Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
|
HEIRS OF DR. JOSE
DELESTE, namely: JOSEFA DELESTE, JOSE RAY DELESTE, RAUL HECTOR DELESTE, and RUBEN
ALEX DELESTE, Petitioners, -
versus - LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES (LBP), as represented by its Manager, LAND VALUATION OFFICE OF LBP
COTABATO CITY; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR REGION 12 OF COTABATO CITY, THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF
REGION X CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, represented by MCMILLAN LUCMAN, in his
capacity as Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of DAR Lanao del Norte;
LIZA BALBERONA, in her capacity as DAR Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO);
REYNALDO BAGUIO, in his capacity as the Register of Deeds of Iligan City as
nominal party; the emancipation patent holders: FELIPE D. MANREAL, CUSTUDIO
M. RICO, HEIRS OF DOMINGO V. RICO, HEIRS OF ABDON T. MANREAL, MACARIO M.
VELORIA, ALICIA B. MANREAL, PABLO RICO, SALVACION MANREAL, HEIRS OF
TRANQUILIANA MANREAL, HEIRS OF ANGELA VELORIA, HEIRS OF NECIFURO CABALUNA,
HEIRS OF CLEMENTE RICO, HEIRS OF MANTILLANO OBISO, HEIRS OF HERCULANO
BALORIO, and TITO BALER, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 169913 Present: VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: June
8, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to reverse and set aside the October 28, 2004
Resolution[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) and its September 13, 2005 Resolution[2]
denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.
The spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria
Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in
Tambo,
When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered
the subject property.[4] On
February 16, 1954, Hilaria and Virgilio sold the subject property to Dr. Jose
Deleste (Deleste) for PhP 16,000.[5]
The deed of sale was notarized on February 17, 1954 and registered on March 2,
1954. Also, the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was canceled and a new
tax declaration was issued in the name of Deleste. The arrears in the payment
of taxes from 1952 had been updated by Deleste and from then on, he paid the
taxes on the property.[6]
On May 15, 1954, Hilaria died.[7]
Gregorios brother, Juan Nanaman, was appointed as special administrator of the
estate of the deceased spouses. Subsequently, Edilberto Noel (Noel) was
appointed as the regular administrator of the joint estate.[8]
On April 30, 1963, Noel, as the administrator of
the intestate estate of the deceased spouses, filed before the Court of First
Instance, Branch II, Lanao del Norte an action against Deleste for the
reversion of title over the subject property, docketed as Civil Case No. 698.[9]
Said case went up to this Court in Noel
v. CA, where We rendered a Decision[10] on
January 11, 1995, affirming the ruling of the CA that the subject property was
the conjugal property of the late spouses Gregorio and Hilaria and that the
latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) share of the subject property to Deleste.
As a result, Deleste, who died in 1992, and the intestate estate of Gregorio
were held to be the co-owners of the subject property, each with a one-half
(1/2) interest in it.[11]
Notably, while Civil Case No. 698 was still pending
before the CFI, particularly on October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27
was issued. This law mandates that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought
under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries.
Thus, the subject property was placed under the said program.[12]
However, only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the landowners. Concomitantly, the notices and processes
relative to the coverage were sent to these heirs.[13]
In 1975, the City of
Eventually, on February 12, 1984, DAR issued Certificates
of Land Transfer (CLTs) in favor of private respondents who were tenants and
actual cultivators of the subject property.[15]
The CLTs were registered on July 15, 1986.[16]
In 1991, the subject property was surveyed.[17]
The survey of a portion of the land consisting of 20.2611 hectares, designated
as Lot No. 1407, was approved on January 8, 1999.[18] The
claim folder for Lot No. 1407 was submitted to the LBP which issued a
Memorandum of Valuation and a Certificate of Cash Deposit on May 21, 2001 and
September 12, 2001, respectively. Thereafter, Emancipation Patents (EPs) and
Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issued on August 1, 2001 and October
1, 2001, respectively, in favor of private respondents over their respective
portions of Lot No. 1407.[19]
Meanwhile, on November 22, 1999, the City of
On February 28, 2002, the heirs of Deleste,
petitioners herein, filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to nullify private respondents EPs.[21] This
was docketed as Reg. Case No. X-471-LN-2002.
On July 21, 2003, the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a Decision[22]
declaring that the EPs were null and void in view of the pending issues of
ownership, the subsequent reclassification of the subject property into a
residential/commercial land, and the violation of petitioners constitutional
right to due process of law.
Dissatisfied, private respondents immediately filed
their Notice of Appeal on July 22, 2003. Notwithstanding it, on July 24, 2003,
petitioners filed a Motion for a Writ of Execution pursuant to Section 2, Rule
XII of the Revised Rules of Procedure, which was granted in an Order dated
August 4, 2003 despite strong opposition from private respondents.[23]
On January 28, 2004, the DARAB nullified the Order dated August 4, 2003
granting the writ of execution.[24]
Subsequently, the DARAB, in DARAB Case No. 12486,
reversed the ruling of the PARAD in its Decision[25]
dated March 15, 2004. It held, among others, that the EPs were valid as it was
the heirs of Deleste who should have informed the DAR of the pendency of Civil
Case No. 698 at the time the subject property was placed under the coverage of
the OLT Program considering that DAR was not a party to the said case. Further,
it stated that the record is bereft of any evidence that the city ordinance has
been approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), as mandated
by DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1990, and held that whether the
subject property is indeed exempt from the OLT Program is an administrative
determination, the jurisdiction of which lies exclusively with the DAR
Secretary or the latters authorized representative. Petitioners motion for reconsideration
was likewise denied by the DARAB in its Resolution[26]
dated July 8, 2004.
