Republic of
the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
ANGELITA, REYNALDO, NARCISO, |
|
G.R. No. 165494 |
|
CECILIA, FEDERIO and LEONIDA |
|
|
|
all surnamed LEVARDO and NORMA |
|
|
|
PONTANOS VDA. DE LEVARDO, for |
|
|
|
herself and as proposed Guardian Ad |
|
|
|
Litem of her minor
daughter ELENA |
|
|
|
P. LEVARDO, |
|
|
|
Petitioners, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
TOMAS B. YATCO and GONZALO |
|
|
|
PUYAT and SONS, INC., represented |
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
By JOSE G. PUYAT, JR., President, as |
|
Chairperson, |
|
Principal defendants and DR. RUBEN |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
B. YATCO, as necessary defendant. |
|
TINGA,* |
|
Respondents. |
|
NACHURA,
and |
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x |
|
PERALTA,
JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
HERNANDO LEVARDO, |
|
|
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEONCIO YATCO and GONZALO |
|
|
|
PUYAT and SONS, INC., represented |
|
|
|
by JOSE G. PUYAT, JR., and |
|
|
|
GAUDENCIO BAUTISTA, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
March 20, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before this
Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court seeking to set aside the September 27, 2004 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 69220 which affirmed the June
20, 2000 Resolution[2]
and January 21, 2002 Resolution[3]
of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
Stripped of the
non-essentials, the facts of the case are as follows:
DARAB Case No. 3361
Asuncion
Belizario (Belizario) is the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 4.3488
hectares located in Binan, Laguna. On
x x x x
Na AKO, sampu ng aking pamilya ay nagpasiya na
buong puso at laya, na ibalik, isasauli at ibalik ang lahat ng aking karapatan
sa paggawa o pananakahan sa nasabing x x x hectarya x x x area at x x x centares ng naulit
ng isang lagay na lupa, sa may-ari ng nabanggit na lupa dahil sa aming
kagustuhang umiba ng hanapbuhay, ng higit ang pagkikitaan kaysa pananakahan.
Na AKO, sampu ng aking anak ay lubos na
nagpapasalamat sa kagandahang loob ng mga may-ari na nabanggit na lupa, sa
mabuting pakikisama nila sa aking mga kapatid at sa kanya ring pagbibigay ng
pabuya at bayad pinsala (Disturbance
fee) sa aking ginagawang pagbabalik, pagsasauli at pagbibigay ng lahat ng
karapatan sa paggawa sa naulit na x x x hectarya x x x area x x x
centares na aking sinasaka.
Na sa aking ginagawang pagbabalik, pagsasauli at
pagbibigay ng lahat ng aking karapatan sa paggawa nasabing bukid sa may-ari
nito ay kaalam ang aking kapatid at lahat kami ay walang gagawing paghahabol
salapi o ano pa man laban sa may-ari nitong lupang nabanggit, sa hukuman o sa Ministry of Agrarian Reform.[5]
The foregoing
document was also signed by Aguido’s children, namely: Angelita, Reynaldo,
Narciso, Cecilia, all surnamed Levardo (petitioners), and was notarized on
April 1986. By virtue of the said
document, Tomas paid to Aguido disturbance compensation amounting to P2,000,000.00. Aguido died on
On
On
DARAB Case No.
3362
Herein
respondent Leoncio Yatco (Leoncio) is the owner of a parcel of land with an
area of 4.2406 hectares located in Binan, Laguna. Said land is tenanted by
Francisco Levardo (Francisco) and his son Hernando, a co-petitioner in the
present petition. During his lifetime,
Hernando executed a “Pinanumpaang Salaysay,”[10]
where he declared:
x x x x
Na AKO, sampu ng aking pamilya ay nagpasiya ng
buong puso at laya, na ibinalik, isasauli at ibalik ang lahat ng aking
karapatan sa paggawa o pananakahan sa nasabing xxx hectarya xxx area at xxx centares
ng naulit na isang lagay na lupa, sa may-ari ng nabanggit na lupa dahil sa
aming kagustuhang umiba ng hanap buhay ng higit and pagkikitaan sa panakahan.
