GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF CLOA:
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.177374
July 2, 2014
MARIANO JOSE, FELICISIMO JOSE, dee!"ed, "u#"$%$u$ed #y &%" &%ld'e( MARIANO JOSE, CAMILO JOSE, TI)URCIA JOSE, FERMINA JOSE, !(d *ICTORIA JOSE, Petitioners, vs. ERNEST ERNESTO O M. NO*I+A NO*I+A,, RO+OL RO+OLFO FO PALA PALA LA , JR., JR., ALEALE- M. )ELAR )ELARMIN MINO, O, RO+RI RO+RIGO GO LI)E+, LI)E+, LEONAR+O L. LI)E+, )ERNAR+O ). )ELARMINO, )ENJAMIN G. ACOSTA, MO+ESTO A. ORLAN+A, ARLIT ARLITO O ). MEJIA MEJIA,, MAMERT MAMERTO O ). )ELAR )ELARMI MINO, NO, MARCE MARCELO LO 0. +ELFIN +ELFIN !(d /EIRS /EIRS OF LUCIN LUCINO O A. ESTE)AN, 'e'e"e($ed #y CRESENCIA M. *+A. +E ESTE)AN, Respondents. DECISION +EL CASTILLO,
J.:
his his Petiti Petition on for Revie! Revie! on Certio Certiorar rarii assail assails s the Septe# Septe#ber ber $%, $&&' $&&' Decisi Decision on and and March March "', "', $&&( $&&( Resolution of the Court of *ppea *ppeals ls +C* +C* in C*-.R. C*-.R. SP No. /'/", /'/", !hich !hich affir# affir#ed ed the 0une 0une $&, "11( Decision and 0une $, "11/ Resolution of the Depart#ent of *2rarian Refor# *d3udication 4oard +D*R*4, 5ue6on Cit7 in D*R*4 Case No. "$1. "
$
)
%
8actual *ntecedents In "11&, herein respondents Ernesto M. Novida, Rodolfo Pala7la7, 0r., *le9 M. 4elar#ino, Rodri2o :ibed, :eonardo :eonardo :. :ibed, :ibed, 4ernardo 4ernardo 4. 4elar#ino 4elar#ino,, 4en3a#in 4en3a#in -. *costa, *costa, Modesto *. Orlanda, Orlanda, ;arlito ;arlito 4. Me3ia, Me3ia, Ma#erto 4. 4elar#ino and Marcelo O. Delfin, to2ether !ith Cristina M. Esteban, !ere each 2ranted < as far#er=beneficiaries < E#ancipation Patents +EPs and Certificates of itle +coverin2 one hectare each over a parcel of land !hich for#ed part of a "'."$=hectare a2ricultural land +sub3ect propert7 in San Vicente, *lcala, Pan2asinan !hich !as placed !ithin the covera2e of Operation :and ransfer. ransfer. '
(
On 0anuar7 , "11", petitioners Mariano, Ca#ilo, Victoria, iburcia and 8er#ina, as !ell as 0osefina and *necita < all surna#ed 0ose < filed !ith the Re2ion I Office of the Depart#ent of *2rarian Refor# +D*R at San 8ernando, :a >nion +D*R Re2ion I a Petition Petition for Reinvesti2 Reinvesti2ation ation and Cancellati Cancellation on of *no#alousl7 *no#alousl7 Prepared and -enerated E#ancipation Patents a2ainst the respondents, clai#in2 that the7 are the bona fide and actual tenant=tillers of the sub3ect propert7? that the7 !ere issued Certificates of :and ransfer +C:s to the sa#e? that the7 are actuall7 in possession of the sa#e? and that the EPs issued to respondents !ere ano#alous. he7 pra7ed that the respondents@ EPs be cancelled? that ne! EPs be issued to the#? and that an investi2ation be conducted on the circu#stances surroundin2 the issuance of respondents@ EPs, and the 2uilt7 parties prosecuted. /
On 0anuar7 )&, "11", the D*R Re2ion I Director issued an Order relative to the petitioners@ petition for reinvesti2ation and cancellation of EPs < !hich !as not docAeted or assi2ned a case nu#ber < !hich held thusB 1
;ERE8ORE, pre#ises considered and b7 virtue of the po!ers vested in #e under D*R Me#orandu# Circular %=/( ORDER is hereb7 rendered as f ollo!sB ". hat herein petitioners have better ri2ht as beneficiaries of the "' hectares in uestion to the e9clusion of the respondents due to the defective installation as beneficiaries? $. hat E#ancipation Patents be 2enerated in favor of the herein petitioners?
1
). hat inas#uchF as pa7#ents on the land in uestion !ere alread7 #ade b7 the respondents !ho are not ualified to beco#e beneficiaries of the estate, the co#plainants are hereb7 ordered to pa7 the said a#ount to the *d#inistrator !ho shall liAe!ise rei#burse the sa#e to the respondents, as su22ested b7 M*RO Constancio Castillo to settle t he proble# at bar? and . hat the P*RO of Pan2asinan or his dul7 authori6ed representative is directed to i#ple#ent this ORDER and if necessar7 !ith the help of the PNP of the Municipalit7 of *lcala, Pan2asinan. SO ORDERED.
