Republic of the SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
JOVENDO
Petitioner,
-
versus - Present:
ABUNDIO ORCIGA, QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson
EMELINA ORCIGA-VOLANTE, CARPIO,
PILAR ORCIGA
CLEMENA, CARPIO MORALES,
ADELAIDA
ORCIGA GENIO, TINGA, and
NENITA ORCIGA
ELEDA, VELASCO, JR., JJ.
YOLANDA ORCIGA TAKASAN
and ALBERTO ORCIGA, Promulgated:
Respondents.
August 31, 2006
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
If my land has cried out against me, and
its furrows have wept together; if I have eaten its yield without payment, and
caused the death of its owners, let thorns grow instead of wheat, and foul
weeds instead of barley.
—Job 31:38-40[1]
Land has spawned countless disputes
because man is inexorably bound to it from cradle to grave for domicile, life
sustenance, and other fundamental needs.
For others, having a small landholding is their only means to get out of
bondage and oppression or to build a promising future for their progeny. Possession
or ownership of land can either promote or deprive other people of social
justice; thus, courts must exercise utmost care and diligence to ensure that
decisions on disputes involving lands promote social justice. As succinctly expressed in Gelos v. Court of Appeals, “social justice—or any justice for that
matter—is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a
pauper in his hovel.”[2]
This case at bar illustrates how
courts should vigilantly, consistently, and steadfastly uphold the principle
that justice is for all and for the deserving—in the same way that “the State
shall be guided by the principle that land has a social function and land
ownership has a social responsibility.”[3]
The Case
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner del Castillo seeks the
nullification of the November 26, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 66122, ordering him to vacate the subject landholding and
directing the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) to
restore possession of the farm lot to respondents.
Petitioner Jovendo del Castillo is the
son and administrator of Menardo del Castillo, who previously owned a 1.3300-hectare
riceland located at Omabo, Polpog, Bula, Camarines
Pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD No. 27),[5]
Eugenio Orciga became the beneficiary of the Land Transfer Program of the government
during his lifetime. He was awarded Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-070176 over the said landholding on
On
a. Ronald Orciga
– May
1989 - May 1991
b. Emelina Volante – May
1991 - May 1992
c. Alberto Orciga –
May 1992 - May 1993
d. Adelaida Genio –
May 1993 - May 1994
e. Pilar Clemena –
May 1994 - May 1995
f. Nenita Eleda – May 1995 - May 1996
g. Abundio Orciga – May
1996 - May 1997
h. Yolanda Takasan
– May 1997 - May 1998[6]
After
cultivating and harvesting the riceland from 1989 to 1991, Ronald Orciga
abandoned the said farm on
On
Respondents
filed a Complaint on
In his Answer
with Counterclaim[10] filed on
To
respondents’ Complaint and petitioner’s Answer with Counterclaim, Provincial
Adjudicator Virgil G. Alberto then rendered his
WHEREFORE,
the petition for reinstatement is hereby dismissed for lack of cause of action.
Rolando Orciga is therefore given until the next cropping
season of 1994 to personally cultivate said farmholding, subject to payment of
arrearages on rentals.[13]
Believing that the Provincial
Adjudicator had erred in his Decision, respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on August 1, 1994, claiming that the Provincial Adjudicator’s
Decision was “contrary to law and not in accordance with the provisions and
intent of MAR Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1978, in
relation to A.O. 4, series of 1988”;[14]
but in his August 22, 1994 Resolution, the Provincial Adjudicator rejected the
plea for reconsideration.[15]
Consequently, on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby
ANNULED [sic] AND A NEW DECISION is hereby rendered:
1.
Placing the
disposition of subject landholding with the DAR, particularly the PARO of
Camarines Sur, for the implementation of Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 19,
Series of 1978, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 14, Series of 1988;
2.
Ordering
defendant-appellee, and/or any person/s acting in his behalf, to vacate subject
landholding for the proper disposition of the DAR.
Let the records of this case be remanded to the sala
of the Provincial Adjudicator a quo for the issuance of a writ of execution.[16]
On
Undaunted, del Castillo, on
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The appellate court concluded that petitioner del Castillo had no right to take possession of the farmland being disputed even if the heirs had failed to deliver the agricultural lessor’s share. It held that when the beneficiary abandons the tillage or refuses to gain rights accruing to the farmer-beneficiary under the law, it will be reverted to the government and not to the farm lot owner.[19]
The dispositive
portion of the CA’s
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
for lack of merit. The petitioner is hereby ordered to vacate the premises in
question. The DARAB is hereby directed to immediately reinstate possession of
the landholdings to respondents.