Undaunted, petitioners filed a petition for review
with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85471, challenging the Decision and
Resolution in DARAB Case No. 12486. This was denied by the CA in a Resolution
dated October 28, 2004 for petitioners failure to attach the writ of
execution, the order nullifying the writ of execution, and such material
portions of the record referred to in the petition and other supporting papers,
as required under Sec. 6 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners motion
for reconsideration was also denied by the appellate court in a Resolution
dated September 13, 2005 for being pro
forma.
On November 18, 2005, petitioners filed a petition
for review with this Court. In Our Resolution[27]
dated February 4, 2008, We resolved to deny the said petition for failure to show
sufficiently any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the
exercise by the Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case.
On March 19, 2008, petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration.[28] On April 11, 2008, they
also filed a Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration.[29]
In Our Resolution[30]
dated August 20, 2008, this Court resolved to grant petitioners motion for
reconsideration and give due course to the petition, requiring the parties to
submit their respective memoranda.
I. [WHETHER THE CA WAS CORRECT IN DISMISSING] OUTRIGHT THE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF PETITIONERS X X X.
II. [WHETHER] THE OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BASED ON A MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS IS JUSTIFIED; AND [WHETHER THE] OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION IS JUST CONSIDERING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES RAISED THEREIN.
X X X X
III.
[WHETHER PETITIONERS LAND IS] COVERED BY
AGRARIAN REFORM GIVEN THAT THE CITY OF
IV. [WHETHER THE LAND] THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY AND PARTIALLY EXPROPRIATED BY A CITY GOVERNMENT [MAY] STILL BE SUBJECT[ED] TO AGRARIAN REFORM.
V. [WHETHER DAR VIOLATED] THE RIGHTS OF PETITIONERS TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
VI. [WHETHER] THE COMPENSATION DETERMINED BY DAR AND LBP IS CORRECT GIVEN THAT THE FORMULA USED HAD BEEN REPEALED.
VII. [WHETHER] THE ISSUANCE OF EMANCIPATION PATENTS [IS] LEGAL GIVEN THAT THEY WERE FRUITS OF AN ILLEGAL PROCEEDING.
VIII. [WHETHER] THE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE [ARE] VALID GIVEN THAT THEY WERE DIRECTLY ISSUED TO THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES IN GROSS VIOLATION OF SECTION 16(E) OF R.A. 6657 X X X.[31]
The petition is meritorious.
Effect
of non-compliance with the requirements
under
Sec. 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
In filing a
petition for review as an appeal from awards, judgments,
final orders, or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of
its quasi-judicial functions, it is required under Sec. 6(c),
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court that it be accompanied by a clearly legible
duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order,
or resolution appealed from, with certified true copies of such material
portions of the record referred to in the petition and other supporting papers.
As stated:
Sec. 6. Contents
of the petition. The petition for review shall (a) state the full names
of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as
petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and
issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of
the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with
certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to
therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification
against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42.
The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed
within the period fixed herein. (Emphasis supplied.)
Non-compliance
with any of the above-mentioned requirements concerning the contents of the
petition, as well as the documents that should accompany the petition, shall be
sufficient ground for its dismissal as stated in Sec. 7, Rule 43 of the Rules:
Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply
with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of
the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful
fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the
contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the
instant case, the CA dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 85471 for
petitioners failure to attach the writ of execution, the order nullifying the
writ of execution, and such material portions of the record referred to in the
petition and other supporting papers.[32]
A perusal of
the issues raised before the CA would, however, show that the foregoing
documents required by the appellate court are not necessary for the proper
disposition of the case. Specifically:
Is [
Can the OLT by DAR over the subject land
validly proceed without notice to the landowner?
Can the OLT be validly completed without a
certification of deposit by Land Bank?
[I]s the landowner barred from exercising his
right of retention x x x [considering that EPs were already issued on the basis
of CLTs]?
Are the EPs over the subject land x x x valid
x x x?[33]
Petitioners
complied with the requirement under Sec. 6(c), Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
when they appended to the petition filed before the CA certified true copies of
the following documents: (1) the challenged resolution dated July 8, 2004
issued by the DARAB denying petitioners motion for reconsideration; (2) the
duplicate original copy of petitioners Motion for Reconsideration dated April
6, 2005; (3) the assailed decision dated March 15, 2004 issued by the DARAB
reversing on appeal the decision of the PARAD and nullifying with finality the
order of execution pending appeal; (4) the Order dated December 8, 2003 issued
by the PARAD reinstating the writ of execution earlier issued; and (5) the
Decision dated July 21, 2003 issued by the PARAD in the original proceedings
for the cancellation of the EPs.[34]
The CA, therefore, erred when it dismissed the petition based on such technical
ground.
