ERLAINE CASTELLANO,
Petitioners,
Present:
and
ESTELITA MATA FRANCISCO,
Respondents. May 7, 2008
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This
is a petition for review[1] seeking
to reverse the
The Facts
Since
1955, spouses Francisco had been in possession of about 23,032 square meters of
land at Barangay Malayantoc,
Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. In 1976,
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27[6] (PD No.
27), respondent Florentino Francisco (Florentino) was issued Certificate of Land Transfer No.
03019169.
Spouses
Francisco alleged that in 1989, due to extreme poverty, they borrowed P50,000
from petitioner Eugenia Castellano (Eugenia) and, in
return, Eugenia would cultivate and possess the property until full payment of
the loan. Spouses Francisco promised to
pay within three years or until 1992.
Their agreement was not reduced into writing.
According
to spouses Francisco, in the latter part of 1992, they offered to pay the loan
but Eugenia refused to accept payment.
Spouses Francisco later learned that Eugenia was able to secure
Emancipation Patent No. 489877 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. EP-71729
in the name of Erlaine, Eugenia’s son.
On
In
their answer, the Castellanos stated that spouses
Francisco later informed them that they would no longer redeem the land. A transfer action was later initiated by the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Team Office and, on
The Decision of the Regional
Adjudicator
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Finding and declaring the Petitioners [spouses Francisco] as having sold and abandoned their tenancy/possessory rights over the subject landholding more particularly described in paragraph 4 of the Petition;
2. Directing the cancellation of CLT No. 0301916 issued in the name of Petitioner Florentino M. Francisco covering the subject property;
3.
Directing the forfeiture in favor of the
Government of all amortization payments so far made by the said Petitioner with
the Land Bank of the
4. Permanently disqualifying the same Petitioner as an Agrarian Reform Beneficiary under the Government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program; [and]
5. Dismissing all other claims for want of evidence or lack of basis.
NO COSTS.[8]
The Regional Adjudicator declared that while Florentino was the original tenant-beneficiary and a holder
of a certificate of land transfer, spouses Francisco committed a breach of
obligation when they sold their tenancy rights to the Castellanos. The Regional Adjudicator ruled that spouses
Francisco abandoned the land when they went to work abroad and executed a
“waiver of rights.” The Regional
Adjudicator stated that neglect or abandonment of the land by the beneficiary
for two years is a ground for the forfeiture of the awarded land and
cancellation of the certificate of land transfer.
The
Regional Adjudicator also ruled that there were no irregularities in the
transfer proceedings leading to the issuance of Erlaine’s
emancipation patent. The Regional
Adjudicator declared that the waiver of rights executed by Florentino
and his heirs, duly acknowledged before a notary public, enjoyed the
presumption of regularity and validity.
No evidence was presented to contradict the same. The mistake in the status of Florentino describing him as a widower was a mere oversight
which Estelita Francisco later on ratified.
Spouses
Francisco appealed the decision to the DARAB.
The Decision of the DARAB
On
The
DARAB declared that Florentino’s certificate of land
title did not vest in him absolute ownership over the land because transfer of
ownership was subject to certain conditions.
The DARAB ruled that spouses Francisco surrendered their possesssory right over the land in exchange for P50,000
and physically abandoned the land when they worked abroad. The DARAB held that
this was sufficient ground for forfeiture of the awarded land and cancellation
of the certificate of land transfer.
On
the other hand, the DARAB stated that it is the issuance of the emancipation
patent in favor of the tenant beneficiary that vests him with absolute ownership
of the land. The DARAB ruled that, with
the issuance of Erlaine’s emancipation patent, Erlaine had a superior right over spouses Francisco, who
were mere holders of a certificate of land transfer. The DARAB also stated that the issuance of Erlaine’s emancipation patent enjoyed the presumption of
regularity and validity that is not overcome by the filing of an information
for falsification of public document.
Spouses
Francisco appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
In its
The Court of Appeals also ruled that spouses Francisco did
not abandon the property. The Court of
Appeals said that spouses Francisco only surrendered possession of the property to the Castellanos during the period of the loan, on the condition
that upon extinguishment of the obligation, possession shall revert back to
spouses Francisco.
The Issues
The
Castellanos raise the following issues:
1. Whether spouses Francisco abandoned
their rights over the land; and
2. Whether Erlaine’s
emancipation patent is valid.
The Ruling of the Court
The
petition is partly meritorious.
Spouses Francisco did not abandon the
land
We agree with the finding of the Court of Appeals that
spouses Francisco did not abandon the land.
The Court of Appeals stated that abandonment[9] requires
(1) a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or a claim or to
abandon a right or property; and (2) an
external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect.
The intention to abandon
implies a departure, with the avowed intent of never returning, resuming or
claiming the right and the interest that have been abandoned.[10]
In
this case, there was no showing that spouses Francisco had a clear, absolute or
irrevocable intent to abandon the land.
Spouses Francisco’s surrender of possession did not amount to
abandonment because there was an obligation on the part of Eugenia to return
possession of the land to spouses Francisco upon full payment of the loan.[11]
Erlaine’s emancipation patent is valid
The
Court of Appeals ruled that Erlaine’s emancipation
patent was void and should be canceled because spouses Francisco could not
validly transfer ownership of the land to Erlaine. The Court of Appeals ruled that spouses
Francisco’s transfer of the rights or possession to the Castellanos
violated PD No. 27 and is therefore void.
Indeed,
the sale or transfer of rights over a property covered by a certificate of land
transfer is void except when the alienation is made in favor of the government
or through hereditary succession.[12] In this case, however, the Court of Appeals
failed to consider that the basis for the issuance of Erlaine’s
emancipation patent was Florentino’s voluntary
surrender of the land to the Samahang Nayon, which qualifies as surrender or transfer to the
government.
