FIRST
DIVISION
|
MAGDALENA CORUÑA, JORGE CORUÑA, ESTATE
OF ALBERTO CORUÑA, ROSITA CORUÑA, ESTATE OF BENJAMIN CORUÑA, JUANITA
ELIZALDE, FLORA ACOSTA, LORETO CORUÑA, and ESTATE OF JOSE CORUÑA,
Petitioners, - versus
- SATURNINO
CINAMIN,[1]
ANDRES ACANA, ROSITA LAUREANO,
ROGELIO ENGAG,[2]
DOMINADOR GABIOTA, JR., FEDERICO GABIOTA, RAUL VANGUARDIA,
ROMEO LOCSIN, GUALBERTO GUALDRAPA,[3]
CARLITO GOROY, GERVACIO SONQUIAWON, LEOPOLDO BELO, and NORMA
LOCSIN, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 154286 Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J. Chairperson, YNARES-SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO,
SR., and CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ. Promulgated: February 28, 2006 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision[4]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59922 dated
The
factual antecedents follow:
Julieta Vasquez Coruña was the
owner of Lot No. 1176-A located in Himaya, Hinigaran, Negros Occidental,
with an area of 119.3830 hectares and Lot No. 350-B situated in Payao, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental, composed of 25.2513 hectares. When Julieta died intestate on
Lot
No. 1176-A was tenanted by respondents Saturnino Cinamin, Andres Acana, Rosita Laureano, Rogelio Egang, Dominador Gabiota, and Federico Gabiota. On the
other hand, Lot No. 350-B was tenanted by respondents Raul Vanguardia,
Romeo Locsin, Gilberto Gualdrapa,
Carlito Goroy, Gervacio Sonquiawon, Leopoldo Belo, and Norma Locsin.[8]
On
In
said complaint, petitioners alleged that Lot No. 1176-A was primarily devoted
to sugar production and only a small portion thereof or about 9.92 hectares
were devoted to rice and corn production.
As the entire property was still under the regime of co-ownership, each
petitioner was the pro-indiviso owner of only 9,920
square meters which was way below the seven-hectare retention limit mandated by
Presidential Decree No. 27.[11]
Despite this and the fact that neither respondents Cinamin,
Acana, Laureano, Engag, Gabiota, Jr., and Gabiota nor their predecessors-in-interest were
petitioners’ tenants, emancipation patents were issued in favor of said
respondents. Moreover, petitioners
claimed that respondents failed to pay the rentals and amortizations for the
lands awarded to them.
In
their answer with motion to dismiss,[12]
respondents Cinamin, Acana,
Laureano, Engag, Gabiota, Jr., and Gabiota
insisted that they were tenants of Lot No. 1176-A as they and their
predecessors-in-interest were duly paying the landowners’ shares on the lands
they were farming such that when Pres. Decree No. 27 took effect, the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) immediately recognized them as farmer-beneficiaries. They likewise alleged that they were paying
their amortizations for the lands granted to them through the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) and that aside from this, they had been paying the real property
taxes due on the subject lands.
The second case was instituted by
petitioners against respondents Vanguardia, Locsin, Gualdrapa, Goroy, Sonquiawon, Belo, and Locsin and this was docketed as PARAD Case No. VI-72-NO-94.[13]
In this complaint, petitioners alleged that Lot No. 350-B was primarily devoted
to sugar production and only 8.10 hectares thereof, more or less, were used for
rice and corn production. Petitioners
stated that as
Respondents Vanguardia,
Locsin, Gualdrapa, Goroy, Sonquiawon, Belo, and Locsin countered in their answer with motion to dismiss[14]
that like the respondents in the other case, they and their
predecessors-in-interest, as tenants of
In
a decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is hereby rendered dismissing the complaints for utter lack of merit.
For
lack of evidence, the counterclaim is denied.[15]
Payment of rentals to the landowner
is no longer the concern of EP beneficiaries.