Even
assuming that the omitted documents were material to the appeal, the appellate
court, instead of dismissing outright the petition, could have just required
petitioners to submit the necessary documents. In Spouses Espejo v. Ito,[35]
the Court held that under Section 3 (d), Rule 3 of the Revised Internal Rules
of the Court of Appeals,[36]
the Court of Appeals is with authority to require the parties to submit
additional documents as may be necessary to promote the interests of
substantial justice.
Moreover,
petitioners subsequent submission of the documents required by the CA with the
motion for reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with Section
6(c), Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.[37]
In Jaro v. CA, this Court held that
subsequent and substantial compliance may call for the relaxation of the rules
of procedure. Particularly:
The amended petition no longer contained the
fatal defects that the original petition had but the Court of Appeals still saw
it fit to dismiss the amended petition. The Court of Appeals reasoned that non-compliance
in the original petition is admittedly attributable to the petitioner and that
no highly justifiable and compelling reason has been advanced to the court for
it to depart from the mandatory requirements of Administrative Circular No.
3-96. The hard stance taken by the Court of Appeals in this case is unjustified
under the circumstances.
There
is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance
of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. In Cusi-Hernandez
vs. Diaz and Piglas-Kamao vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, we ruled that the subsequent
submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts
to substantial compliance. The reasons behind the failure of the
petitioners in these two cases to comply with the required attachments were no
longer scrutinized. What we found noteworthy in each case was the fact that the
petitioners therein substantially complied with the formal requirements. We
ordered the remand of the petitions in these cases to the Court of Appeals,
stressing the ruling that by precipitately dismissing the petitions the
appellate court clearly put a premium on technicalities at the expense of a
just resolution of the case.[38]
(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Time and
again, this Court has held that a strict and rigid application of
technicalities must be avoided if it tends to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice.[39]
As held in Sta. Ana v. Spouses Carpo:[40]
Rules of procedure are merely tools designed
to facilitate the attainment of justice. If the application of the Rules
would tend to frustrate rather than to promote justice, it is always within our
power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from their operation.
Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance
with the procedural rules, even the most
mandatory in character, mindful of the duty to reconcile the need to put an end to litigation speedily
and the parties right to an opportunity
to be heard.
Our recent ruling in Tanenglian v. Lorenzo is instructive:
We have not been oblivious to or unmindful of
the extraordinary situations that merit liberal application of the Rules,
allowing us, depending on the circumstances, to set aside technical infirmities
and give due course to the appeal. In cases where we dispense with the
technicalities, we do not mean to undermine the force and effectivity of the
periods set by law. In those rare cases where we did not stringently apply the
procedural rules, there always existed a clear need to prevent the commission
of a grave injustice. Our judicial system and the courts have always tried to
maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws
and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for the
just and proper disposition of his cause. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Clearly,
the dismissal of the petition by the CA on mere technicality is unwarranted in
the instant case.
On
the coverage of the subject property
by
the agrarian reform program
Petitioners
contend that the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the
coverage of the agrarian reform program in view of the enactment of City Ordinance
No. 1313 by the City of
Unconvinced,
the DARAB, in its Decision, noted that the record is bereft of any evidence
that the city ordinance has been approved by the HLURB, thereby allegedly
casting doubt on the validity of the reclassification over the subject
property.[42] It further noted that whether the subject property is exempt from the OLT
Program is an administrative determination, the jurisdiction of which lies
exclusively with the DAR Secretary, not with the DARAB.
Indeed, it is the Office of the DAR Secretary
which is vested with the primary and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program.[43]
However, this will not prevent the Court from assuming jurisdiction over the
petition considering that the issues raised in it may already be resolved on
the basis of the records before Us. Besides, to allow the matter to remain with
the Office of the DAR Secretary would only cause unnecessary delay and undue
hardship on the parties. Applicable, by analogy, is Our ruling in the recent Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph
International v. Department of Labor and Employment Secretary,[44] where
We held:
But as the CA did, we similarly recognize that undue hardship, to the point of injustice, would result if a remand would be ordered under a situation where we are in the position to resolve the case based on the records before us. As we said in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals:
[w]e have laid down the rule that the remand of the case to the lower court for further reception of evidence is not necessary where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. On many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and for the expeditious administration of justice, has resolved actions on the merits instead of remanding them to the trial court for further proceedings, such as where the ends of justice, would not be subserved by the remand of the case.