"&
On Dece#ber "(, "11", respondents filed a Co#plaint for recover7 of possession, accountin2, liuidation and da#a2es !ith in3unctive relief a2ainst petitioners Mariano and 8elicisi#o 0ose +8elicisi#o, and Vir2ilio 0ose +Vir2ilio. he case !as docAeted in the Re2ion I Office of the D*R*4 in >rdaneta, Pan2asinan +D*R*4 >rdaneta as Case No. &"='%=EP@1". Respondents alle2ed that 8elicisi#o !as the ori2inal tenant of the sub3ect propert7? that 8elicisi#o obtained loans fro# one 4eni2no Siobal +Siobal and one Ro2elio Cere6o +Cere6o, !hich !ere secured b7 a #ort2a2e over the sub3ect propert7? that 8elicisi#o did not redee# the sub3ect propert7 fro# Siobal and Cere6o, but instead abandoned the sa#e !hen he #i2rated to the >nited States of *#erica +>.S.*. and beca#e a naturali6ed citi6en thereof? that !ith the sanction of the D*R, the o!ners of the sub3ect propert7 subdivided the land and sold portions thereof to respondents? and that on or about Ma7 "&, "11&, after 8elicisi#o returned fro# the >.S.*., he and the other petitioners ousted respondents fro# the sub3ect propert7, usin2 force, stealth, threats and inti#idation. Respondents pra7ed that the7 be placed in peaceful possession, cultivation and en3o7#ent of the land? that petitioners be declared as usurpers and !ithout ri2ht to the land? that an accountin2 be #ade of all lost harvests? that in3unctive relief be 2ranted in order that petitioners shall desist fro# further disturbin2 respondents@ peaceful possession, cultivation and en3o7#ent of the land? that petitioners be #ade to pa7 actual, #oral and e9e#plar7 da#a2es in the a#ount of at least P"/&,&&&.&&, P$%,&&&.&& liti2ation e9penses, P%&,&&&.&& attorne7@s fees, and costs of suit. ""
"$
In their *ns!er !ith Counterclai#, petitioners alle2ed that in addition to 8elicisi#o, Mariano, and Vir2ilio, the sub3ect propert7 !as bein2 cultivated b7 their siblin2s iburcia, 8er#ina, Victoria, and 0osefina, and their #other *niceta 0ose? that 8elicisi#o indeed #ort2a2ed the sub3ect propert7 in "1/" to secure a loan of P"&,&&&.&&, !hich !as settled b7 lettin2 the lender Siobal taAe e9clusive possession of the land, cultivatin2 the sa#e and Aeepin2 the harvests? that Siobal cultivated the sub3ect propert7 up to "1/(, after !hich petitioners Ca#ilo, Vir2ilio, Mariano, and the other siblin2s tooA over? that !hen 8elicisi#o returned fro# the >.S.*. in "11&, Siobal atte#pted to ne2otiate another a2ree#ent !ith hi#, but this ti#e he refused? that petitioners < and not the respondents < are the o!ner beneficiaries of the sub3ect propert7? that respondents have never been in possession of the land? and that the case should be dis#issed. 47 !a7 of counterclai#, petitioners sou2ht to be a!arded P"&&,&&&.&& actual da#a2es, P$&,&&&.&& e9e#plar7 da#a2es, P"%,&&&.&& attorne7@s fees, and P$&,&&&.&& liti2ation e9penses. ")
On 0ul7 "), "11$, the D*R*4 >rdaneta issued a Decision in Case No. &"='%=EP@1", !hich held thusB "
he evidence on record revealed that respondent 8elicisi#o E. 0ose !as the for#er tenant=lessee of the "'."$ hectares in uestion? that on *u2ust "), "1/", respondent 8elicisi#o E. 0ose and his !ife *necita 4autista #ort2a2ed to 4eni2no Siobal 9 9 9 one=half +"G$ of their real estate !ith an area of /$,%(1 suare #eters in the a#ount of en housand + P"&,&&&.&& Pesos? that i##ediatel7 after the e9ecution of the #ort2a2e contract, respondent 8elicisi#o 0ose, !ho !as then the tenant over the sa#e parcel of land of appro9i#atel7 ei2ht +/ hectares #ore or less delivered actual ph7sical possession to 4eni2no Siobal and the other half portion or ei2ht +/ hectares plus to one Ro2elio Cere6o? that the landholdin2 in uestion !as for#erl7 o!ned b7 the -alvan=Cabrera Estate !hich !as covered b7 Operation :and ransfer +O: pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. $(? that E#ancipation Patents !ere alread7 issued to the co#plainants. he evidence on record clearl7 disclosed that the for#er tenant=lessee, the respondent 8elicisi#o 0ose delivered actual ph7sical possession of the landholdin2 in uestion on *u2ust "), "1/". 8ro# that date he lost his securit7 of tenure as tenant and that his tenanc7 relationship !as ter#inated. he act of 8elicisi#o E. 0ose in 2ivin2 up his possession and cultivation of the landholdin2 in uestion and his 2oin2 abroad in "1/" is a clear case of abandon#ent, as enunciated in the case of HMateo 4alana7, et al., vs. Ser2io Rafael, C* -.R. No. SP=&"(' C*R, *u2ust $, "1('H. *cceptance of ne! e#plo7#ent is an abandon#ent, ho! #uch #ore inF this instant case !hen the tenant=lessee !ent abroad. ;ERE8ORE, pre#ises considered, 3ud2#ent is hereb7 rendered as follo!s to !itB
2
". DEC:*RIN- the co#plainants the tenant=beneficiaries of the land in uestion? $. DEC:*RIN- the respondents to haveF no ri2ht !hatsoever toF the landholdin2 in uestion? ). ORDERIN- the respondents to desist fro# disturbin2 the possession and cultivation of the co#plainants. . *ll other clai#s of the parties are hereb7 denied for lacA of evidence. SO ORDERED.
"%
Mean!hile, on *u2ust $$,"11%, the D*R Secretar7 issued an Order affir#in2 the 0anuar7 )&, "11" Order of the D*R Re2ion I Director in the petition for reinvesti2ation and cancellation of EPs filed b7 petitioners a2ainst the respondents. he Order reads in partB "'
he issue to be resolved is !ho are the ualified beneficiaries over the sub3ect landholdin2s. Mariano 0ose, et al. +petitioners are the ualified beneficiaries of the sub3ect landholdin2s considerin2 that C:@s !ere alread7 issued to the# !hich is a reco2nition to the 2rantees as the partiesF ualified to avail of the statutor7 #echanis# for the acuisition of o!nership of the land tilled b7 the# as provided under Presidential Decree No. $(. Moreover, the *2ree#ent entered into b7 8elicisi#o 0ose and 4eni2no Siobal !herein the sub3ect landholdin2s !ere used to ans!er the a#ount loaned b7 their father is considered as ille2al transaction therefore null and void +Me#o Circular No. (, Series of "1(1. *s to the alle2ation of denial of due process, !e find the sa#e un#eritorious. Respondents@ subseuent Motion for Reconsideration has the effect of curin2 !hatever irre2ularit7 #i2ht have been co##itted in the proceedin2 belo! 9 9 9. ;ERE8ORE, pre#ises considered, this Order is hereb7 issued den7in2 the instant appeal for lacA of #erit and the Order issued b7 the Re2ional Director is hereb7 affir#ed. SO ORDERED.
"(
o!ever, on respondents@ #otion for reconsideration, the D*R Secretar7 issued another Order on 0une %, "11' !hich declared thusB "/
It appears that D*R*4 Case No. &"='%=EP@1$ entitled Ernesto M. Novida, et al., vs. Mariano 0ose, et al., for Peaceful Possession and Da#a2es involvin2 the sa#e parties and sa#e cause of action as in the case herein is pendin2 appeal before the D*R*4 Central Office. :iAe!ise, records sho! that E#ancipation Patents Nos. %%&/%), %%&/%, %%&/%%, %%&/1, %%&/%", %%&//, %%&/%$ and %%&/%' !ere alread7 a!arded to Respondents herein. he 3urisdiction to cancel the sa#e is not !ith this Office but !ith the D*R*4 9 9 9. ;ERE8ORE, pre#ises considered, Order is hereb7 issued re#andin2 the case to the D*R *d3udication 4oard for its proper disposition in the li2ht of D*R*4 Case No. &"='%=EP@1$ pendin2 before it. SO ORDERED.