From the moment the EP is issued, the obligation of the EP holder is
concentrated with the Land Bank of the
Anent petitioners’ contention that the
inclusion of parts of Lot Nos. 1176-A and 350-B within the coverage of Pres.
Decree No. 27 undermined their retention limit under said law, the PARAD held
that as each complainant already owned around 12.7614 hectares of agricultural
land aside from the area covered by Operation Land Transfer, they are no longer
entitled to the seven-hectare retention area.
The PARAD based this finding on the following provision of DAR
Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 1991, which was quoted in its decision:
“x x x An owner of tenanted rice and corn lands may not retain
these lands under the following cases:
x x x x
b) By
virtue of LOI 474, if he as of
- Other
agricultural lands of more than seven hectares, whether tenanted or not,
whether cultivated or not, and regardless of income derived therefrom;
or x x x[19]
On
Petitioners thereafter filed a notice of appeal dated
Still undaunted, petitioners then sought relief before the
Court of Appeals where their case once again failed to prosper for in its
decision dated
Hence, the
present petition where petitioners pray that we reverse and set aside the
assailed decision of the Court of Appeals and in lieu thereof a new judgment be
rendered declaring as null and void the emancipation patents and/or
certificates of land transfer issued by the DAR in favor of respondents.[23]
In their
memorandum, the petitioners raise the following issues for our consideration:
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT INVALIDATING THE EMANCIPATION PATENTS AND CERTIFICATES OF LAND TRANSFER AWARDED TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR HAVING BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE FULL PAYMENT OF THE AMORTIZATION REQUIRED UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27.[24]
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PAYMENTS
MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE LAND BANK OF THE
Petitioners
contend that under both law and jurisprudence, emancipation patents may only be
issued to farmer-beneficiaries after they had fully complied with the
requirements of Pres. Decree No. 27 including the full payment of
amortization. In support of this
contention, they cite the first paragraph of Section 2, Pres. Decree No. 266[26]
which states:
Sec. 2. After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of title under Presidential Decree No. 27, an Emancipation Patent and/or Grant shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform on the basis of a duly approved survey plan.
Petitioners
likewise rely on our following pronouncement in the case of Pagtalunan
v. Tamayo:[27]
x x x However, a careful study of the provisions of Pres. Decree No. 27, and the certificate of land transfer issued to qualified farmers, will reveal that the transfer of ownership over these lands is subject to particular terms and conditions the compliance with which is necessary in order that the grantees can claim the right of absolute ownership over them.
x x x x
And under Pres. Decree No. 266 which specifies the procedure for the registration of title to lands acquired under Pres. Decree No. 27, full compliance by the grantee with the above-mentioned undertakings is required for a grant of title under the Tenant Emancipation Decree and the subsequent issuance of an emancipation patent in favor of the farmer/grantee [Section 2, Pres. Decree No. 266]. x x x.[28]
In
this case, petitioners assert that the emancipation patents were issued to
respondents on various dates between 1989 and 1990 notwithstanding the fact
that they were still paying their amortizations to the LBP beyond said period
in clear violation of the provisions of Pres. Decree No. 27 and Pres. Decree
No. 266.[29]
Also,
petitioners insist that the payments made by respondents to the LBP were
invalid considering that Pres. Decree No. 816 requires the direct payment of
amortizations to the landowners.
According to petitioners, LBP’s authority for
receiving payments for lands within the coverage of Pres. Decree No. 27 was DAR
Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 1978.