Thus, we shall directly rule on the dismissal issue. And while we rule that the CA could not validly rule on the merits of this issue, we shall not hesitate to refer back to its dismissal ruling, where appropriate. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Pertinently,
after an assiduous study of the records of the case, We agree with petitioners
that the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage
of the agrarian reform program in view of the enactment by the City of
It is undeniable
that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural into
non-agricultural lands. In
Pasong
Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. CA,[45]
this Court held that pursuant to Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending
the Local Government Code, municipal and/or city councils are empowered to adopt
zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the
National Planning Commission. It was also emphasized therein that [t]he power
of the local government to convert or reclassify lands [from agricultural to
non-agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657] is not subject to the
approval of the [DAR].[46]
Likewise, it
is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which was enacted by the City
of
We differ. As
previously mentioned, City Ordinance No. 1313 was enacted by the City of
Significantly,
accompanying the Certification[48]
dated October 8, 1999 issued by Gil R. Balondo, Deputy Zoning Administrator of
the City Planning and Development Office, Iligan City, and the letter[49]
dated October 8, 1999 issued by Ayunan B. Rajah, Regional Officer of the HLURB,
is the Certificate of Approval issued by Imelda Romualdez Marcos, then Minister
of Human Settlements and Chairperson of the HSRC, showing that the local zoning
ordinance was, indeed, approved on September 21, 1978. This leads to no other
conclusion than that City Ordinance No. 1313 enacted by the City of
Since the
subject property had been reclassified as residential/commercial land with the
enactment of City Ordinance No. 1313 in 1975, it can no longer be considered as
an agricultural land within the ambit of RA 6657. As this Court held in Buklod nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. E.M. Ramos and Sons,
Inc.,[50]
To be exempt from CARP, all that is needed is one valid reclassification of
the land from agricultural to non-agricultural by a duly authorized government
agency before June 15, 1988, when the CARL took effect.
Despite the
foregoing ruling, respondents allege that the subsequent reclassification by
the local zoning ordinance cannot free the land from the legal effects of PD 27
which deems the land to be already taken as of October 21, 1972, when said law
took effect. Concomitantly, they assert that the rights which accrued from said
date must be respected. They also maintain that the reclassification of the
subject property did not alter its agricultural nature, much less its actual
use.[51]
Verily, vested
rights which have already accrued cannot just be taken away by the expedience
of issuing a local zoning ordinance reclassifying an agricultural land into a residential/commercial
area. As this Court extensively discussed in Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. CA:[52]
In the main, REMMAN hinges its application
for exemption on the ground that the subject lands had ceased to be
agricultural lands by virtue of the zoning classification by the Sangguniang
Bayan of Dasmarias,
In Natalia
Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, this Court resolved the issue of
whether lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use,
as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its
precursor agencies, i.e., National Housing Authority and Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission, prior to 15 June 1988, are covered by Republic Act No.
6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. We
answered in the negative, thus:
We now determine whether such lands are
covered by the CARL. Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall cover,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and
private agricultural lands. As to what constitutes agricultural land, it is
referred to as land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act
and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial
land. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission confirm this
limitation. Agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable and
suitable agricultural lands and do not include commercial, industrial and
residential land.
xxx xxx xxx
Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural
activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands previously
converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by
government agencies other than respondent DAR. In its Revised Rules and
Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural
Uses, DAR itself defined agricultural land thus
. . . Agricultural lands refers to those devoted
to agricultural activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral
or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its
predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding
competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or
industrial use.
Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior
to 15 June 1988, respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. . . . .
However, Natalia
should be cautiously applied in light of Administrative Order 04, Series of
2003, which outlines the rules on the Exemption on Lands from CARP Coverage
under Section (3) of Republic Act No. 6657, and Department of Justice (DOJ)
Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. It reads:
I. Prefatory
Statement
Republic Act (RA) 6657 or the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), Section 3, Paragraph (c) defines agricultural
land as referring to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this
Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land.
Department of Justice
Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, (or DOJ Opinion 44-1990 for brevity) and the
case of Natalia Realty versus Department
of Agrarian Reform (12 August 2993, 225 SCRA 278) opines that with respect
to the conversion of agricultural land covered by RA 6657 to non-agricultural
uses, the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to approve such
conversion may be exercised from the date of its effectivity, on 15 June 1988.
Thus, all lands that are already classified as commercial, industrial or
residential before 15 June 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance.
However, the
reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate to divest
tenant[-]farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 27, which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988.
As emphasized, the reclassification of
lands to non-agricultural cannot be applied to defeat vested rights of
tenant-farmers under Presidential Decree No. 27.
Indeed, in the recent case of Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v.
Amante, where the Court was confronted with the issue of whether the
contentious property therein is agricultural in nature on the ground that the
same had been classified as park since 1979 under the Zoning Ordinance of
Cabuyao, as approved by the HLURB, the Court said:
The Court recognizes the power of a local
government to reclassify and convert lands through local ordinance, especially
if said ordinance is approved by the HLURB. Municipal Ordinance No. 110-54
dated November 3, 1979, enacted by the
A reading of Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance
No. 81-01, series of 1981, does not disclose any provision converting existing
agricultural lands in the covered area into residential or light industrial.
While it declared that after the passage of the measure, the subject area shall
be used only for residential or light industrial purposes, it is not provided
therein that it shall have retroactive effect so as to discontinue all rights
previously acquired over lands located within the zone which are neither
residential nor light industrial in nature. This simply means that, if we
apply the general rule, as we must, the ordinance should be given prospective
operation only. The further implication is that it should not change the nature
of existing agricultural lands in the area or the legal relationships existing
over such lands. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
This, however,
raises the issue of whether vested rights have actually accrued in the instant
case. In this respect, We reckon that under PD 27, tenant-farmers of rice and
corn lands were deemed owners of the land they till as of October 21, 1972.
This policy, intended to emancipate the tenant-farmers from the bondage of the
soil, is given effect by the following provision of the law:
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.)
It should
be clarified that even if under PD 27, tenant-farmers are deemed owners as of
October 21, 1972, this is not to be construed as automatically vesting upon
these tenant-farmers absolute ownership over the land they were tilling.
