress over "na") which would now mean something like "I had a chance to cook alongside breakfast", i.e., "breakfast" is the name of a creature that cooks, too. And the dish ran away with the spoon. 😁
by: 