"1
he D*R*4 5ue6on Cit7 Decision Mean!hile, failin2 to obtain a reconsideration of the D*R*4 >rdaneta@s 0ul7 "), "11$ decision in Case No. &"= '%=EP@1", petitioners interposed an appeal !ith the D*R*4 5ue6on Cit7. DocAeted as D*R*4 Case No. "$1, the appeal !as pre#ised on the ar2u#ents that the D*R*4 >rdaneta erred in taAin2 co2ni6ance of the case, !hich is under the e9clusive 3urisdiction of the Secretar7 of *2rarian Refor# as the sub3ect propert7 !as covered b7 the Co#prehensive *2rarian Refor# Pro2ra# +C*RP? and that there is another case bet!een the parties < for cancellation of ano#alousl7 preparedG2enerated E#ancipation Patents < pendin2 in the Office of the D*R Secretar7. On 0une $&, "11(, the D*R*4 5ue6on Cit7 issued its Decision affir#in2 in toto the 0ul7 "), "11$ decision of the D*R*4 >rdaneta. It held < 3
4ased on the facts of the case and evidences adduced, 8elicisi#o 0ose !as the for#er le2iti#ate a2ricultural lessee of the -alvan=Cabrera estate. o!ever, on *u2ust "), "1/", he and his spouse #ort2a2ed one=half of the said propert7 !ith an area of /$,%(1 suare #etersto secure a loan of P"&,&&& fro# a certain 4eni2no Siobal and Ro2elio Ore6o b7 deliverin2 the ph7sical possession thereof to the #ort2a2ees. Subseuentl7, respondent=appellant +8elicisi#o 0ose left for abroad to acuire his citi6enship b7 naturali6ation in the >nited States of *#erica. $&
So#eti#e in "1/%, the sub3ect landholdin2 !as subdivided into si9teen +"' far# lots and the co#plainants= appellees !ere installed b7 the #ort2a2ee 4eni2no Siobal. heir possession and cultivation !ere dul7 sanctioned b7 the lando!ner and D*R ea# :eader of *lcala, Pan2asinan. he7 paid the rentals and later on the a#orti6ation pa7#ents to the sub3ect landholdin2. $"
On 0anuar7 ', "11", their peaceful en3o7#ent and cultivation of their respective landholdin2s !as interrupted upon the unla!ful dispossession, throu2h force and inti#idation b7 the defendants=appellants, !ho forcibl7 tooA over b7 destro7in2 the corn plants b7 hirin2 t!o +$ tractor operators despite the issuance of the tenant= far#ers@ E#ancipation Patents. Co#plainants=appellees !ere co#pelled to file a cri#inal case of #alicious #ischief 9 9 9 in addition to this instant a2rarian case. $$
9999 ;e are not convinced b7 the ar2u#ents of the respondents=appellants. here is an over!hel#in2 evidence indicatin2 that 8elicisi#o 0ose caused the e9ecution of a Deed of Mort2a2e, for and in consideration of en housand +P"&,&&& Pesos, usin2 the sub3ect landholdin2 as securit7 to the loan and transferrin2 the ph7sical possession thereof to the #ort2a2ees as per Docu#ent No. $%, Pa2e %$, 4ooA No. VII series of "1/" as dul7 notari6ed b7 Porferio *. adeo 9 9 9. In the interi#, 8elicisi#o 0ose left for the >nited States of *#erica. So#eti#e in "1/%, the #ort2a2ees, as le2al possessors, allo!ed the installation of the co#plainants=appellees !ith the consent of the *d#inistrator of the -alvan=Cabrera estate to be tenant=tillers !ho peacefull7, openl7 and continuousl7 occupied and cultivated the land as lessees to their respective landholdin2s. 8inall7, on Dece#ber (, "11&, all the si9teen +"' co#plainants appellees received their E#ancipation Patents thru Secretar7 4en3a#in C. :eon2, Depart#ent of *2rarian Refor# 9 9 9. ;hen 8elicisi#o 0ose left to pursue his desire to acuire his naturali6ation of citi6enship in the >nited States !hich a#ounted to a circu#stance advanta2eous to hi# and his fa#il7, in effect, there !as literall7 an i#plied e9tin2uish#ent andGor voluntar7 ter#ination of the a2ricultural tenanc7 relation on the part of the respondent= appellant as conte#plated in Section / +$ in relation to Section $/ +% of R* )/. 4oth the ele#ents of ph7sical relinuish#ent of possession and intention to vacate !ere consu##ated and re#ained undisputed findin2s of facts of the case. $)
If ever D*R Re2ional Director, Re2ion I issued an Order dated 0anuar7 )&, "11", to the effect that the respondents=appellants have a better ri2ht as beneficiaries over the sub3ect landholdin2, this said official issuance of a lesser officer in the bureaucratic tote#pole could not overrule nor nullif7 the acts perfor#ed earlier b7 the head of a2enc7 or the Secretar7 of the Depart#ent of *2rarian Refor# unless the cancellationGrevocation is initiated b7 the Secretar7 hi#self. 8or the E#ancipation Patents dated Dece#ber (, "11& !ere issued earlier to the far#er=beneficiaries. *nd !ith the sa#e toAen, that the enact#ent of our a2rarian refor# la!s is principall7 intended to #aAe the s#all far#ers #ore independent, self=reliant and responsible citi6ens and a source of a 2enuine stren2th in our de#ocratic societ7 9 9 9. Clearl7, those !ho renounce their citi6enship should 7ield to those ri2hts and privile2es intended for those !ith undivided lo7alt7 and unuestioned nationalis# to the 8ilipino nation. ;ERE8ORE, pre#ises considered, the challen2ed decision is hereb7 *88IRMED in toto. :et the entire records of this case be re#anded to the *d3udicator a uo for the issuance of a ;rit of E9ecution i##ediatel7. SO ORDERED.
$
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the D*R*4 5ue6on Cit7 denied the sa#e via its 0une $, "11/ Resolution.
%$he *ssailed Court of *ppeals Decision
4
Petitioners !ent up to the C* via Petition for Revie! insistin2 that the D*R Secretar7 has e9clusive 3urisdiction over the case, pursuant to the Revised +"1/1 D*R*4 Rules of Procedure !hich state that #atters involvin2 the ad#inistrative i#ple#entation of the C*RP and other a2rarian la!s and re2ulations shall be the e9clusive prero2ative of and co2ni6able b7 the D*R $'
Secretar7? that in the 0anuar7 )&, "11" Order of the D*R Re2ion I Director !hich !as affir#ed via the D*R Secretar7@s *u2ust $$, "11% Order, the7 !ere declared to have better ri2hts as beneficiaries and that respondents@ EPs should be cancelled? and that respondents previousl7 instituted t!o cases !ith the D*R*4 >rdaneta < one of the# docAeted as Case No. &"=)"/=EP@1& < !hich !ere dis#issed. $(
On Septe#ber $%, $&&', the C* issued the assailed Decision, decreein2 as follo!sB ;ERE8ORE, the challen2ed D*R*4 decision and resolution dated 0une $&, "11( and 0une $, "11/ respectivel7, in D*R*4 C*SE NO. "$1 are hereb7 *88IRMED. SO ORDERED.