Certain requirements must also be complied with, such as payment of just
compensation, before full ownership is vested upon the tenant-farmers. This was
elucidated by the Court in Association of
Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform:[53]
It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered
the emancipation of tenant-farmer as 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.
When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in
its Section 1 that:
All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of October 21,
1972 of the land they acquired by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27.
it
was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired under the said
decree, after proof of full-fledged membership in the farmers cooperatives and
full payment of just compensation.
Hence, it was also perfectly proper for the Order to also provide in its
Section 2 that the lease rentals paid to the landowner by the
farmer-beneficiary after October 21, 1972 (pending transfer of ownership after
full payment of just compensation), shall be considered as advance payment for
the land.
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the
transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt
by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title
also remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is
contemplated either. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Prior to
compliance with the prescribed requirements, tenant-farmers have, at most, an
inchoate right over the land they were tilling. In recognition of this, a CLT
is issued to a tenant-farmer to serve as a provisional title of ownership over
the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of [just
compensation] or for as long as the [tenant-farmer] is an amortizing owner.[54]
This certificate 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[55]
he was tilling.
Concomitantly,
with respect to the LBP and the government, tenant-farmers cannot be considered
as full owners of the land they are tilling unless they have fully paid the
amortizations due them. This is because it is only upon such full payment of
the amortizations that EPs may be issued in their favor.
In Del
Castillo v. Orciga, We explained that land transfer under PD 27 is effected
in two (2) stages. The first stage is the issuance of a CLT to a
farmer-beneficiary as soon as the DAR transfers the landholding to the
farmer-beneficiary in recognition that said person is its deemed owner. And
the second stage is the issuance of an EP as proof of full ownership of the
landholding upon full payment of the annual amortizations or lease rentals by
the farmer-beneficiary.[56]
In the case at bar, the CLTs were
issued in 1984. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it was only in 1984
that private respondents, as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have an
inchoate right over the subject property prior to compliance with the prescribed
requirements. Considering that the local zoning ordinance was enacted in 1975, and
subsequently approved by the HSRC in 1978, private respondents still had no
vested rights to speak of during this period, as it was only in 1984 that
private respondents were issued the CLTs and were deemed owners.
The same holds true even if EPs and
OCTs were issued in 2001, since reclassification had taken place twenty-six
(26) years prior to their issuance. Undeniably, no vested rights accrued prior
to reclassification and its approval. Consequently, the subject property,
particularly
On the violation of petitioners
right to due process of law
Petitioners
contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject
property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program; hence, their right
to due process of law was violated.[57]
Citing De Chavez v. Zobel,[58]
both the DAR and the private respondents claim that the enactment of PD 27 is a
statutory notice to all owners of agricultural lands devoted to rice and/or
corn production,[59]
implying that there was no need for an actual notice.
We agree
with petitioners. The importance of an actual notice in subjecting a property
under the agrarian reform program cannot be underrated, as non-compliance with it
trods roughshod with the essential requirements of administrative due process
of law.[60]
Our ruling in Heirs of Jugalbot v. CA[61]
is particularly instructive:
Firstly, the
taking of subject property was done in violation of constitutional due process.
The Court of Appeals was correct in
pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due process because the DAR failed
to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to the proper party.
The records show that notices were erroneously addressed and sent in the name
of Pedro N. Roa who was not the owner, hence, not the proper party in the
instant case. The ownership of the property, as can be gleaned from the
records, pertains to Virginia A. Roa. Notice should have been therefore served
on her, and not Pedro N. Roa.
x x x x
In addition,
the defective notice sent to Pedro N. Roa was followed by a DAR certification
signed by team leader Eduardo Maandig on January 8, 1988 stating that the
subject property was tenanted as of October 21, 1972 and primarily devoted to
rice and corn despite the fact that there was no ocular inspection or any
on-site fact-finding investigation and report to verify the truth of the
allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of the property. The
absence of such ocular inspection or on-site fact-finding investigation and
report likewise deprives Virginia A. Roa of her right to property through the
denial of due process.
By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals
applies to the case at bar since there was likewise a violation of due process
in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law when the petitioner
was not notified of any ocular inspection and investigation to be conducted by
the DAR before acquisition of the property was to be undertaken. Neither was
there proof that petitioner was given the opportunity to at least choose and
identify its retention area in those portions to be acquired. Both in the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and Presidential Decree No. 27, the right of
retention and how this right is exercised, is guaranteed by law.
Since land acquisition under either Presidential
Decree No. 27 and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law govern the
extraordinary method of expropriating private property, the law must be
strictly construed. Faithful compliance with legal provisions, especially those
which relate to the procedure for acquisition of expropriated lands should
therefore be observed. In the instant case, no proper notice was given to
Virginia A. Roa by the DAR. Neither did the DAR conduct an ocular inspection
and investigation. Hence, any act committed by the DAR or any of its agencies
that results from its failure to comply with the proper procedure for
expropriation of land is a violation of constitutional due process and should
be deemed arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and tainted with grave abuse of
discretion. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Markedly, a
reading of De Chavez invoked by both
the DAR and private respondents does not show that this Court ever made mention
that actual notice may be dispensed with under PD 27, its enactment being a
purported statutory notice to all owners of agricultural lands devoted to
rice and/or corn production that their lands are subjected to the OLT program.