In
Corpuz v. Grospe,[13] the
Court said:
To
repeat, the land was surrendered to the government, not transferred to another
private person. It was the government,
through the
Petitioner’s voluntary surrender to the Samahang Nayon qualifies as a surrender or transfer to the government because such action forms part of the mechanism for the disposition and the reallocation of farmholdings to tenant-farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries of PD 27. Under Memorandum Circular No. 8-80 of the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform, the Samahan shall, upon notice from the agrarian reform team leader, recommend other tenant-farmers who shall be substituted to all rights and obligations of the abandoning or surrendering tenant-farmer.[14] (Emphasis supplied)
In
this case, Florentino’s intention to surrender the
land to the Samahang Nayon
was clear. On
WHEREFORE,
we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE
and SET ASIDE the
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* As replacement of Justice Renato C. Corona who is on leave per Administrative Circular No. 84- 2007.
[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
[2] Rollo,
pp. 68-75. Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. with Associate
Justices Eugenio
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] “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 Mechanism Therefor.” Dated
[7] Two informations
for Falsification of Public Documents were also filed against Erlaine, Melencio Cornelio, Jr., Senior Agrarian Reform
Technologist of the
[8] Rollo, pp. 108-109.
[9]
[10] Corpuz v. Grospe, 388 Phil. 1100 (2000).
[11]
[12] Torres v.
[13] Supra note 10.
[14]
[15] DARAB Records, p. 602.
SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY
(Waiver of Rights)
SA KINAUUKULAN:
Ako si Florentino M. Francisco na nasa wastong gulang, Filipino,
may-asawa/binata/dalaga/balo, at naninirahan sa Malayantoc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva
Ecija, Nueva Ecija (sic), na matapos makapanumpa ng naaayon sa batas ay
malaya at kusang loob na nagsasalaysay ng gaya ng mga sumusunod:
1.
Na, ako ang nagsasaka at gumagawa sa lupang sakahin na may luwang o sukat na 1.9050
ektarya, humigit kumulang sa lupa na pag-aari ni G./Gng/ G. Vicente de
Guzman na nakalugar at matatagpuan sa barangay Malantoc (sic), Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, at nakapaloob sa Titulo blg. NT-56909
Blg. Lot no. 030327-002-00834-2;
2.
Na, ang lupang aking sinasaka ay akin nang pinamimitawan sa dahilang ang
lupang sakahin na ito ay hindi ko na kaya pang BUNKALIN, SA DA
3.
Na, malaya at kusang loob kong pinawawalang bisa ang aking buong karapatan ng
pagmamay-ari at pamomosesyon sa nabangit na lupang sakahin.
SA
K
Florentino
M. Francisco (signed)
[16] Id.
at 601.
Malayantoc, PMKB Inc.
Malayantoc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva
Ecija
Resolution Blg. 06
Sa mungkahi ni Direktiba Elvira Ole at pinangalawahan ni Direktiba Narciso Casimiro, pinagtibay ng Hunta Direktiba ng Malayantoc, PMKB Inc. ang mga sumusunod na paksa ng pulong na ginanap noong Setyembre 4 1990 sa Barangay Malayantoc, Sto. Domingo, N.E.
Sapagkat
ang bukid na may Lote Blg.
(
Sapagkat sang-ayon sa batas ay kailangang magrekomenda ang Malayantoc PMKB Inc. ng tatlong (3) magsasaka na kailangang pagpilian kung sino ang dapat manatili sa nasabing lote; (Emphasis supplied)
Dahil dito pinagpasyahan ng Hunta Direktiba na isumite sa Department of Agrarian Reform ang mga pangalan ng tatlong (3) magsasaka na dapat pagpilian kung sino sa kanila ang dapat na manatili.
PANGALAN NG MAGSASAKA TIRAHAN
1.
ERLAINE A. CASTELLANO Malayantoc,
Sto. Doming, N.E.
2.
Alfredo Pangramuyan -do-
3.
Mario Cordero -do-
Pinagpasyahan
pa rin na ang orihinal na kopya ng Resolution na ito ay ilakip at gawing bahagi
ng Claim Folder ng may-ari ng lupa at tuloy hinihiling sa kinauukulan na
pagtibayin ang rekomendasyon.
SA
K
MAR
MAMANG N (signed) DAMASO B. FULGENCIO
SR. (signed)
Kalihim, PMKB Pangulo, PMKB
[17] Id. at 480.
SALAYSAY
Na ako ang pinanggalingan ng isang parselang lupang sakahin na natatakpan ng CLT blg. 03 016518 (CLT) lote blg. 15 na may luwang na 1.9050 ektarya humigit kumulang na matatagpuan sa Malayantoc, Sto. Soming, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Ecija (sic).
Na ako sampu ng
aking mga tagapagmana ay hindi tutol o walang hangaring maghabol na ang nasalupuang bukirin ay malipat sa pangalan ni
ERLAINE A. CASTELLANO sapagkat ito ay isinauli ko na sa ating Pamahalaan.
(Emphasis supplied)
BILANG PATUNAY, inilagda ko ang
aking pangalan sa ibaba nito ngayong ika 4 ng Oktubre, 1990
sa harap ng mga saksi dito sa kagawaran ng Repormang Pansakahan,
FLORENTINO
M. FRANCISCO (signed)
Nagsasalaysay
SAKSI:
PABLO B. FULGENCIO (signed) DAMASO
B. FULGENCIO SR. (signed)
Barangay Kapitan Pangulo ng Samahang Nayon
PMKB, Malayantoc
[18] Id. at 600-604, 613-614.