513 Phil. 294
CORONA, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated February 28, 1995 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered as follows:PDB elevated the case to the CA which affirmed in toto the decision of the DARAB Appeal Board. Hence this petition.
- Affirming the coverage of the land in question under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. No. 27;
Declaring the sale and transfer of the subject property under OLT coverage to respondent-appellee Bank as null and void ab initio for lack of legal and factual basis;- Directing the respondent-appellee Bank to turn-over the questioned landholding to petitioner-appellant;
- Directing the MARO of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija to facilitate the generation of the necessary Emancipation Patent (E.P.) pursuant to the pertinent laws and guidelines.[7]
The land subject of this case is covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT) pursuant to PD 27[8] which laid down a system for the purchase by small farmers of the lands they tilled. Landowners of agricultural lands which were devoted primarily to rice and corn and exceeded the minimum retention area were compelled to sell their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and conditions through the intercession of the government. A qualified tenant farmer was then issued a CLT.[9]
1) whether or not Garcia was an agricultural lessee of the predecessors of PDB under Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27);2) whether or not the transfer of the subject land to PDB was valid and3) whether Garcia can redeem the land under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 (RA 3844), as amended by RA 6389.
On the outset, it should be borne in mind that whether the respondent was indeed a tenant or laborer is a question of fact. In this regard, jurisprudence has provided the following requisites for tenancy relationship: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvests. All these must concur to establish the juridical relationship of tenancy.The decision of the DARAB Appeal Board, as affirmed in toto by the CA, in turn had these findings of fact:
There is no better and eloquent proof of the existence of the tenancy relationship between the respondent and Braulia Ortiz than the issuance in the former's favor of CLT No. 0-089665 over the subject parcel of land. Obviously, the afore-enumerated requisites have been met; otherwise, the said CLT could not have been issued.[11] (Emphasis supplied)
As gleaned from the records of the case, there is no denying the fact that petitioner-appellant has farmed and cultivated the land in question since 1936 with the permission of Braulia Ortiz Cruz who was the registered owner of the questioned property xxxPDB, however, argues that there was nothing to show that the property covered by the CLT was the same property subject of this case. The CA merely assumed that these were the same.[13]
Sometime in December 1974, however, then landowner Braulia Ortiz Cruz entered into a written leasehold contract entitled "Kasunduan sa Buwisan sa Sakahan" (sic) (Annex C) evidencing petitioner's status as "de jure" tenant/agricultural lessee of the land in question.
With the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 decreeing the emancipation of the tenant-farmer from the bondage of the soil, petitioner-appellant was identified by the DAR Office concerned as a qualified farmer-beneficiary under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program of the government, such that the latter was a recipient of Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-089665 dated May 26, 1982 covering the subject property.[12]
While there are annotations in Gavino Nisnisan's certificate of title (Entry No. 72086 for Affidavit of Non-Tenancy under Justice Circular No. 31 and Entry No. 117718 for Affidavit of Non-Tenancy executed by Gavino Nisnisan) that the subject land is not tenanted, said annotations are not conclusive proof of the real relationship between Gavino Nisnisan and petitioner Policarpio Nisnisan and are not binding upon the court. As we have ruled in Cuaño vs. Court of Appeals,While it is true that certifications by officials of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), like the certification submitted by Garcia, are not necessarily conclusive on the courts, all of the evidence on record, taken as a whole, can be considered as ample proof that Garcia's CLT referred to the land subject of this case and that Garcia was the tenant or agricultural lessee of Braulia Ortiz Cruz therein. As stated by the DARAB Appeal Board, "with respect to the adjudication of agrarian cases, disputes or controversies, the degree of proof or evidence necessary to prove one's cause is only 'substantial evidence'."[22] Accordingly, we will not disturb the factual finding of the CA and DARAB Appeal Board that Garcia was the agricultural lessee of the subject land, considering that it was supported by substantial evidence."We believe and so hold that such annotation cannot be regarded as conclusive upon the courts of justice as to the legal nature and incidents of the relationship between the landowner(s) in this case and private respondents. Firstly, the annotation serves basically as notice to all persons of the existence of the Certification issued by Mr. Eugenio Bernardo, but neither adds to the validity or correctness of that certification nor converts a defective and invalid instrument into a valid one as between the parties. Secondly, the certification issued by Mr. Eugenio Bernardo of the MAR (Ministry of Agrarian Reform) is very much like the certifications issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform and other officials of the Ministry and later the Department of Agrarian Reform concerning the existence of tenancy relationships in respect of agricultural lands from which persons, who claim to be tenants, are sought to be ejected. It is well settled that the findings of or certifications issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, or his authorized representative, in a given locality concerning the presence or absence of a tenancy relationship between the contending parties are merely preliminary or provisional and not binding upon the courts.`"[21] (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished By Expiration of Period, etc. - The agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding, the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor. (Emphasis supplied)This doctrine is well-settled in jurisprudence. [25]
...in case of transfer or in case of lease, as in the instant case, the tenancy relationship between the landowner and his tenant should be preserved in order to insure the well-being of the tenant or protect him from being unjustly dispossessed by the transferee or purchaser of the land; in other words, the purpose of the law in question is to maintain the tenants in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the land or afford them protection against unjustified dismissal from their holdings.[28]We therefore conclude that it was error for the CA to declare the sale and transfer of the subject property to the bank as null and void ab initio. The transfer to PDB was valid but subject to the rights of Garcia as tenant. As we ruled in the recent case of Milestone Realty and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals: [29]