Quite
contrarily, in Sta. Monica Industrial
& Devt. Corp. v. DAR,[62]
this Court underscored the significance of notice in implementing the agrarian
reform program when it stated that notice is part of the constitutional right
to due process of law. It informs the landowner of the States intention to
acquire a private land upon payment of just compensation and gives him the opportunity
to present evidence that his landholding is not covered or is otherwise excused
from the agrarian law.
The Court,
therefore, finds interest in the holding of the DARAB that petitioners were not
denied the right to due process despite the fact that only the Nanamans were
identified as the owners. Particularly:
Fourthly, the PARAD also ruled that the
petitioners were denied the right to be given the notice since only the
Nanamans were identified as the owners. The fault lies with petitioners who did
not present the tax declaration in the name of Dr. Deleste as of October 21,
1972. It was only in 1995 that Civil Case No. 698 was finally decided by the
Supreme Court dividing the 34.7 hectares between the Delestes and the Nanamans.
Note that Dr. Deleste died in 1992 after PD 27 was promulgated, hence, the
subject land or his share was considered in his name only (see Art. 777, New
Civil Code). Even then, it must be borne in mind that on September 26, 1972, PD
No. 2 was issued by President Marcos proclaiming the whole country as a land
reform area, this was followed by PD 27. This should have alarmed them more so
when private respondents are in actual possession and cultivation of the
subject property.
But it was
incumbent upon the DAR to notify Deleste, being the landowner of the subject
property. It should be noted that the deed of sale executed by Hilaria in favor
of Deleste was registered on March
2, 1954, and such registration serves as a constructive notice to the whole
world that the subject property was already owned by Deleste by virtue of the
said deed of sale. In Naval v. CA,
this Court held:
Applying the law, we held in Bautista v. Fule that the registration of an instrument involving unregistered land in the Registry of Deeds creates constructive notice and binds third person who may subsequently deal with the same property.[63] x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
It bears stressing that the principal purpose of registration
is to notify other persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving
the property has been entered into.[64]
There was, therefore, no reason for DAR to feign ignorance of the transfer of
ownership over the subject property.
Moreover, that DAR should have sent the notice to
Deleste, and not to the Nanamans, is bolstered by the fact that the tax
declaration in the name of Virgilio was already canceled and a new one issued
in the name of Deleste.[65] Although
tax declarations or
realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they
are nonetheless good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no
one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his
actual or, at least, constructive possession.[66]
Petitioners
right to due process of law was, indeed, violated when the DAR failed to notify
them that it is subjecting the subject property under the coverage of the
agrarian reform program.
On this
note, We take exception to our ruling in Roxas
& Co., Inc. v. CA,[67]
where, despite a finding that there was a violation of due process in the
implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program when the petitioner
was not notified of any ocular inspection and investigation to be conducted by
the DAR before acquiring the property, thereby effectively depriving petitioner
the opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area in those
portions to be acquired,[68]
this Court nonetheless ruled that such violation does not give the Court the
power to nullify the certificates of land ownership award (CLOAs) already issued
to the farmer-beneficiaries, since the DAR must be given the chance to correct
its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings.
Manifesting
her disagreement that this Court cannot nullify illegally issued CLOAs and should
first ask the DAR to reverse and correct itself, Justice Ynares-Santiago, in
her Concurring and Dissenting Opinion,[69]
stated that [i]f the acts of DAR are patently illegal and the rights of Roxas
& Co. violated, the wrong decisions of DAR should be reversed and set
aside. It follows that the fruits of the wrongful acts, in this case the
illegally issued CLOAs, must be declared null and void. She also noted that [i]f
CLOAs can under the DARs own order be cancelled administratively, with more
reason can the courts, especially the Supreme Court, do so when the matter is
clearly in issue.
In the same
vein, if the illegality in the issuance of the CLTs is patent, the Court must
immediately take action and declare the issuance as null and void. There being
no question that the CLTs in the instant case were improperly issued, for
which reason, their cancellation is warranted.[70]
The same holds true with respect to the EPs and certificates of title issued by
virtue of the void CLTs, as there can be no valid transfer of title should the CLTs
on which they were grounded are void.[71]
Cancellation of the EPs and OCTs are clearly warranted in the instant case
since, aside from the violation of petitioners right to due process of law,
the subject property is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.
Issue of Validity of EPs Not Barred
by Res Judicata
The LBP
maintains that the issue of the EPs validity has already been settled by this
Court in Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform,[72]
where We held that the EPs and OCTs issued in 2001 had already become
indefeasible and incontrovertible by the time the petitioners therein
instituted the case in 2005; hence, their issuance may no longer be reviewed.[73]
In effect, the
LBP raises the defense of res judicata
in order to preclude a relitigation of the issue concerning the validity of
the EPs issued to private respondents.
Notably, the doctrine of res judicata has two aspects, namely: (1) bar by prior judgment,[74]
wherein the judgment in a prior case bars the prosecution of a second
action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of action;[75]
and (2) conclusiveness of judgment,[76] which
precludes relitigation of a particular fact or issue in another action between
the same parties on a different claim or cause of action.[77]
Citing Agustin v. Delos Santos,[78]
this Court, in Spouses Antonio v. Sayman,[79] expounded on the difference between the
two aspects of res judicata:
The principle of res judicata is applicable
by way of (1) bar by prior judgment and (2) conclusiveness of judgment.