However, this memorandum circular had already been declared invalid by
the Court of Appeals in the case of Gonzales v. Land Bank of the Philippines[30]
as it contravenes Pres. Decree No. 816’s requirement of direct payment to
the landowners of the value of the lands subjected to Pres. Decree No. 27.[31]
For
their part, respondents claim that they have complied with what is required of
them under the law. For one, petitioners
maintain that they have been paying to the LBP the monthly amortization due on
the lands awarded to them and that in fact, some of them had paid the LBP the
full amount of their obligations.[32] They also assert that even prior to this,
they religiously paid the landowner’s share in the portions of the land that
they respectively tilled.[33]
Respondents likewise point to the initiatory steps taken by the DAR in the
implementation of Operation Land Transfer program of Pres. Decree No. 27
particularly the determination of the average gross production data per hectare
conducted by the Barangay Committee on Land
Production (BCLP).[34] As the BLCP had already done its duty of
determining the value of the subject lands, respondents were then authorized to
pay for the lands awarded to them to the LBP.[35]
Anent
the issue of the validity of the payments to the LBP, respondents direct us to
our holding in the case of Locsin v.
Valenzuela[36]
where we declared that “(u)nder PD No. 251, dated
July 21, 1973, the Land Bank is tasked to finance the acquisition of farm lots
and whenever it pays the whole or a portion of the total cost of the farm lots,
it shall be subrogated to the right of the landowner to collect and receive the
yearly amortizations or the amount paid including interest thereon, from the
tenants-farmers in whose favor the farm lots had been transferred pursuant to
PD No. 27.”[37]
We
find the petition partly meritorious.
As
the opening paragraph of Pres. Decree No. 27 explains, said statute was issued
in order to address the then prevailing violent conflict and social tension
brought about by the iniquitous landownership by a few. It is within this context that former
President Ferdinand Marcos deemed it proper to declare the emancipation of all
tenant-farmers effective
Petitioner, however, claims that she was not paid just compensation and, thus, prays for the cancellation of the Emancipation Patents issued to respondents under PD 27. She contends that “it is illegal for the DAR to take property without full payment of just compensation[;] until full payment is done the title and ownership remain with the landholder.”
Petitioner’s contention has merit. Section 2 of PD 266 states:
“After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of title under Presidential Decree No. 27, an Emancipation Patent and/or Grant shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform on the basis of a duly approved survey plan.”
On the other hand, paragraphs 8 and 9 of PD 27 reads as follows:
“For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be transferred to the tenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one-half (2 ½) times the average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding the promulgation of this Decree;
“The total 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[.]”
Although,
under the law, tenant farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till,
they are still required to pay the cost of the land, including interest, within
fifteen years before the title is transferred to them. Thus, the Court held in Association of
Small Landowners in the
“It
is true that PD 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmers as of
October 21, 1972 and declared that he shall ‘be deemed the owner’ of a portion
of land consisting of a family-sized farm except that ‘no title to the land
owned by him was to be actually issued to him unless and until he had become a
full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmers’ cooperative.’ It was understood, however, that full
payment of the just compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the
constitutional requirement.”
x x x x
Presidential Decree 27 and subsequently Executive Order (EO) 228, which recognized the rights acquired by tenant-farmers under PD 27, provide in detail the computation to be used in arriving at the exact total cost of the parcels of land. Evidently, therefore, the law recognizes that their exact value, or the just compensation to be given to the landowner, cannot just be assumed; it must be determined with certainty before the land titles are transferred.
Although EO 228 provides that the total lease rentals paid for the lands from October 21, 1972 shall be considered as advance payment, it does not sanction the assumption that such rentals are automatically considered as equivalent to just compensation for the land. The provision significantly designates the lease rentals as advance, not full payment. The determination of the exact value of the lands cannot simply be brushed aside, as it is fundamental to the determination of whether full payment has been made.