Na AKO, sampu ng aking mga anak ay lubos na
nagpapasalamat sa kagandahang loob ng mga may-ari na nabanggit na lupa, sa
mabuting pakikisama nila sa aking mga magulang at sa kanya ring pagbibigay ng
pabuya at bayad pinsala
(Disturbance fee) sa aking ginagawang pagbabalik, pagsasauli at pagbibigay
ng lahat ng karapatan sa paggawa sa nauli't na x x x hectarya x x x
area x x x centares na aking sinasaka.
Na sa aking ginagawang pagbabalik, pagsasauli at
pagbibigay ng lahat ng aking karapatan sa paggawa nasabing bukid sa may-ari
nito ay kaalam ang aking magulang at lahat kami ay walang gagawing paghahabol
salapi o ano pa man laban sa may-ari nitong lupang nabanggit, sa hukuman o sa Ministry of Agrarian Reform.[11]
The foregoing
document was also signed by Francisco and was notarized on P2,417,142.00 as
disturbance compensation. Leoncio thereafter sold the parcels of lands to the
Puyat Corporation.
On
THE PARO RULING
In DARAB Case
No. 3361
On
In DARAB Case
No. 3362
On
Respondents
filed a motion for reconsideration questioning both decisions of the
PARO.
On
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the
defendants VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is hereby GRANTED and the
DECISIONS sought to be reconsidered are hereby SET ASIDE and in lieu thereof, a
decision is entered as follows:
FIRST (DARAB CASE NO. 0116)
1.
Declaring
the Waiver of tenancy rights as valid x x x.
2.
Declaring
and upholding the validity of the Deed of Donation Intervivos (Exhibit “K”) and
the Deed of Sale (Exhibit “N”) x x x.
SECOND CASE (DARAB CASE NO. 0125)
1.
Declaring
the Waiver of tenancy rights as valid x x x
2.
Declaring
and upholding the validity of the Deed of Sale (Exhibit “H”) x x x x
In both cases, subject landholdings were declared
outside OLT coverage and untenanted.
SO ORDERED.[17]
In said Order,
the PARO ruled that the lands in dispute were outside OLT coverage, and that no
CLTs were issued and registered with the Register of Deeds.[18]
The PARO further ruled that the waivers of tenancy rights executed by
petitioners were duly notarized, and that in order to disprove the presumption
of regularity in its favor, there must have been clear, convincing and more
than merely preponderant evidence. The
PARO ruled that there was no proof to overcome the presumption of regularity of
the aforementioned public documents and thus upheld the law in favor of the
validity of said documents.[19]
Petitioners then
appealed the PARO Order to the DARAB.
The DARAB Ruling
On
Respondents then
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the DARAB Decision. On
WHEREFORE premises considered, the
defendants-appellees verified Motion for Reconsideration is hereby granted and
the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
In said Order,
the DARAB ruled that the lands in dispute were outside OLT coverage, and that
no CLTs were issued to petitioners. Moreover, the DARAB held that the waiver of
tenancy rights by Aguido was valid and enforceable and binding on the
petitioners, who were also signatories to the document.[22]
Likewise, the DARAB upheld that validity of the waiver of tenancy rights of
Hernando which was also signed by his father Francisco.
Petitioners filed
a Motion for Reconsideration which was, however, denied by the DARAB on
The CA Ruling
On
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED due course, and
the Resolution of DARAB issued on June 20, 2000, as well as its Resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration of petitioners dated January 21, 2002
are both AFFIRMED in all respect.
SO ORDERED.[24]
Pursuant to the
Court's ruling in Ernesto v. Court of Appeals[25]
that no motion for reconsideration may be entertained from the said decision of
the CA, under Section 18, P.D. No. 946, petitioners appealed to this Court via
herein petition, with the following assignment of errors:
1.