Costs
against the petitioners.[20]
[sic, ‘petitioners’ should be ‘petitioner’]
On December
13, 2001, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said Decision, but
the CA discarded the said motion for lack of merit in its May 7, 2002
Resolution.[21]
Persistent,
petitioner now seeks a fourth and final review of his case through a Petition
for Review on Certiorari[22]
before this Court.
The Issue
The main issue is who should be
entitled to possess the disputed landholding under the DAR Land Transfer
Program––the petitioner, as representative of the former titled landowner, or
the respondents, as successors of the deceased beneficiary.
The Court’s
Ruling
The Court holds respondents to be the rightful possessors of the disputed farmland and at the same time, rejects the instant petition.
The Main Issue: Who is Entitled to the Possession
of the Riceland
Petitioner del
Castillo asserts that restoring the possession of the riceland to the
respondents would be prejudicial to the interest of Menardo del Castillo, the
former landowner, due to the unjustified abandonment of said landholding by
Ronald Orciga, the designated successor of the beneficiary, Eugenio Orciga. He also argues that his father, Menardo del
Castillo, is still entitled to just and full compensation of the riceland
which, at the time the case was originally filed before the Office of the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Camarines Sur, had not been paid by
Eugenio Orciga. Furthermore, he claims
that because of the respondents’ pending payment of the amortizations, he should
still be considered the owner of the riceland. Based on such reasons, he concludes
that he is entitled to possess and cultivate the land as administrator on
behalf of his father.
We DISAGREE.
Undeniably,
Eugenio Orciga, the original beneficiary and predecessor-in-interest of
respondents, was awarded Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0070176 over the
contested land pursuant to PD No. 27. Therefore, for all intents and purposes,
he is the acknowledged owner of the contested land.
A Certificate
of Land Transfer (CLT) is a document issued to a tenant-farmer, which proves inchoate ownership of an agricultural
land primarily devoted to rice and corn production. It is issued in order for the tenant- farmer to
acquire the land. This certificate prescribes the terms and conditions of
ownership over said land and likewise describes the landholding––its area and its
location. A CLT is the provisional title of ownership over the landholding
while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of the land’s value or for as long
as the beneficiary is an “amortizing owner.”[23]
Section 1 of Presidential
Decree No. 266 states that:
[u]pon receipt of the copy of the CLT, the Register of
Deeds concerned shall record it in the primary entry book and annotate a
memorandum thereof in the corresponding certificate of title covering the land,
without need of prior surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title.
It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to notify the registered owner
concerned of such fact within a reasonable time (par. 2).
More so,
under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 315, the CLT shall be accepted as
collateral for loans.
Land
transfer under PD No. 27 is effected in two (2) stages: (1) issuance of a CLT to a farmer-beneficiary
as soon as DAR transfers the landholding to the farmer-beneficiary in recognition
that said person is a “deemed owner”; and (2) issuance of an Emancipation Patent
as proof of full ownership of the landholding upon full payment of the annual
amortizations or lease rentals by the farmer or beneficiary.[24]
As of
Petitioner’s
asseveration that he is still entitled to possess and cultivate said farmland
does not hold water under PD No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 (EO No. 228).
PD No. 27 took
effect on
The said decree provides that the
tenant-farmer should be a full- fledged member of a duly recognized farmer’s
cooperative. If the private agricultural land is primarily devoted to rice and
corn under a system of share-a-crop or lease tenants, the tenant-farmer shall
be a “deemed owner” of a portion constituting a family-size farm of five (5)
hectares, if not irrigated and three (3) hectares, if irrigated.
To
determine the cost of the land to be transferred to the tenant-farmer under PD
No. 27, the value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one half (2 ˝)
times the average harvest of three normal crop years. The cost of the land,
including interest at the rate of six (6) per centum per annum, shall be paid
by the tenant in fifteen (15) years of fifteen (15) equal annual amortizations.
Then, the landholding is transferred by the Department of Agrarian Reform to
the tenant-farmer, and a CLT is issued to him; thereafter, the tenant-farmer
starts to pay the amortizations to the land-owner.
The CLT of
Eugenio Orciga was issued on
Let us now
move on to the other issue of non-payment of the amortizations on said
farmland––which is del Castillo’s basis to insist ownership over the land on
his father’s behalf.
