|
CYNTHIA
V. OMADLE and ANGELITO ALISEN, Petitioners, -versus- SPOUSES
WILFREDO and ROGELIA B. CASUNO, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 143362 Present: pUNO, J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on
certiorari assailing the Decision[1]
dated May 22, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47312, entitled “Cynthia V. Omadle and Angelito
Alisen vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board, and Spouses Wilfredo Casuno
and Rogelia B. Casuno.”
The undisputed facts are:
Cynthia V. Omadle,
petitioner, is the daughter of the late Francisco Villa who owned Lot 406,
Pls-98 Ext., situated in Kalatugay, Base Camp, Maramag, Bukidnon. Angelito Alisen, another
petitioner, is Cynthia’s farm worker.
Spouses Wilfredo
and Rogelia B. Casuno,
respondents, were once tenants of Francisco Villa. They
were cultivating a portion of
On
`
It turned out that respondents
mortgaged the property. Cynthia then redeemed the land and caused
their eviction. Consequently, on
Petitioner Cynthia Omadle admits that respondents were her father’s
tenants. However, the DAR declared the area exempt from
the coverage of the land reform program, being within the retention
limits. She claims that respondents paid their
amortization only once. They mortgaged the lot to several persons in violation
of the terms of the Certificate of Land Transfer. Moreover,
their cause of action has prescribed because they filed their complaint only
after four years from their eviction.
In a Decision dated
WHEREFORE, considering that the land under
litigation is within the retention rights of the heirs, this case is hereby
dismissed.
On appeal by respondents, the DARAB
Central Office reversed the Regional Adjudicator’s Decision, holding that petitioners
and her siblings waived their right
to retain seven (7) hectares, allowed under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27.[2] Moreover,
being grantees of the Emancipation Patent No. A-042463 and TCT No. ET-5184,
respondents could no longer be evicted from their landholding.
Petitioners then filed with the Court
of Appeals a petition for review. In its
assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the DARAB judgment and ruled:
We concur with the DARAB finding that (I)t could be gleaned from the Order of DAR
Regional Director Limbo, Jr. that Lot 406 was submitted, on their free will and
volition by the heirs of Francisco Villa, for Operation Land Transfer coverage.
Mark that the Casunos
(respondents) had already been issued their emancipation patent and transfer of
certificate title almost at the same time as their dispossession. They were by then no longer tenants but
already owners of the lot they were tilling, subject only to the restrictions
imposed by law under the land reform program.
It is to be noted that the award was made to the Casunos
on December 18, 1987 when the prevailing laws on the matter were Republic Act
3844, Presidential Decrees No. 27 and 266, as amended, and Executive Orders 228
and 229, both series of July 1987, where the government accelerated the
emancipation of the tenant farmers from the bondage of the soil. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) was
created to act as the government arm to finance the program, and it was to pay
the landowners while the tenant-beneficiaries were to pay LBP for the lands
awarded them (Section 74, RA 3844).
x x x
Perforce, at the time the patent and the
title was given to the Casunos, Omadle
had already been paid her just compensation.
Gratias argumenti,
that Omadle has not been compensated for her land,
and there is no allegation to this effect, her proper recourse is against the
government or the LBP in particular and not the Casunos. Consequently, the Casunos’
failure to comply with the terms of the CLT is no longer Omadle’s
concern but that of the government, and she has no business redeeming the
subject land from the mortgagees for it now belongs to the government unless
and until fully paid by the Casunos, Besides, we agree with the DARAB that
mortgaging a land covered by a transfer certificate to finance agricultural
production is of no moment for in fact it is sanctioned by Presidential Decree
No. 315 which orders financial institutions to accept Land Transfer
Certificates as collateral to loans contracted by farmer beneficiaries.
Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioners contend that the Court of
Appeals erred in declaring that respondents are owners of the subject land
considering that they failed to pay the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land
Bank) the required amortizations; their cause of action is now barred by
prescription pursuant to Section 38 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844;[3] and they violated the terms and conditions of
their land title by not cultivating the area.
Respondents, on the other hand,
maintain that the Appellate Court correctly affirmed the Decision of the DARAB.
The petition lacks merit.
On petitioners’ contention that
respondents failed to pay the Land Bank the required amortizations, we agree
with the Court of Appeals that at the time the patent and title were issued to
respondents, petitioner Cynthia Omadle had already
been paid her just compensation. And
granting that she has not yet been compensated, her proper recourse is against
the Land Bank, not against respondents.
As to petitioners’ claim that
respondents’ cause of action has prescribed, let it be stressed that since
respondents have been issued Emancipation Patent No. A-042463 and TCT No.
ET-5184 as early as
An emancipation patent, while it presupposes that the grantee thereof shall have
already complied with all the requirements prescribed under P.D. No. 27, serves as a basis for the issuance of a TCT. It is the issuance of this emancipation
patent that conclusively entitles the farmer/grantee of the rights of absolute
ownership. In Pagtalunan v. TamayoI,[4] we held:
It is the emancipation patent which
constitutes conclusive authority or the issuance of an Original Certificate of
Transfer, or a Transfer Certificate of Title, in the name of the grantee x x x.
Clearly, it is only after compliance with the
above conditions which entitles a farmer/grantee to an emancipation patent that
he acquires the vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding – a right
which has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy
[See definition of “vested right” or “vested interest” in Bilbao
vs. Farrales, 51 Phil. 498 (1928); Republic of the
Philippines v. de Porkan, G.R. No. 66866, June 18,
1987, 151 SCRA 881]. At best, the
farmer/ grantee, prior to compliance with these conditions merely possesses a
contingent or expectant right of ownership over the landholding.
Indeed, respondents, upon issuance to
them of Emancipation Patent No. A-042463, became the absolute owners of the
land in question. They can no longer be
dispossessed of their rights of possession and ownership.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the assailed Decision dated
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
I
attest 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.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Eubolo G. Verzola (deceased) and Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. (retired); Rollo, pp. 35-41.
[2] Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to them the Ownership of the Land they Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanisms therefor.
[3] An action to enforce any cause of action under this Code shall be barred if not commenced within three years after such cause of action occurred.
[4] G.R. No. 54281,