WHETHER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27, TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF THE
IRRIGATED RICE LANDS IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS, PREDECESSORS FRANCISCO LEVARDO
AND HERNANDO LEVARDO, AND AGUEDO LEVARDO, BOTH DECEASED, WHO WERE AGRICULTURAL
TENANTS OF RICE LANDS WERE DEEMED OWNERS OF THE LAND[S] THEY WERE TILLING;
2.
WHETHER SAID PRECESSORS OF PETITIONERS HAVE PAID FOR THE COSTS OF THE
LAND[S] PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 228 ISSUED ON
3.
WHETHER THE CERTIFICATE[S] OF LAND TRANSFER ISSUED IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONERS-PREDECESSORS NULLIFY THE WAIVER OF RIGHTS EXECUTED BY THEM AND
WHETHER THE CERTIFICATES OF LAND TRANSFER WHICH WERE CANCELLED WITHOUT GIVING
THEM RIGHT TO BE HEARD [ARE] LEGAL AND VALID.
4.
WHETHER THE LANDOWNER LEONCIO YATCO MAY LEGALLY AND VALIDLY CONVEY THE
The Court’s
Ruling
The petition is
not meritorious.
The basic issue
in the case at bar is whether the lands in dispute are covered by P.D. No. 27
entitled, “Decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil
transferring to them the ownership of the land[s] they till and providing the
instruments and mechanism therefore.”
The pertinent portions of the Decree are as follows:
x x x x
This shall apply to tenant-farmers of private
agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of
share-crop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not;
The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as
landed estate or not, shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a
family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and three (3) hectares
if irrigated. (Emphasis Supplied)
P.D. No. 27
should be read in conjunction with Letter of Instruction No. 474 (LOI No. 474)
and the DAR Memorandum on the “Interim Guidelines on Retention by Small
Landowners” dated
The pertinent
portion of LOI No. 474 is as follows:
1.
You
shall undertake to place the Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant
to Presidential Decree No. 27, all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of
seven hectares or less belonging to landowners who own other
agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate areas or lands used
for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they
derive adequate income to support themselves and their families. (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
The pertinent
portion of the DAR Memorandum is as follows:
x x x x
5. Tenanted rice and/or corn lands seven (7)
hectares or less shall not be covered by
Based on the
foregoing, it is clear that the lands in dispute do not fall under the coverage
of P.D. No. 27. The DAR Memorandum is
categorical that lands with seven hectares or less shall not be covered by OLT.
In DARAB Case No. 3361, the land in
dispute only had an area of 4.3488 hectares. In DARAB Case No. 3362, the land in dispute
only has an area of 4.2406 hectares.
Furthermore, LOI
No. 474 contains a provision that lands less than seven hectares or less may
still fall under the coverage of P.D. No. 27, if the landowner owns other
properties. On this point, this Court
agrees with the finding of the DARAB, when it observed that there was no record
of any circumstance found by DAR field personnel that the landowner owned other
agricultural lands in excess of seven hectares or urban land area, from which he
derived adequate income for his support and that of his family.[27] It was incumbent on petitioners to show that
respondents owned other properties in excess of seven hectares, since he who
alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.[28] Moreover,
as found by the DARAB, there is nothing of record to show that CLTs have in
fact been issued to petitioners or their predecessors.[29]
Based on the DAR
Memorandum, the relationship of petitioners and respondents shall be one of
leasehold. This Court finds that respondents have complied with Section 28 of
Republic Act No. 3844:[30]
Section 28.
Termination of Leasehold by Agricultural
Lessee During Agricultural Year –
The agricultural lessee may terminate the
leasehold during the agricultural year for any of the following causes:
x x x x
(5) Voluntary surrender due to circumstances more
advantageous to him and his family. (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the
evidence on record, respondents paid Aguido P2,000,000.00 and Hernando P2,417,142.00
as disturbance compensation. A reading
of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay executed by petitioners show that they gave
up their leasehold rights “dahil sa aming kagustuhang umiba ng hanap buhay
ng higit ang pagkikitaan kaysa panakahan.”