PD No. 27
is clear that in case of non-payment, the amortizations due shall be paid by
the farmer’s cooperative in which the defaulting tenant-farmer is a member,
with the cooperative having a right of recourse against the farmer. The
government shall guarantee such amortizations with shares of stocks in
government-owned and government-controlled corporations.
Clearly,
therefore, the landowner is assured of payment even if the tenant-farmer
defaults in paying amortizations since the farmers’ cooperative will assume
paying the amortizations.
With regard
to the reversion of the landholding to the owner, this is proscribed under PD No.
27 since it is explicitly provided that:
Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the
Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by the
hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with the provisions of
this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reform and other existing laws and
regulations (par. 13).
The
landowner has no reason to complain since full payment of the value is even
guaranteed by the shares of stocks of government corporations.
In the
light of this decree, petitioner del Castillo’s position––that his possession
of the landholding be maintained––has no strong legal mooring under PD No. 27.
On July
17, 1987, former President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 228
which provides that as of October 21, 1972, all qualified farmer-beneficiaries
are now “deemed full owners” of the land they acquired by virtue of PD No. 27.[25]
E.O. No. 228 modified PD No. 27 on the
manner of payment of the value of the land to the landowner.
EO No. 228
even provided for different modes of payment of the value of the land, thus:
SECTION 3. Compensation shall be paid to the landowners
in any of the following modes, at the option of the landowners:
(a) Bond payment over ten (10) years, with ten percent
(10%) of the value of the land payable immediately in cash, and the balance in
the form of LBP bonds bearing market
rates of interest that are aligned with
90-day treasury bills rates, net of applicable final withholding tax.
One-tenth of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date
of issuances until the tenth year.
The LBP bonds issued hereunder shall be eligible for
the purchase of government assets to be privatized;
(b) Direct payment in cash or kind by the
farmer-beneficiaries with the terms to be mutually agreed upon by the
beneficiaries and landowners and subject to the approval of the Department of
Agrarian Reform; and
(c) Other modes of payment as may be prescribed or
approved by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council.
If the
landowner decides that the financing should be extended by Land Bank for the
payment of the value of the land to him under Section 3(a) of EO No. 228, a
mortgage is constituted over the landholding.
Section 7 of the Executive
Order provides:
As of the date of this Executive Order, a lien by way
of mortgage shall exist in favor of the Land Bank on all lands it has financed
and acquired by the farmer-beneficiary by virtue of P.D. No. 27 for all
amortizations, both principal and interest, due from the farmer-beneficiary or
a valid transferee until the amortizations are paid in full.
In this
manner of payment, the farmer-beneficiary pays the amortizations directly to
the Land Bank and no longer to the land owner.
However, the
failure of the farmer-beneficiary to pay three (3) annual amortizations to Land
Bank will result in the foreclosure of the mortgage.[26]
Section 11,
EO No. 228 further directs the Land Bank, within three (3) months from the
transfer of the land, to sell the foreclosed land to any interested landless
farmer duly certified as a bona fide landless farmer by the Department of Agrarian
Reform of the barangay or the two closest barangays where the land is located.
Specifically,
Section 2 of EO No. 228 explains the procedure on the payment of lease rentals
by the farmer-beneficiary who was granted a CLT under PD No. 27. If a dispute
arises, the mechanism for its resolution is as follows:
Lease rentals paid to
the landowner by the farmer beneficiary after
Unmistakably, that in case the farmer-beneficiary
under PD No. 27 is unable to pay the agreed lease rentals, the LBP will process
the compensation claim for payment; and the proceeds shall be held in trust by its
Trust Department until the landowner finally accepts the payment or the court
orders him to accept it. Under Section 7
of EO No. 228, a lien by way of mortgage shall exist in favor of LBP on the
land it has financed in favor of a farmer-beneficiary under PD No. 27. In short, the payment of the full value of the
land to the landowner is assured under EO No. 228, which explains the rule that
even if the lease-rentals or amortizations have not been paid to the landowner,
the possession is retained by the farmer-beneficiary.
In the case at bar, the petitioner has two options; first,
to bring the dispute on the non-payment of the land to the DAR and the Barangay
Committee on Land Production that will subsequently resolve said dispute pursuant
to Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973
and other issuances; and, second, to
negotiate with the DAR and LBP for payment of the compensation claim pursuant
to Section 2 of EO No. 228. Eventually,
the scheme under EO No. 228 will result to the full payment of the compensation
of the value of the land to Menardo del Castillo, petitioner’s father and
former landowner.