$/
he C* held that under Section ",Rule II of the "11 D*R*4 Rules of Procedure, the D*R*4 has pri#ar7 and e9clusive ori2inal 3urisdiction over cases involvin2 the issuance and cancellation of EPs? the D*R Secretar7 had no po!er to cancel EPs, and petitioners@ ar2u#ent that such po!er is part of his ad#inistrative functions is #isplaced. It noted further that the D*R Secretar7 hi#self reco2ni6ed the D*R*4@s 3urisdiction over cases involvin2 the cancellation of EPs !hen he issued his 0une %, "11' Order in the undocAeted case for reinvesti2ation and cancellation of EPs filed b7 petitioners a2ainst the respondents. $1
)&
)"
he C* further upheld the D*R*4@s conclusion that petitioners in effect abandoned their ri2hts as beneficiaries, and that respondents@ installation as beneficiaries b7 the #ort2a2ees +Siobal and Cere6o !as re2ular and in accordance !ith la!, and the7 paid the reuired a#orti6ations as !ell. It held that as landless far#ers, respondents deserved the land #ore than petitioners, notin2 that one of the# !as a naturali6ed *#erican citi6en? it !ould thus 2o a2ainst the rationale of the a2rarian la!s to a!ard land to such an individual. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but in its assailed March "', $&&( Resolution, the C* stood its 2round. hus, the instant Petition. )$
Mean!hile, a substitution of parties !as accordin2l7 #ade in vie! of the death of so#e of the parties.
))
Issues Petitioners sub#it the follo!in2 assi2n#ent of errorsB I. E CO>R O8 *PPE*:S, ;I D>E RESPEC, ERRED IN NO S>S*ININ- E ORDER D*ED 0*N>*RJ )&, "11" ISS>ED 4J E RE-ION*: DIRECOR, RE-ION I, 4>RE*> O8 *-R*RI*N :E-*: *SSIS*NCE +4*:*, DEP*RMENO8 *-R*RI*N RE8ORM +D*R, S*N 8ERN*NDO, :* >NION ,ORDER D*ED $$ *>->S "11%, ISS>ED 4J D*R SECRE*RJ, *88IRMIN- S*ID ORDER D*ED 0*N>*RJ )&, "11" *ND IN NO REVERSIN- *ND SEIN- *SIDE E ORDER D*ED &% 0>NE "11' ISS>ED 4J E D*R SECRE*RJ IN E S*ME C*SE ERE 4EIN- NO PENDIN- C*SE INVO:VIN- E S*ME ISS>ES ;I E +D*R*4 *ND ENCE E D*R SECRE*RJ *S 0>RISDICION OVER E :*ND IN 5>ESION O E EC:>SION O8 E D*R*4, 5>EKON CIJ. II. E CO>R O8 *PPE*:S, ;I D>E RESPEC, ERRED IN NO REVERSIN- *ND SEIN- *SIDE E D*R*4 DECISION D*ED $& 0>NE "11( *ND D*R*4 >ND*ED RESO:>ION, DENJINPEIIONERS@ MOION 8OR RECONSIDER*ION O8 E C* DECISION , ONE -RO>NDS * E INS*N C*SE ;*S 4*RRED 4J PRIOR 0>D-MEN *ND * E RESPONDENS 8*I:ED O PROVE * EJ*RE *-RIC>:>R*: EN*NS OVER E :*ND IN 5>ESION. III. 5
E CO>R O8 *PPE*:S, ;I D>E RESPEC, ERRED IN IS RESO:>ION D*EDSEPEM4ER %, $&&%, EP>N-IN- E MEMOR*ND>M 8OR PEIIONERS D*ED"( *PRI: $&&" 8I:ED VI* RE-ISERED M*I: ON "/ *PRI: $&&" 8OR :*E 8I:IN-. )
Petitioners@ *r2u#ents In their Petition and Repl7, petitioners reiterate the 0anuar7 )&, "11" Order of the D*R Re2ion I Director !hich the D*R Secretar7 affir#ed throu2h his *u2ust $$, "11% Order, particularl7 citin2 the pronounce#ent in said Orders that the7 are the actual tillers of the sub3ect propert7, and not respondents. he7 add that respondents failed to prove in Case No. &"='%=EP@1" that the7 are tenants of the land? that respondents have never cultivated the sub3ect propert7, and have never been in possession of the sa#e? that respondents are #ere land2rabbers? that 8elicisi#o has settled his financial obli2ations to Siobal? that respondents@ EPs have been cancelled b7 the D*R Re2ion I Director and the D*R Secretar7? and that it !as erroneous and un3ust for the C* to have e9pun2ed their Me#orandu#. )%
Petitioners essentiall7 pra7for the reversal of the assailed dispositions, as !ell as the reinstate#ent of both the 0anuar7 )&, "11" Order of the D*R Re2ion I Director and the *u2ust $$,"11% Order of the D*R Secretar7 in their petition for reinvesti2ation and cancellation of EPs filed !ith the D*R Re2ion I.8inall7, petitioners pra7 that the D*R Re2ion I Director and the D*R Secretar7 be ordered to issue EPs in their favor. Respondents@ *r2u#ents In their Co##ent, respondents point out that a revie! under Rule % of the "11( Rules of Civil Procedure is discretionar7 and !ill be 2ranted onl7 !hen there are special and i#portant reasons therefor? that such special and i#portant circu#stances that should !arrant revie! do not obtain in petitioners@ case? that the C* is correct in statin2 that the D*R*4 has pri#ar7 and e9clusive 3urisdiction over cases involvin2 the issuance and cancellation of EPs? and finall7, that based on the #erits and consonant !ith the substance and intent of the a2rarian la!s, respondents < and not petitioners < are entitled to the sub3ect propert7. )'
Our Rulin2 he Court affir#s. ;hen petitioners filed, on 0anuar7 , "11", their Petition for Reinvesti2ation and Cancellation of *no#alousl7 Prepared and -enerated E#ancipation Patents !ith the D*R Re2ion I Office at San 8ernando, :a >nion, certificates of title have been issued to the respondents. hus, the D*R*4 < and not the D*R Re2ion I or the D*R Secretar7 < had e9clusive 3urisdiction over the case, pursuant to la! and the "11 D*R*4 Rules of Procedure. 9 9 9. he D*R*4 derives its 3urisdiction fro# R* ''%( or popularl7 Ano!n as the Co#prehensive *2rarian Refor# :a! +C*R: of "1//. Section %& of R* ''%( confers 3urisdiction on the D*R*4 over a2rarian refor# cases or controversies as follo!sB Section %&. 5uasi=0udicial Po!ers of the D*R. he D*R is hereb7 vested !ith the pri#ar7 3urisdiction to deter#ine and ad3udicate a2rarian refor# #atters and shall have e9clusive ori2inal 3urisdiction over all #atters involvin2 the i#ple#entation of a2rarian refor# e9cept those fallin2 under the e9clusive 3urisdiction of the Depart#ent of *2riculture +D* and the Depart#ent of Environ#ent and Natural Resources +DENR. It shall not be bound b7 technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes, or controversies in a #ost e9peditious #anner, e#plo7in2 all reasonable #eans to ascertain the facts of ever7 case in accordance !ith 3ustice and euit7 and the #erits of the case. o!ards this end, it shall adopt a unifor# rule of procedure to achieve a 3ust, e9peditious and ine9pensive deter#ination for ever7 action or proceedin2 before it. o i#ple#ent this particular provision of R* ''%( re2ardin2 the ad3udication of a2rarian refor# #atters, the D*R adopted the D*R*4 Ne! Rules of Procedure, issued on Ma7 )&, "11. >nder Section ", Rule II of the said Rules of Procedure, the D*R*4 has e9clusive ori2inal 3urisdiction over the follo!in2 casesB 6