The money given by respondents as disturbance compensation was indeed
advantageous to the families of petitioners, as it would have allowed them to
pursue other sources of livelihood.
Petitioners did
not refute in their pleadings the authenticity of the documents purporting to
be their waiver of tenancy rights. As a
matter of fact, they themselves attached the said documents to their complaints
and argued that said waivers were obtained through fraud and misrepresentation,
since they were unaware that CLTs were issued in their names.[31]
However, such argument deserves scant
consideration, since it has been established that no such CLTs were issued to
petitioners; and more importantly, the lands in dispute do not fall under the
coverage of P.D. No. 27. In addition,
said waivers of tenancy rights were notarized and therefore the same have the
presumption of regularity in their favor.[32]
There is nothing on record to convince
this Court to hold otherwise.
The documents
presented by petitioners to prove that CLTs were in fact issued in their names
have no probative value. An examination
of the documents shows that they are two photocopied pages of what purports to
be a “Masterlist of Tenants issued CLTs.”[33]
Page 6801, where the name of Aguido is
listed, appears to be a certified xerox copy sourced from the Bureau of Land
Acquisition and Distribution. Page 5695,
where the names of Hernando and Francisco are listed, is not so authenticated;
thus, its source is highly suspect. These two documents are not sufficiently
useful in proving the fact that the CLTs, which would be the best evidence of
petitioners’ claim over the subject properties, were actually issued. At best, they only serve to prove the
probability that CLTs may have been
issued in the name of the petitioners.
These documents do not and cannot override the PARO and DARAB findings
that no CLTs were issued to petitioners.
Moreover,
assuming arguendo that CLTs were actually issued to petitioners, a CLT
does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein. At most, the CLT merely evidences the
government’s recognition of the grantee as partly qualified to await the
statutory mechanism for the acquisition of ownership of the land titled by him
as provided in P.D. No. 27. Neither is
this recognition permanent or irrevocable.[34] Herein petitioners cannot escape the fact
that the lands in dispute do not fall under the coverage of P.D. No. 27; and
thus, any supposed or alleged CLTs issued in their names are without bases.
Because
petitioners have received millions of pesos as disturbance compensation and the
lands in dispute do not fall under the coverage of P.D. No. 27, this Court
cannot allow them to renege on their agreement with respondents. It must be
remembered that the protective mantle of social justice was never meant to
disregard the rights of landowners.
Consequently, the conveyances made to respondents Puyat Corporation are
valid.
Because of the
foregoing, it would be unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised by
petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is denied for lack of merit.
The September
27, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69220 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO
B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
diosdado
m. peralta
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified 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
* In
lieu of Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, per Special Order dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, rollo,
pp. 73-83.
[2]
[3]
[4] Annex “H” of Complaint, DARAB Records, Vol. I, pp. 27-28; Annex “3” of Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, id. at 143.
[5]
[6] Rollo, p. 60.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Annex “D” of Complaint, DARAB Records, Vol. II, p. 86.
[11] Rollo, p. 245.
[12]
[13]
[14] CA
rollo, pp. 107-123.
[15] Rollo, pp. 138-152.
[16]
[17] Rollo,
pp. 193-194.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Rollo, p. 61.
[23]
[24]
[25] No.
[26] Rollo, p. 311.
[27] Rollo, p. 61.
[28] Antonio
v. Estrella, No.
[29] Antonio
v. Estrella, supra note 28, at 62
and 64.
[30] Agricultural
Land Reform Code,
[31] Rollo, p. 128.
[32] Antonio v. Estrella, supra
note 28.
[33] Exhibit “I,” DARAB Records, Vol. 1, p. 211; Exhibit “F,” DARAB Records, Vol. II, p. 222.
[34] Pagtalunan
v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281,