In
the case at bar, respondents submitted as evidence the accomplished forms of
Land Valuation Summary & Farmer’s Undertaking of the LBP[41]
and the average gross production prepared by the BCLP’s
in Barangays Hinigaran and Payao, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental.[42] To our mind, however, these documentary
evidence, pertaining merely to the valuation of the subject lands, do not meet
the requirement of Pres. Decree No. 27 and Pres. Decree No. 266 with respect to
the issuance of emancipation patents to respondents. Valuation of the land is only one aspect of
the whole process of agrarian reform; full compensation for the value of land
is another. As discussed above, the laws mandate the full compensation
for the lands acquired under Pres. Decree No. 27 prior to the issuance of
emancipation patents. This is
understandable particularly since the emancipation patent presupposes that the
grantee thereof has already complied with all the requirements prescribed by
Pres. Decree No. 27.[43] The issuance of emancipation patent,
therefore, conclusively vests upon the farmer/grantee the rights of absolute
ownership over the land awarded to him.[44]
While this
Court commiserates with respondents in their plight, we are constrained by the
explicit requirements of the laws and jurisprudence on the matter to annul the
emancipation patents issued to respondents in the absence of any proof that
they or the LBP has already fully paid the value of the lands put under the
coverage of Pres. Decree No. 27. The requirement is unequivocal in that the
values of the lands awarded to respondents must, prior to the issuance of
emancipation patents, be paid in full.
Under the
rules of evidence, respondents, as debtors, bear the onus of showing with legal
certainty that the obligation to petitioners with respect to the value of the
lands awarded to them has been discharged by payment.[45]
Sadly for respondents, they failed to dispose of this burden as the records of
this case is bereft of any evidence, such as certifications from the proper
government authorities, which would satisfactorily establish that the requisite
full payment to petitioners has been complied with. The cancellation of the
emancipation patents subject of this case, perforce, follows. Dura lex sed lex.
Despite the cancellation of emancipation
patents in this case, respondents, however, should remain in possession of the
disputed lands. Section 22 of Republic
Act No. 6657,[46]
which we have ruled to apply to lands rice and corn lands under Pres. Decree
No. 27,[47]
clearly provides that “actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be
ejected or removed therefrom.”[48] Thus, while actual titles remain with
petitioners, respondents are entitled to maintain possession of the lands
granted to them.
We
cannot, however, agree in the petitioners’ contention that the amortization
payments made by respondents to the LBP were invalid. Petitioners’ reliance in the holding of the
Court of Appeals in Gonzales v. Land Bank of the Philippines[49]
is unavailing. As this Court held in Curso v. Court of Appeals,[50]
there is neither inconsistency nor incompatibility between Pres. Decree No. 816
and DAR’s Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 1978,
thus:
2. The
CAR was of the opinion that as between P.D. 816 and the MAR Circular, it is the
former that should prevail. Actually, we
find no inconsistency nor incompatibility between them. Of significance are the two “whereas” clauses
of P.D. 816 quoted hereunder:
“WHEREAS, in the meanwhile that the
implementing rules and regulations of Presidential Decree No. 27 have not yet
been issued completely, the status quo
shall be maintained between the parties, that is, the landowner shall continue
to pay the land taxes thereon if the said landholdings is not yet covered by
Certificate of Land Transfer, while on the other hand the tenant-farmer who is
now called agricultural lessee shall
continue to pay the rental to the landowner whether or not his landholding
planted to rice and corn is already covered by Certificate of Land Transfer;
“WHEREAS, such payment of rental shall continue until and after the valuation of
the property shall have been determined or agreed upon between the
landowner and the Department of Agrarian Reform which, in turn, will become the
basis for computing the amortization payment to be made by the agricultural
lessee in 15 years with 6% interest per annum under Presidential Decree No.
27.” (Italics supplied)
Clearly, under P.D. No. 816, rentals
are to be paid to the landowner by the agricultural lessee until and after the
valuation of the property shall have been determined.
In the same vein, the MAR Circular
provides:
“Payment of lease
rentals to landowners covered by OLT shall terminate on the date the value of
the land is established. Thereafter, the
tenant-farmers shall pay their lease rentals/amortizations to the LBP or its authorized
agents x x x”
and
“The value of the land
is established on the date the Secretary (now Minister) or his authorized
representative has finally approved the average gross production data
established by the Barangay Committee on Land
Production (BCLP) or upon the signing of the LTPA by landowners and
tenant-farmers concerned heretofore authorized.”