+a he ri2hts and obli2ations of persons, !hether natural or 3uridical, en2a2ed in the #ana2e#ent, cultivation and use of all a2ricultural lands covered b7 the C*RP and other a2rar ian la!s? +b he valuation of land, and the preli#inar7 deter#ination and pa7#ent of 3ust co#pensation, fi9in2 and collection of lease rentals, disturbance co#pensation, a#orti6ation pa7#ents, and si#ilar disputes concernin2 the functions of the :and 4anA of the Philippines +:4P? 9999 +f hose involvin2 the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of :and O!nership *!ard +C:O*s and E#ancipation Patents +EPs !hich are re2istered !ith the :and Re2istration *uthorit7? +2 hose cases previousl7 fallin2 under the ori2inal and e9clusive 3urisdiction of the defunct Court of *2rarian Relations under Section "$ of Presidential Decree No. 1', e9cept subpara2raph +5 thereof and Presidential Decree No. /"%. 9999 Matters involvin2 strictl7 the ad#inistrative i#ple#entation of Republic *ct. No. ''%(, other!ise Ano!n as the Co#prehensive *2rarian Refor# :a! +C*R: of "1// and other a2rarian la!s as enunciated b7 pertinent rules shall be the e9clusive prero2ative of and co2ni6able b7 the Secretar7 of the D*R. +h *nd such other a2rarian cases, disputes, #atters or concerns referred to it b7 the Secretar7 of the D*R. Subpara2raph +f stated above provides that the D*R*4 has e9clusive 3urisdiction over cases involvin2 the issuance, correction and cancellation of C:O*s and EPs !hich areF re2istered !ith the :and Re2istration *uthorit7 +the Re2istr7 of Deeds. he 2rounds for cancellation of re2istered EPs !ere su##ari6ed b7 D*R Me#orandu# Order No. &$, Series of "11, to !itB ". Misuse or diversion of financial and support services e9tended to the *R4? +Section )( of R.*. No. ''%( $. Misuse of land? +Section $$ of R.*. No. ''%( ). Material #isrepresentation of the *R4@s basic ualifications as provided under Section $$ of R.*. No. ''%(, P.D. No. $(, and other a2rarian la!s? . Ille2al conversion b7 the *R4? +Cf. Section (), Para2raph C and E of R.*. No. ''%( %. Sale, transfer, lease or other for#s of conve7ance b7 a beneficiar7 of the ri2ht to use or an7 other usufructuar7 ri2ht over the land acuired b7 virtue of bein2 a beneficiar7 in order to circu#vent the provisions of Section () of R.*. No. ''%(, P.D. No. $(, and other a2rarian la!s. o!ever, if the land has been acuired under P.D. No. $(GE.O. No. $$/, o!nership #a7 be transferred after full pa7#ent of a#orti6ation b7 the beneficiar7? +Sec. ' of E.O. No. $$/ '. Default in the obli2ation to pa7 an a22re2ate of three +) consecutive a#orti6ations in case of voluntar7 land transferGdirect pa7#ent sche#e, e9cept in cases of fortuitous events and force #a3eure? (. 8ailure of the *R4s to pa7 for at least three +) annual a#orti6ations to the :4P, e9cept in cases of fortuitous events and force #a3eure? +Section $' of R* ''%( /. Ne2lect or abandon#ent of the a!arded land continuousl7 for a period of t!o +$ calendar 7ears as deter#ined b7 the Secretar7 or his authori6ed representative? +Section $$ of R* ''%( 1. he land is found to be e9e#ptGe9cluded fro# P.D. No. $(GE.O. No. $$/ or C*RP covera2e or to be part of the lando!ner@s retained area as deter#ined b7 the Secretar7 or his authori6ed representative? and
7
"&. Other 2rounds that !ill circu#vent la!s related to the i#ple#entation of a2rarian refor#. * stud7 of the above=enu#erated 2rounds for the cancellation of re2istered EPs sho!s that it reuires the e9ercise b7 the D*R of its uasi=3udicial po!er throu2h its ad3udicatin2 ar#, D*R*4. hus, ri2htl7 so, the D*R*4 Ne! Rules of Procedure provide that D*R*4 has e9clusive 3urisdiction over cases involvin2 the cancellation of re2istered EPs. 4ut !hat about EPs that are unre2istered liAe the one issued to *n2elina Rodri2ue6L he ans!er can be found in *d#inistrative Order No. &'=&&, issued on *u2ust )&, $&&&, !hich provides for the Rules of Procedure for *2rarian :a! I#ple#entation +*:I Cases. hese rules !ere issued pursuant to Sections 1 and %& of R* ''%(. In contrast to the D*R*4 Rules of Procedure !hich 2overn the e9ercise of D*R@s uasi=3udicial function, *d#inistrative Order No. &'=&& 2overn the ad#inistrative function of the D*R. >nder the said Rules of Procedure for *2rarian :a! I#ple#entation +*:I Cases, the *2rarian Refor# Secretar7 has e9clusive 3urisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation of EPsGC:O*s that are not 7et re2istered !ith the Re2ister of Deeds. hus, Section $ of the said Rules providesB SECION $. Cases Covered. = hese Rules shall 2overn cases fallin2 !ithin the e9clusive 3urisdiction of the D*R Secretar7 !hich shall include the follo!in2B +a Classification and identification of landholdin2s for covera2e under the Co#prehensive *2rarian Refor# Pro2ra# +C*RP, includin2 protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for liftin2 of covera2e? +b Identification, ualification or disualification of potential far#er=beneficiaries? +c Subdivision surve7s of lands under C*RP? +d Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of :and ransfer +C:s and C*RP 4eneficiar7 Certificates +C4Cs in cases outside the purvie! of Presidential Decree +PD No. /"', includin2 the issuance, recall or cancellation of E#ancipation Patents +EPs or Certificates of :and O!nership *!ards +C:O*s not 7et re2istered!ith the Re2ister of Deeds? +e E9ercise of the ri2ht of retention b7 lando!ner? 9999 + Such other #atters not #entioned above but strictl7 involvin2 the ad#inistrative i#ple#entation of R* ''%( and other a2rarian la!s, rules and re2ulations as deter#ined b7 the Secretar7.H Clearl7, the cancellation of EPs that are not 7et re2istered !ith the Re2ister of Deeds falls !ithin the authorit7 of the *2rarian Refor# Secretar7 or D*R officials dul7 desi2nated b7 hi#, in the e9ercise of hisGtheir ad#inistrative functions. 9 9 9 9999 Second, even if the Court of *ppeals rulin2 !ere based on the old D*R*4 rules +the "1/1 D*R*4 Revised Rules of Procedure !hich provided that the D*R*4 had pri#ar7 3urisdiction over Hcases involvin2 the issuance of Certificate of :and ransfer +C:, Certificate of :and O!nership *!ard +C:O* and E#ancipation Patent +EP and the ad#inistrative correction thereofH, !e do not a2ree that the cancellation b7 the D*R*4 of the sub3ect EPs fell !ithin the a#bit of #ere ad#inistrative correction. H*d#inistrative correctionH refers onl7 to the rectification of !ron2 or insufficient infor#ation in the patent and not to so#ethin2 as substantial as the actual cancellation thereof. he #eanin2 of Had#inistrative correctionH is provided in D*R *d#inistrative Order No. &$, Series of "11B C. he ad#inistrative corrections #a7 include non=identification of spouse, corrections of civil status, corrections of technical descriptions and other #atters related to a2rarian refor#. )(
he above pronounce#ent !as reiterated in this ponente@s rulin2 in eirs of :a6aro -allardo v. Soli#anB Hthe D*R*4 has e9clusive 3urisdiction over cases involvin2 the cancellation of re2istered EPs?F the D*R Secretar7, )/
8
on the other hand, has e9clusive 3urisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation of EPsF or Certificates of :and O!nership *!ards that are not 7et re2istered !ith the Re2ister of Deeds.H hus, since certificates of title have been issued in the respective na#es of the respondents as earl7 as in "11&, the D*R Re2ion I Director had no 3urisdiction to cancel their titles? the sa#e is true !ith respect to the D*R Secretar7. hus, their respective 0anuar7 )&, "11" and *u2ust $$, "11% Orders are null and void? conseuentl7, respondents@ EPs and titles subsist, contrar7 to petitioners@ clai# that the7 have been cancelled. Void 3ud2#ents or orders have no le2al and bindin2 effect, force, or efficac7 for an7 purpose? in conte#plation of la!, the7 are non=e9istent. )1