From the foregoing options, it is indubitably
clear that the reconveyance of the land to the former owner is not allowed. The
policy is to hold such lands under trust for the succeeding generations of
farmers.[28] The
objective is to prevent repetition of cases where the lands distributed to the
tenant-farmers reverted to the former lot owners or even conveyed to land
speculators.[29] Thus, possession of the land cannot be restored
to petitioner del Castillo although there was failure of the heirs to pay the
landowner’s share or compensation. The
transfer or conveyance of the riceland can only be made to an heir of the
beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who shall in turn cultivate the land. In the case in hand, even if Ronald Orciga has
abandoned the land, the right to possess and cultivate the land legally belongs
to the other heirs of Eugenio Orciga. Undoubtedly,
petitioner del Castillo is not a beneficiary of Eugenio Orciga––the original
beneficiary; hence, petitioner has no legal right to the possession of the farmland.
On the other issue of deceased Eugenio
Orciga’s successor, the Court rules that the July 1, 1991 Agreement among the
heirs of Eugenio Orciga (that stipulated a provision for a rotation system in
the cultivation of the riceland among themselves) directly contravenes Ministry
Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978.
The said ministry memorandum
circular states that:
Where there are several heirs, and in the absence of
extra judicial settlement or waiver of rights in favor of one heir who
shall be the sole owner and cultivator, the heirs shall[,] within one month from the death of the tenant-beneficiary[,] be free to choose from
among themselves one who shall have sole ownership and cultivation of the land,
x x x Provided, however, That [sic]
the surviving spouse shall be given
first preference; otherwise, in the absence or due to the permanent incapacity
of the surviving spouse, priority shall be determined among the heirs according
to age (emphases supplied).[30]
Moreover, the
ministry memorandum circular also
provides that:
1. Succession to the farmholding covered by Operation
Land Transfer shall be governed by the pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code
of the
a.
The farmholding shall not be
partitioned or fragmented.
b. The
ownership and cultivation of the farmholding shall ultimately be consolidated
in one heir who possesses the
following qualifications:
(1) being
a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmers’ cooperative;
(2) capable
of personally cultivating the farmholding; and
(3) willing
to assume the obligations and responsibilities
of a tenant-beneficiary.
c. Such
owner-cultivator shall compensate the other heirs to the extent of their
respective legal interest in the land, subject to the payment of whatever
outstanding obligations of the deceased tenant-beneficiary. (Emphasis supplied.)
The records show that Emelina Orciga Volante is desirous to
avail herself of the right to cultivate the land according to the rotation
system of the heirs. This is contrary to MAR Memorandum Circular No. 19, which
requires that the ownership and cultivation shall be consolidated in one heir. The said agreement is therefore illegal and
ineffective. The heirs must agree on one
of them to be the owner-cultivator of the land in accordance with the law, but
priority is granted to the surviving spouse, and in the latter’s absence or
permanent incapacity, the age of the heirs will be used to decide who should
succeed as farmer-beneficiary.
WHEREFORE, the November 26, 2002 Decision of the
Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATIONS, as follows:
1.
The
respondents or heirs of the late Eugenio Orciga are ordered, within one month
from finality of this Decision, to choose the sole owner and cultivator of the
landholding from among themselves, giving first preference to his surviving
spouse, or in her absence or incapacity, from among the heirs, and to give
priority according to age of the heirs in accordance with MAR Memorandum
Circular No. 19, Series of 1978.
2.
In
case of respondents’ failure to comply with MAR Memorandum Circular No. 19,
Series of 1978, the DAR is ordered to determine the heir or
successor-in-interest of the late Eugenio Orciga as farmer-beneficiary within
one month reckoned from the lapse of the 30-day period given to respondents
to determine the sole owner-cultivator.
3.
Petitioner
Jovendo del Castillo is ordered to immediately surrender possession of the disputed
landholding to respondents, and the DARAB is directed to ensure the immediate
restoration of possession of said landholding to the respondents.
Costs
against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES |
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[2] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. & Department of Agrarian Reform v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 118712 & 118745, October 6, 1995, 249 SCRA 149, 151, citing 208 SCRA 608, 615 (1992), penned by Justice Isagani Cruz, quoting Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy.
[5] PD No.
27 was the law in force at the time, and this law continues to govern the
relations between landowners and farmer-beneficiaries. On
[6] Temporary Agreement of the Children of the Late Eugenio Orciga to Rotate the Cultivation of the Land Covered by CLT No. 0-070176, records, p. 68.
[19] CA Decision (penned by Associate Justice
Eugenio S. Labitoria with Associate Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Rebecca De
Guia-Salvador concurring), rollo, p.
55.