This Court had occasion to explain the difference between these two aspects of res judicata as follows:
There is bar by prior judgment when, as
between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that
is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and
causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes
an absolute bar to the second action. Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of
the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation
between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a new
action or suit involving the same cause of action before the same or other
tribunal.
But
where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no
identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those
matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters
merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as conclusiveness
of judgment. Stated differently,
any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved
in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is
rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and
cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not
the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.
(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
To be sure,
conclusiveness of judgment merits application when a fact or question has been
squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by
a court of competent jurisdiction.[80]
Elucidating further on this second aspect of res judicata, the Court, in Spouses
Antonio, stated:
x x x The fact or question settled by final
judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with
them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them while the
judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a
timely motion or petition; the conclusively-settled fact or question cannot
again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or
their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of
concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of
action. Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the
operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.[81]
(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Applying
the above statement of the Court to the case at bar, We find that LBPs
contention that this Courts ruling in Heirs
of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy that the EPs and OCTs issued in 2001 had already
become indefeasible and incontrovertible precludes a relitigation of the
issue concerning the validity of the EPs issued to private respondents does not
hold water.
In the
first place, there is no identity of parties in Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy and the instant case. Arguably, the
respondents in these two cases are similar. However, the petitioners are
totally different. In Heirs of Sofia
Nanaman Lonoy, the petitioners are the more than 120 individuals who claim
to be descendants of Fulgencio Nanaman, Gregorios brother, and who
collectively assert their right to a share in Gregorios estate, arguing that
they were deprived of their inheritance by virtue of the improper issuance of
the EPs to private respondents without notice to them. On the other hand, in
the instant case, petitioners are the heirs of Deleste who seek nullification
of the EPs issued to private respondents on grounds of violation of due process
of law, disregard of landowners right of retention, improvident issuance of
EPs and OCTs, and non-coverage of the agrarian reform program, among others.
Evidently, there is even no privity among the petitioners in these two cases.
And in the
second place, the issues are also dissimilar. In Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy, the issue was whether the filing of a
petition for prohibition was the proper remedy for the petitioners therein,
considering that the EPs and OCTs had already been issued in 2001, four (4)
years prior to the filing of said petition in 2005. In the instant case,
however, the issue is whether the EPs and OCTs issued in favor of private
respondents are void, thus warranting their cancellation.
In addition,
the factual circumstances in these two cases are different such that the
necessity of applying the rule on indefeasibility of title in one is wanting in
the other. In Heirs of Sofia Nanaman
Lonoy, the petition for prohibition was filed by the petitioners therein in
2005, notwithstanding the fact that the EPs and OCTs had already been issued in
2001. For that reason, apart from making a ruling that [p]rohibition, as a
rule, does not lie to restrain an act that is already a fait accompli, it becomes incumbent upon this Court to hold that:
x x x Considering that such EPs and OCTs were
issued in 2001, they had become indefeasible and incontrovertible by the time petitioners instituted CA-G.R.
SP No. 00365 in 2005, and may no longer be judicially reviewed.[82]
(Emphasis supplied.)
On the
contrary, in the instant case, the petition for nullification of private
respondents EPs and OCTs was filed on
February 28, 2002. Taking into account that the EPs and OCTs were issued on
August 1, 2001 and October 1, 2001, respectively, the filing of the petition
was well within the prescribed one year period, thus, barring the defense of
indefeasibility and incontrovertibility. Even if the petition was filed before
the DARAB, and not the Regional Trial Court as mandated by Sec. 32 of the
Property Registration Decree,[83] this
should necessarily have the same effect, considering that DARABs jurisdiction
extends to cases involving the cancellation of CLOAs, EPs, and even of
certificates of title issued by virtue of a void EP. As this Court held in Gabriel v. Jamias:[84]
It is
well-settled that the DAR, through its adjudication arm, i.e., the DARAB and
its regional and provincial adjudication boards, exercises quasi-judicial
functions and jurisdiction on all matters pertaining to an agrarian dispute or
controversy and the implementation of agrarian reform laws. Pertinently, it is
provided in the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure that the DARAB has primary and
exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and related agrarian reform laws. Such jurisdiction shall extend to cases
involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents which are registered with the
Land Registration Authority.
This Court
has had the occasion to rule that the mere issuance of an emancipation patent
does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and
scrutiny. Emancipation patents may be cancelled for violations of agrarian
laws, rules and regulations. Section 12 (g) of P.D. No. 946 (issued on June 17,
1976) vested the then Court of Agrarian Relations with jurisdiction over cases
involving the cancellation of emancipation patents issued under P.D. No. 266.
Exclusive jurisdiction over such cases was later lodged with the DARAB under
Section 1 of Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure.
For sure, the jurisdiction of the DARAB cannot be
deemed to disappear the moment a certificate of title is issued, for, such
certificates are not modes of transfer of property but merely evidence of such
transfer, and there can be no valid transfer of title should the CLOA, on which
it was grounded, be void. The same holds true in the case of a certificate of
title issued by virtue of a void emancipation patent.