&
8or the above reasons, it necessaril7 follo!s that !hat petitioners pra7 for in the instant Petition < i.e. the " reinstate#ent of the 0anuar7 )&, "11" Order of the D*R Re2ion I Director and the *u2ust $$, "11% Order of the D*R Secretar7 < !hich have been voided herein, and $ issuance of EPs in their favor < are reliefs that this Court #a7 not 2rant. Ne9t, as correctl7 pointed out b7 the respondents, a revie! of the instant petition under Rule % is not a #atter of ri2ht but of sound 3udicial discretion, and !ill be 2ranted onl7 !hen there are special and i#portant reasons therefor. Moreover, a petition for revie! under Rule % covers uestions of la! onl7. HFhe 3urisdiction of the Supre#e Court in cases brou2ht before it fro# the C* via Rule % of the "11( Rules of Civil Procedure is 2enerall7 li#ited to revie!in2 errors of la!. his Court is not a trier off acts. In the e9ercise of its po!er of revie!, the findin2s of fact of the C* are conclusive and bindin2 and conseuentl7, it is not our Bfunction to anal76e or !ei2h evidence all over a2ain.H "
$
)
his Court finds that no special and i#portant reasons e9ist to !arrant a thorou2h revie! of the assailed C* Decision. 5uite the contrar7, the Court is satisfied !ith and can si#pl7 rel7 on the findin2s of the D*R*4 >rdaneta, D*R*4 5ue6on Cit7, and the C* = as !ell as the ver7 ad#issions of the petitioners the#selves = to the effect that respondents fulfilled all the reuire#ents under the a2rarian la!s in order to beco#e entitled to their EPs? that 8 elicisi#o voluntaril7 surrendered and abandoned the sub3ect propert7 in favor of his creditors, !ho tooA over the land and tilled the sa#e until "1/(? that 8elicisi#o #i2rated to the >.S.*. and beca#e a naturali6ed *#erican citi6en? that in "11", respondents !ere ille2all7 dispossessed of their landholdin2s throu2h force and inti#idation b7 the petitioners after 8elicisi#o returned fro# abroad? and that as bet!een petitioners and respondents, the latter are le2all7 entitled to the sub3ect propert7. hese identical findin2s are not onl7 entitled to 2reat respect, but even finalit7. 8or petitioners to uestion these identical findin2s is to raise a uestion of fact. 1âwphi1
It #ust be said as !ell that H fFactual findin2s of ad#inistrative bodies char2ed !ith their specific field of e9pertise, are afforded 2reat !ei2ht b7 the courts, and in the absence of substantial sho!in2 that such findin2s !ere #ade fro# an erroneous esti#ation of the evidence presented, the7 are conclusive, and in the interest of stabilit7 of the 2overn#ental structure, should not be disturbed. H %
8inall7, the Court finds it unnecessar7 to resolve the other issues raised b7 the parties, includin2 petitioners clai# that it !as erroneous and un3ust for the C* to have e9pun2ed their Me#orandu#. ;ERE8ORE, the Petition is DENIED. he Septe#ber $%, $&&' Decision and March "', $&&( Resolution of the Court of *ppeals in C*=-.R. SP No. /'/" are *88IRMED. SO ORDERED. MARIANO C. +EL CASTILLO *ssociate 0ustice
QUALIFICATIONS OF A BENEFICIARY
Republic of the Philippines S>PREME CO>R Manila SECOND DIVISION
9
-.R. No. "/")(&
March 1, $&""
0>:I*N S. :E4R>DO and REJN*:DO :. :E4R>DO, Petitioners, vs. REMEDIOS :OJO:*, Respondent. DECISION C*RPIO, 0.B he Case 4efore the Court is a petition1 for revie! on certiorari assailin2 the Resolution 2 dated 0anuar7 $&&/ and Decision3dated "( *u2ust $&&( of the Court of *ppeals +C* in C*=-.R. SP No. 1&&/. he 8acts Respondent Re#edios :o7ola +:o7ola o!ns a $&=suare #eter parcel of land located in 4aran2a7 Mila2rosa, Car#ona, Cavite, Ano!n as :ot No. ($)=', 4locA ", Psd=()"1 +lot, a!arded b7 the Depart#ent of *2rarian Refor# +D*R under Republic *ct No. ''%(4 +R* ''%( or the Co#prehensive *2rarian Refor# :a! of "1//. his lot is covered b7 Certificate of :and O!nership 5 +C:O* No. $&$"& issued in favor of :o7ola on $( Dece#ber "11& and dul7 re2istered on " March "11" under ransfer of Certificate of itle +CGC:O* No. 11/. On $( 0une "11%, petitioner 0ulian S. :ebrudo +:ebrudo, no! deceased and represented b7 his son, petitioner Re7naldo :. :ebrudo, filed !ith the Office of the Provincial *2rarian Refor# *d3udicator +P*R*D of rece Martires Cit7, Cavite, an action6 for the cancellation of the CGC:O* in the na#e of :o7ola and the issuance of another for the one=half portion of the lot in :ebrudo@s favor. In a Decision 7 dated "/ Dece#ber "11%, the P*R*D dis#issed the case !ithout pre3udice on the 2round that the case !as filed pre#aturel7. On "" March "11', :ebrudo re=filed the sa#e action.8 :ebrudo alle2ed that he !as approached b7 :o7ola so#eti#e in "1/1 to redee# the lot, !hich !as #ort2a2ed b7 :o7ola@s #other, Cristina u2o, to rinidad 4arreto. *fter :ebrudo redee#ed the lot for P$%&.&& and a cavan of pala7, :o7ola a2ain sou2ht :ebrudo@s help in obtainin2 title to the lot in her na#e b7 shoulderin2 all the e9penses for the transfer of the title of the lot fro# her #other, Cristina u2o. In e9chan2e, :o7ola pro#ised to 2ive :ebrudo the one=half portion of the lot. hereafter, CGC:O* No. 11/ !as issued in favor of :o7ola. :o7ola then alle2edl7 e9ecuted a Sinu#paan2 Sala7sa79 dated $/ Dece#ber "1/1, !aivin2 and transferrin2 her ri2hts over the one=half portion of the lot in favor of :ebrudo. o reiterate her co##it#ent, :o7ola alle2edl7 e9ecuted t!o #ore Sinu#paan2 Sala7sa710 dated " Dece#ber "11$ and ) Dece#ber "11$, co##ittin2 herself to re#ove her house constructed on the correspondin2 one=half portion to be allotted to :ebrudo. hereafter, :ebrudo asAed :o7ola to co#pl7 !ith her pro#ise. o!ever, :o7ola refused. :ebrudo sou2ht the assistance of the San22unian2 4aran2a7 of Mila2rosa, Car#ona, Cavite? the Philippine National Police +PNP of Car#ona, Cavite? and the Depart#ent of *2rarian Refor# to #ediate. o!ever, despite steps taAen to a#icabl7 settle the issue, as evidenced b7 certifications fro# the PNP and the baran2a7, there !as no a#icable settle#ent. hus, :ebrudo filed an action a2ainst :o7ola. In her *ns!er, :o7ola #aintained that :ebrudo !as the one !ho approached her and offered to redee# the lot and the release of the C:O*. :o7ola denied pro#isin2 one=half portion of the lot as pa7#ent for the transfer, titlin2 and re2istration of the lot. :o7ola e9plained that the lot !as her onl7 propert7 and it !as alread7 bein2 occupied b7 her children and their fa#ilies. :o7ola also denied the 2enuineness and due e9ecution of the t!o Sinu#paan2 Sala7sa7 dated $/ Dece#ber "1/1 and ) Dece#ber "11$. he records do not sho! !hether :o7ola renounced the Sinu#paan2 Sala7sa7 dated " Dece#ber "11$.
