538 Phil. 934
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: ORDERING AND DECLARINGRespondents appealed the decision to the DARAB, arguing that the PARAD erred in holding that:
- DARAB Case No. 5987'NNE'96 DISMISSED for lack of merit;
- The recall/cancellation of TCT No. CLOA-0-3514 previously issued to the late Cristobal Olar;
- The PARO, DAR-North, Talavera, Nueva Ecija thru the Chief, Landed Estate Section to cause the issuance of a new CLOA in the name of Iluminada Capitle married to Cirilo Capitle;
- The Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija to cancel TCT No. CLOA-0-3514 adverted to if the same is already registered and cause the registration of a new CLOA in the name of Iluminada Capitle married to C[i]rilo Capitle; and
- Other claims and counterclaims likewise DISMISSED for lack of legal basis.[8]
By Decision[10] of December 29, 2003, the DARAB set aside the PARAD's decision, disposing as follows:I.
. . . PETITIONERS FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA AND ROSALINDA OLAR CAN NO LONGER RECOVER POSSESSION OVER THE SUBJECT FARM LOT, MUCH LESS DEMAND PAYMENT OF LEASE RENTALS FROM THE RESPONDENTS.II.
. . . THE PETITION FOR RECALL/CANCELLATION OF TCT NO. CLOA-0-3514 PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO THE LATE CRISTOBAL OLAR WOULD PROSPER.[9]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered:Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via petition for review, arguing that the DARAB erred:
- Ordering Spouses Capitle and any or all persons acting in their behalf to immediately vacate the subject landholding and deliver the same to Fortunata Elbambuena and Rosalinda C. Olar;
- Ordering the issuance of CLOA in favor of Fortunata Elbambuena and Rosalinda C. Olar as legal heirs of Cristobal Olar.
- Setting aside the decision of the Adjudicator a quo in DARAB Regional Case No. 6261'NNE'97 for lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the Heirs of Cristobal Olar;
- The demand for back lease rentals by [respondents] is denied for lack of merit.[11]
By the challenged Decision of November 23, 2004,[13] the appellate court affirmed in toto the DARAB decision, ratiocinating as follows:
- IN CONCLUDING THAT THE POSSESSION OF LOT NO. 1849 since 1960 DESERVES NO MERIT THERE BEING NO BASIS BOTH IN FACT AND IN LAW;
- THAT THE PRESUMPTION, THE CLOA WAS ISSUED TO CRISTOBAL OLAR IN THE REGULAR COURSE [OF] OFFICIAL FUNCTION WAS NEVER OVERCOME BY CONTRARY EVIDENCE;
- THAT THE WAIVER EXECUTED BY CRISTOBAL OLAR IN FAVOR OF SPS. CAPITLE IS VOID FOR BEING CONTRARY TO LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY;
- IN CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSFER ACTION CONDUCTED BY THE SAMAHANG NAYON OF VALLE, TALAVERA, NUEVA ECIJA CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL DEFECTS; [and]
- IN CONCLUDING THAT THE CANCELLATION OF TCT No. CLOA-0-3514 DOES NOT BIND FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA AND ROSALINDA OLAR BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MADE PARTY TO DARAB CASE NO. 6261'NNE'97.[12]
The DARAB correctly found that petitioners-appellants' possession of the questioned property since 1960 is of dubious legality. No amount of possession under whatever claim (actual tilling and actual possession) can clothe petitioner-appellants with any lawful right over the questioned property. Reason: It can be gleaned from the factual antecedents that petitioners-appellants' stay in Cristobal Olar's property was, or had been , by mere tolerance of respondents-appellees. Indeed, so much is clear from the averments on page 5 of their petition: "xxx; that Cristobal Olar beginning 1959 up to the time of his death in 1995 lived all alone by himself and his companions in his house are the Spouses Iluminada and Cirilo Capitle xxx." These averments, being in the nature of judicial admissions, are conclusive and binding on petitioners-appellants and can no longer be controverted. This simply meant that no title of ownership as farmer beneficiary was passed unto the Capitles, thereby rendering ineffective the certification issued by the MARO of Talavera, Nueva Ecija. Even the Board Resolution of the Samahang Nayon of Valle, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, naming the Capitles as new allocatees of the landholding, had no binding effect, as the said samahang nayon is not the proper authority under the law with power to pass upon the legal issue as to who rightfully deserves to own Cristobal Olar's landholding after him. Besides which, there was nothing amiss with the DARAB's ruling relative to the issuance of the Certificate of Land Ownership Award to Cristobal Olar, as this was done in the regular course of an official function. It simply established the fact that petitioners-appellants' claim could in no way legally stand against Cristobal Olar, whose title under the CLOA cannot be overthrown or supplanted by some organizational resolution and/or barangay attestations/certifications. On the other hand, Cristobal Olar's death substantially passed all his rights and interest in and over the subject property to his legal heirs by operation of law. In the case at bench, to herein respondents-appellees: to Fortunata Elbambuena, being his surviving wife, and to Rosalinda Olar, his son's surviving spouse, acting for and in behalf of her children with Nemesio Olar. This is as it should, considering that rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. And since Fortunata Elbambuena and Rosalinda Olar's relationship with Cristobal Olar was in this case never put in issue, their being legal heirs of the deceased gave them unqualified right to participate in all proceedings affecting the subject property.Hence, the present petition which reiterates the above-enumerated errors petitioners proffered before the appellate court.
What is more, as shown in the records, the respondent in DARAB Case No. 6261'NN[']97 was the MARO OF TALAVERA, N.E. Private respondents-appellees were not impleaded therein. But as heirs of Cristobal Olar, private respondents-appellees ought to have been so impleaded. The Rules mandate that the full names of all the real parties in interest whether natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law shall be stated in the caption of the complaint or petition. Who is a "real party in interest"? He is that party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Tested by this criterion, Fortunata Elbambuena's legitime and Rosalinda Olar stood to be "injured" by the glaringly erroneous decision of the PARAD, Talavera, Nueva Ecija. Hence, that decision must be vacated, it having transgressed substantive rights protected by law.[14] (Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. – The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:thus stands.(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;Provided, however, That the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents; And provided further, That actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under this Program.
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record of performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC.
x x x x,