From the
foregoing, it is therefore undeniable that it is the DARAB and not the regular
courts which has jurisdiction herein, this notwithstanding the issuance of
Inevitably, this leads to no other conclusion than
that Our ruling in Heirs of
Sofia Nanaman Lonoy concerning the indefeasibility and
incontrovertibility of the EPs and OCTs issued in 2001 does not bar Us from making
a finding in the instant case that the EPs and OCTs issued to private
respondents are, indeed, void.
With the foregoing disquisition, it becomes
unnecessary to dwell on the other issues raised by the parties.
WHEREFORE, the
Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the CAs October 28, 2004 and September 13, 2005 Resolutions
in CA-G.R. SP No. 85471. The Emancipation Patents and
Original Certificates of Title covering the subject property, particularly Lot
No. 1407, issued in favor of private respondents are hereby declared NULL and VOID.
The DAR is ordered to CANCEL the aforementioned Emancipation
Patents and Original Certificates of Title erroneously issued in favor of
private respondents.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C.
CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I
F I C A T I O N
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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 72-73. Penned by Associate
Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices
Sesinando E. Villon and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
[2]
[3]
[4] Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 175049, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 185, 192.
[5] Rollo, p. 127.
[6]
[7]
[8] Heirs of
[9] Rollo, p. 127.
[10] Noel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 59550 and 60636, January 11, 1995, 240 SCRA 78.
[11] Heirs of
[12] Rollo, pp. 154-155; Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, supra note 4, at 193-194.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] G.R. No. 176511, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 192, 206; citing Spouses Lanaria v. Planta, G.R. No. 172891, November 22, 2007, 538 SCRA 79.
[36] Rule 3, Sec. 3(d) reads: When a petition does not have the complete annexes or the required number of copies, the Chief of the Judicial Records Division shall require the petitioner to complete the annexes or file the necessary number of copies of the petition before docketing the case. Pleadings improperly filed in court shall be returned to the sender by the Chief of the Judicial Records Division.
[37] Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 139131, September 27, 2002, 390 SCRA 124, 130.
[38] G.R. No. 127536, February 19, 2002, 377 SCRA 282, 296-297.
[39] Id. at 298; citing Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz, G.R. No. 140436, July 18, 2000, 336 SCRA 113.
[40] G.R. No. 164340, November 28, 2008, 572 SCRA 463, 477.
[41] Rollo, pp. 1010-1014.
[42]
[43] Sta. Ana v. Spouses Carpo, supra note 40, at 480; citing DAR v. Abdulwahid, G.R. No. 163285, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 30, 40.
[44] G.R. Nos. 167401 & 167407, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 185, 207
[45] G.R. Nos. 142359 & 142980, May 25, 2004, 429 SCRA 109, 134-135.
[46]
[47] Under Sec. 18 of PD 1396, the Human Settlements Commission established pursuant to PD 933 was renamed as the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission and was made the regulatory arm of the Ministry of Human Settlements. PD 1396 was issued on June 2, 1978.
[48] Rollo, p. 340.
[49]
[50] G.R. Nos. 131481 & 131624, March 16, 2011.
[51] Rollo, pp. 1078-1081, 1098-1101; 1207-1216.
[52] G.R. Nos. 132073 & 132361, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 378, 391-393.
[53] G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343, 390-391.
[54] Del Castillo v. Orciga, G.R. No. 153850, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 498, 506.
[55]
[56]
[57] Rollo, p. 976.
[58] No. L-28609, January 17, 1974, 55 SCRA 26.
[59] Rollo, pp. 1080, 1102.
[60] Roxas & Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 106, 134.
[61] G.R. No. 170346, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 202, 210-213.
[62] G.R. No. 164846, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 97, 104.
[63] G.R. No. 167412, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 102, 111.
[64] Gutierrez v. Mendoza-Plaza, G.R. No. 185477, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 807, 817.
[65] Rollo, p. 153.
[66] Republic v. Spouses Kalaw, G.R. No. 155138, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 401, 413.
[67] Supra note 60.
[68] Heirs of Jugalbot v. CA, supra note 61, at 212.
[69] Roxas & Co., Inc. v. CA, supra note 60, at 158-177.
[70] See Justice Melos Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. CA, supra note 60, at 155-158.
[71] Gabriel v. Jamias, G.R. No. 156482, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 443, 457; citing Hermoso v. C.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 140319, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 556, 562.
[72] Supra note 4.
[73] Rollo, pp. 1216-1220.
[74] In Re: Petition for Probate of Last Will & Testament of Basilio Santiago, G.R. No. 179859, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 351, 362.
[75] Linzag v. CA, G.R. No. 122181, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 304, 319.
[76] In Re: Petition for Probate of Last Will & Testament of Basilio Santiago, supra note 74, at 362.
[77] Linzag v. CA, supra note 75.
[78] G.R. No. 168139, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 576, 585.
[79] G.R. No. 149624, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 471, 480.
[80]
[81]
[82] Heirs of
[83] Sec. 32 of the Property Registration Decree provides:
Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] a petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase innocent purchaser for value or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value. Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other persons responsible for the fraud.
[84] G.R. No. 156482, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 443, 456-458.