10
In a Decision11 dated ") 8ebruar7 $&&$, the P*R*D of rece Martires Cit7, Cavite decided the case in :ebrudo@s favor. he dispositive portion of the decision statesB ;ERE8ORE, in vie! of the fore2oin2, 0>D-MEN is hereb7 renderedB a Declarin2 Respondent Re#edios :o7ola disualified as far#er beneficiar7 of the sub3ect land identified as :ot ($)=', 4locA ", under CGC:O* No. 11/? b Declarin2 the Deed of sales over the sub3ect lot ille2al and ordered the sa#e set aside? c Declarin2 Plaintiff 0>:I*N :E4R>DO entitled to one half + of the sub3ect propert7 under CGC:O* No. 11/ in the na#e of Re#edios :o7ola? d Orderin2 the other one half + of the sub3ect lot read7 for allocation to ualified beneficiar7? e Orderin2 the D*R P*RO Office thru the Operations Division to cancel CGC:O* No. 11/ and in lieu thereof, to 2enerate and issue another title over the "$& suare #eters in the na#e of 0>:I*N :E4R>DO? f Orderin2 the surve7 of the sub3ect lot at the e9pense of the petitioner so that title be issued to plaintiff herein? 2 Orderin2 the Re2ister of Deeds, rece Martires Cit7 to cancel CGC:O* No. 11/ in the na#e of Re#edios :o7ola? h Orderin2 the Re2ister of Deeds, rece Martires Cit7 to re2ister the title in the na#e ofF 0ulian :ebrudo as presented b7 the D*R or its representative over the lot in uestion? No pronounce#ent as to costs and da#a2es. SO ORDERED.12 :o7ola appealed to the Depart#ent of *2rarian Refor# *d3udication 4oard +D*R*4. 13 In a Decision14 dated $ *u2ust $&&, the D*R*4 reversed the decision of the P*R*D and ruled in :o7ola@s favor. he dispositive portion statesB ;ERE8ORE, pre#ises considered, the appealed decision is hereb7 REVERSED and SE *SIDE and a ne! 3ud2#ent rendered as follo!sB ". >pholdin2 and #aintainin2 the validit7 and effectivit7 of CGC:O* No. 11/ in the na#e of the respondent? $. Declarin2 the Sinu#paan2 Sala7sa7 dated Dece#ber $/, "1/1 and Dece#ber ), "11$ attached to the petition as *nne9 C and 8, null and void !ithout le2al force and effect? ). Directin2 the Re2ister of Deeds of rece Martires Cit7, Cavite to reinstate CGC:O* No. 11/ in the na#e of the respondent. he status uo ante order issued b7 this 4oard on Nove#ber ), $&&) is hereb7 :I8ED. SO ORDERED.15 :ebrudo filed a #otion for reconsideration !hich the D*R*4 denied in a Resolution 16 dated "$ *pril $&&%. :ebrudo then filed a petition17 for revie! !ith the C*. In a Decision18 dated "( *u2ust $&&(, the C* affir#ed the decision of the D*R*4. :ebrudo filed a #otion for reconsideration !hich the C* denied in a Resolution19 dated 0anuar7 $&&/. ence, this petition. 11
he Issue he #ain issue is !hether :ebrudo is entitled to the one=half portion of the lot covered b7 R* ''%( on the basis of the !aiver and transfer of ri2hts e#bodied in the t!o Sinu#paan2 Sala7sa7 dated $/ Dece#ber "1/1 and ) Dece#ber "11$ alle2edl7 e9ecuted b7 :o7ola in his f avor. he Court@s Rulin2 he petition lacAs #erit. * Certificate of :and O!nership or C:O* is a docu#ent evidencin2 o!nership of the land 2ranted or a!arded to the beneficiar7 b7 D*R, and contains the restrictions and conditions provided for in R* ''%( and other applicable la!s. Section $( of R* ''%(, as a#ended b7 R* 1(&&, 20 !hich provides for the transferabilit7 of a!arded lands, statesB SEC. $(. ransferabilit7 of *!arded :ands. < :ands acuired b7 beneficiaries under this *C #a7 not be sold, transferred or conve7ed e9cept throu2h hereditar7 succession, or to the 2overn#ent, or to the :4P, or to other ualified beneficiaries for a period of ten +"& 7earsB Provided, ho!ever, hat the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a ri2ht to repurchase the land fro# the 2overn#ent or :4P !ithin a period of t!o +$ 7ears. Due notice of the availabilit7 of the land shall be 2iven b7 the :4P to the 4aran2a7 *2rarian Refor# Co##ittee +4*RC of the baran2a7 !here the land is situated. he Provincial *2rarian Coordinatin2 Co##ittee +P*RCCOM, as herein provided, shall, in turn, be 2iven due notice thereof b7 the 4*RC. he title of the land a!arded under the a2rarian refor# #ust indicate that it is an e#ancipation patent or a certificate of land o!nership a!ard and the subseuent transfer title #ust also indicate that it is an e#ancipation patent or a certificate of land o!nership a!ard. If the land has not 7et been full7 paid b7 the beneficiar7, the ri2hts to the land #a7 be transferred or conve7ed, !ith prior approval of the D*R, to an7 heir of the beneficiar7 or to an7 other beneficiar7 !ho, as a condition for such transfer or conve7ance, shall cultivate the land hi#self. 8ailin2 co#pliance here!ith, the land shall be transferred to the :4P !hich shall 2ive due notice of the availabilit7 of the land in the #anner specified in the i##ediatel7 precedin2 para2raph. 9 9 9 +E#phasis supplied It is clear fro# the provision that lands a!arded to beneficiaries under the Co#prehensive *2rarian Refor# Pro2ra# +C*RP #a7 not be sold, transferred or conve7ed for a period of "& 7ears. he la! enu#erated four e9ceptionsB +" throu2h hereditar7 succession? +$ to the 2overn#ent? +) to the :and 4anA of the Philippines +:4P? or + to other ualified beneficiaries. In short, durin2 the prohibitor7 "&=7ear period, an7 sale, transfer or conve7ance of land refor# ri2hts is void, e9cept as allo!ed b7 la!, in order to prevent a circu#vention of a2rarian refor# la!s. In the present case, :ebrudo insists that he is entitled to one=half portion of the lot a!arded to :o7ola under the C*RP as pa7#ent for shoulderin2 all the e9penses for the