In other words, the MAR Circular
merely provides guidelines in the payment of lease rentals/amortizations in
implementation of P.D. 816. Under both
P.D. 816 and the MAR Circular, payment of lease rentals shall terminate on the
date the value of the land is established.
Therafter, the tenant-farmers shall pay
amortizations to the Land Bank (LBP).
The rentals previously paid are to be credited as partial payment of the
land transferred to tenant-farmers.
This was our similar holding in the
case of Sigre v. Court of Appeals[51] where
we declared that there is no “irreconcilable conflict” between P.D. No. 816 and
the DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6.
In the present case, the value of the
land located in Barangay Himaya
was determined on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
present petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED and the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
Pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN Chief Justice |
[1] Spelled as Senanin in the Answer with Motion to Dismiss; Records, p. 9.
[2]
Spelled as Egang in the Answer with Motion to Dismiss;
[3]
Spelled as Gilberto Gualdrapa in his Affidavit;
[4] Penned by Associate Justice
[5] Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[6]
[7]
[8] Records, p. 43.
[9] Per the decision of the DARAB, the emancipation patents were issued to respondents in the following manner:
I. Lot 1176-A
1. Gorgonia Acana, predecessor-in-interest of Respondent-appellee Andres Acana, EP No.
5065 covering an area of seven hundred seventy-six (776) square meters was
issued on
2. Saturnino
Cinamin, EP No. 5344 was issued on
3. Dominador Gabrieta, predecessor-in-interest of Rogelio Egang, Dominador Gabiota, Jr., and Federico Gabiota, covering an area of two point sixty-three (2.63) [hectares];
4. Gorgonia Acana, predecessor-in-interest of Andres Acana was awarded an area covering point four ninety-four (.94) (sic) hectare[;] and
5. Basilio Cinamin, predecessor-in-interest of Saturnino Cinamin was granted a portion of land covering an area of two point six (2.6) [hectares] and Rosita Laureano.
II.
1. Aurora Goroy, predecessor-in-interest of respondent Goroy, 2.5552 hectares;
2. Raul Vanguardia;
3. Roberto Gualdrapa, 9.7700 hectares;
4. Carlito Goroy, 6301 (sic) hectares;
5. Cornelio Locsin, predecessor-in-interest of Norma Locsin, 1.3626 hectares;
6. Leopoldo Belo, .11634 (hectare). (Rollo, pp. 39-40).
[10] Records, pp. 1-5.
[11] Decreeing the Emancipation of
Tenant from the Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to Them the Ownership of the
Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor;
issued on
[12] Records, pp. 7-10.
[13]
[14]
[15] Rollo, p. 36.
[16] Citing Locsin
v. Valenzuela, G.R. Nos. 51333 & 52289,
[17] Records, p. 151-A.
[18] Rollo, pp. 35-36.
[19]
[20] Records, pp. 154-165.
[21]
[22] Decision dated
[23] Rollo, p. 244.
[24]
[25]
[26] Providing for the Mechanics of Registration of Ownership and/or Title to Land Under Presidential Decree No. 27.
[27] G.R. No. 54281,
[28]
[29] Rollo, pp. 240-241.
[30] CA-G.R. SP No. 28906,
[31] Rollo, pp. 242-243.
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] Supra note 16, p. 203.
[37] Rollo, p. 198.
[38]
[39] 416 Phil. 473, 486-488 (2001).
[40] G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, and
79777,
[41] Comment to the Appeal Memorandum, Annexes “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” and “E”; Records, pp. 203-207.
[42] Comment to the Appeal Memorandum,
Annexes “F” and “G”;
[43] Martillano
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148277,
[44]
[45] Jimenez v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., 326 Phil. 89, 95 (1996).
[46] The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
[47] Land
Bank of the
[48] Cited in
[49] Supra note 30.
[50] Supra note 35, pp. 513-514.
[51] 435 Phil. 711, 720-721 (2002).
[52] Records, p. 201.
[53]
[54]