transfer of the title of the lot fro# :o7ola@s #other, Cristina u2o, to :o7ola@s na#e. :ebrudo used the t!o Sinu#paan2 Sala7sa7 e9ecuted b7 :o7ola allotin2 to hi# the one=half portion of the lot as basis for his clai#. :ebrudo@s assertion #ust fail. he la! e9pressl7 prohibits an7 sale, transfer or conve7ance b7 far#er= beneficiaries of their land refor# ri2hts !ithin "& 7ears fro# the 2rant b7 the D*R. he la! provides for four e9ceptions and :ebrudo does not fall under an7 of the e9ceptions. In Ma7le# v. Ellano,21 !e held that the !aiver of ri2hts and interests over landholdin2s a!arded b7 the 2overn#ent is invalid for bein2 violative of a2rarian refor# la!s. Clearl7, the !aiver and transfer of ri2hts to the lot as e#bodied in the Sinu#paan2 Sala7sa7 e9ecuted b7 :o7ola is void for fallin2 under the "&=7ear prohibitor7 period specified in R* ''%(. :ebrudo asserts that he is a ualified far#er beneficiar7 !ho is entitled to the lot under the C*RP. D*R *d#inistrative Order No. ),22 series of "11&, enu#erated the ualifications of a beneficiar7B ". :andless? $. 8ilipino citi6en?
12
). *ctual occupantGtiller !ho is at least "% 7ears of a2e or head of the fa#il7 at the ti#e of filin2 application? and . as the !illin2ness, abilit7 and aptitude to cultivate and #aAe the land productive. :ebrudo does not ualif7 as a beneficiar7 because of +" and +). 8irst, :ebrudo is not landless. *ccordin2 to the records,23 Municipal *2rarian Refor# Officer *#elia San2alan2 issued a certification dated $/ 8ebruar7 "11' attestin2 that :ebrudo !as a!arded b7 the D*R !ith a ho#elot consistin2 of an area of $)' suare #eters situated at 0aptincha7 Estate, 4o. Mila2rosa, Car#ona, Cavite. Ne9t, :ebrudo is not the actual occupant or tiller of the lot at the ti#e of the filin2 of the application. :o7ola and her fa#il7 !ere the actual occupants of the lot at the ti#e :o7ola applied to be a beneficiar7 under the C*RP. 8urther, the C*, in its Decision dated "( *u2ust $&&(, correctl7 observed that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title and after the e9piration of the one=7ear period fro# the issuance of the re2istration decree upon !hich it is based, the title beco#es incontrovertible. he C* also declared that the basis of :ebrudo@s clai#, the t!o Sinu#paan2 Sala7sa7 dated $/ Dece#ber "1/1 and ) Dece#ber "11$, !ere ille2al and void ab initio for bein2 patentl7 intended to circu#vent and violate the conditions i#posed b7 the a2rarian la!. he relevant portions of the decision provideB 9 9 9 It is undisputed that C:O* $&$"& !as issued to the respondent on Dece#ber $(, "11& and !as re2istered b7 the Re2ister of Deeds of Cavite on March ", "11", resultin2 in the issuance of CGC:O* No. 11/ in her na#e. >nder Sec. ), P.D. "%$1, the certificate of title that #a7 be issued b7 the Re2ister of Deeds pursuant to an7 voluntar7 or involuntar7 instru#ent relatin2 to the land shall be the transfer certificate of title, !hich shall sho! the nu#ber of the ne9t previous certificate coverin2 the sa#e land and also the fact that it !as previousl7 re2istered, 2ivin2 the record nu#ber of the ori2inal certificate of title and the volu#e and pa2e of the re2istration booA in !hich the ori2inal certificate of title is found. he certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the propert7 in favor of the person !hose na#e appears therein. *fter the e9piration of the one=7ear period fro# the issuance of the decree of re2istration upon !hich it is based, the title beco#es incontrovertible. *ccordin2l7, b7 the ti#e !hen ori2inal petitioner 0ulian :ebrudo filed on 0une $(, "11% the first case +seeAin2 the cancellation of the respondent@s C:O*, the respondent@s certificate of title had alread7 beco#e incontrovertible. hat conseuence !as inevitable, for as the D*R*4 correctl7 observed, an ori2inal certificate of title issued b7 the Re2ister of Deeds under an ad#inistrative proceedin2 !as as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a 3udicial re2istration proceedin2. Clearl7, the respondent, as re2istered propert7 o!ner, !as entitled to the prot ection 2iven to ever7 holder of a orrens title.1avvphi1 he issue of !hether or not the respondent !as bound b7 her !aiver and transfer in favor of 0ulian :ebrudo, as contained in the several sinu#paan2 sala7sa7, !as irrelevant. ;orse for the petitioner, the D*R*4 properl7 held that the undertaAin2 of the respondent to 0ulian :ebrudo under the sinu#paan2 sala7sa7 dated Dece#ber $/, "1/1 and Dece#ber ), "11$ < !hereb7 she pro#ised to 2ive hi# portion of the ho#elot in consideration of his helpin2 her !orA on the release of the C:O* to her and shoulderin2 all the e9penses for the purpose < !as Hclearl7 ille2al and void ab initioH for bein2 patentl7 intended to circu#vent and violate the conditions i#posed b7 the a2rarian la!s and their i#ple#entin2 rules. e could not, therefore, have his supposed ri2ht enforced. 9 9 924 ;e see no reason to disturb the findin2s of the C*. he #ain purpose of the a2rarian refor# la! is to ensure the far#er=beneficiar7@s continued possession, cultivation and en3o7#ent of the land he tills. 25 o do other!ise is to revert bacA to the old feudal s7ste# !hereb7 the lando!ners reacuired vast tracts of land and thus circu#vent the 2overn#ent@s pro2ra# of freein2 the tenant=far#ers fro# the bonda2e of the soil.26 ;ERE8ORE, !e DENJ the petition. ;e *88IRM the Decision dated "( *u2ust $&&( and Resolution dated 0anuar7 $&&/ of the Court of *ppeals in C*=-.R. SP No. 1&&/. SO ORDERED.
13
14