...(W)e are unable to agree with the ruling of respondent Court of Appeals and of DARAB that the sale of the land in question should be declared null and void. There is no legal basis for such declaration. Lest it be forgotten, it is Carolina Zacarias who is the owner of the subject land and both Emilio Peña and Delia Razon Peña only succeeded to the tenancy rights of Anacleto.Consequently, we are also unable to agree with the CA when it affirmed the DARAB Appeal Board's ruling "directing (PDB) to turn-over the questioned landholding to (Garcia)."[30] According to the CA, "once a CLT has been issued to a tenant covering the property under the supervision of and in compliance with (the) implementing rules and regulations of the DAR, he is thereby deemed to be the owner of the agricultural land in question."[31] The DARAB Appeal Board, on the other hand, reasoned:
As an owner, Carolina has the right to dispose of the property without other limitations than those established by law. This attribute of ownership is impliedly recognized in Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 3844, where the law allows the agricultural lessor to sell the landholding, with or without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee and at the same time recognizes the right of preemption and redemption of the agricultural lessee. Thus, the existence of tenancy rights of agricultural lessee cannot affect nor derogate from the right of the agricultural lessor as owner to dispose of the property. The only right of the agricultural lessee or his successor in interest is the right of preemption and/or redemption.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that Carolina became the absolute owner of the subject landholding by virtue of Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Affidavit of Settlement executed by the other heirs of Alfonso Olympia and Spouses Claro and Cristina Zacarias. As the owner, it is within her right to execute a deed of sale of said landholding, without prejudice however to the tenancy rights and the right of redemption of Delia Razon Peña. In Manuel, we held that the tenancy relationship is not affected or severed by the change of ownership. The new owner is under the obligation to respect and maintain the tenant's landholding. In turn, Delia Razon Peña, as the successor tenant, has the legal right of redemption. This right of redemption is statutory in character. It attaches to a particular landholding by operation of law. (Emphasis supplied)
Succinctly put, areas covered by OLT pursuant to P.D. 27 are beyond the commerce of man. The Honorable Supreme Court has squarely ruled on this issue by ruling in this wise:It is true that in past decisions of this Court, in particular Torres v. Ventura[33] (which was cited by the DARAB Appeal Board) and Quiban v. Butalid[34] (which was relied upon by the CA), we held that a tenant issued a CLT is deemed the owner of the land. This is because PD 27 states that "(t)he 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."The law is clear and leaves no room for doubt. Upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21, 1972, petitioner was DEEMED OWNER of the land in question.[32]
Both instruments have varying legal effects and implications insofar as the grantee's entitlements to his landholdings. A certificate of land transfer merely evinces that the grantee thereof is qualified to, in the words of Pagtalunan, "avail of the statutory mechanisms for the acquisition of ownership of the land tilled by him as provided under Pres. Decree No. 27." It is not a muniment of title that vests upon the farmer/grantee absolute ownership of his tillage. On the other hand, an emancipation patent, while it presupposes that the grantee thereof shall have already complied with all the requirements prescribed under Presidential Decree No. 27, serves as a basis for the issuance of a transfer certificate of title. It is the issuance of this emancipation patent that conclusively entitles the farmer/grantee of the rights of absolute ownership. Pagtalunan distinctly recognizes this point when it said that:Given that Garcia is a holder of a CLT but not of an emancipation patent, full ownership of the land has not yet vested in him. Hence, there is no basis for the CA and DARAB Appeal Board to direct the bank to turn over the land to him.It is the emancipation patent which constitutes conclusive authority for the issuance of an Original Certificate of Transfer, or a Transfer Certificate of Title, in the name of the grantee . . .
Clearly, it is only after compliance with the above conditions which entitle a farmer/grantee to an emancipation patent that he acquires the vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding — a right which has become fixed and established, and is no longer open to doubt or controversy. At best, the farmer/grantee, prior to compliance with these conditions, merely possesses a contingent or expectant right of ownership over the landholding. (Citations omitted)[36]
Department Memorandum Circular No. 8, series of 1974, implementing P.D. 27, provides:Nevertheless, we maintain that there is nothing in PD 27 which declares any sale or transfer as null and void ab initio when the sale is done by the agricultural lessor after its enactment. Section 12[39] of RA 3844, as amended by RA 6389, provides the remedy of redemption[40] to the agricultural lessee when the land is sold, with or without his knowledge.In other words, transfer of ownership over tenanted rice and/or corn lands after October 21, 1972 is allowed only in favor of the actual tenant-tillers thereon. Hence, the sale executed by Philbanking on January 11, 1985 in favor of petitioner was in violation of the aforequoted provision of P.D. 27 and its implementing guidelines, and must thus be declared null and void.[38]
- No act shall be done to undermine or subvert the intent and provisions of Presidential Decrees, Letters of Instructions, Memoranda and Directives, such as the following and/or similar acts:
xxx xxx xxxf.) Transferring ownership of tenanted rice and/or corn lands after October 21, 1972, except to the actual tenant-farmers or tillers but in strict conformity with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27 and the requirements of the Department of Agrarian Reform . . .
Sec. 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption. – In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration. Provided, That the entire landholding sold must be redeemed: Provided, further, that where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within two (2) years from the registration of the sale and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. (Emphasis supplied)As amended by RA 6389,[42] it now provides that:
Sec. 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption. — In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale.PDB asserts that the registration of the certificate of sale and affidavit of consolidation of ownership in its favor should be considered as sufficient notice since registration constitutes notice to the whole world.[43] We do not agree. To emphasize, the law is worded this way:xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis supplied)
The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale xxxIt is clear from the above provision that the 180-day period must be counted from notice in writing. This notice in writing shall be served by the vendee on all the lessees affected and the DAR upon the registration of the sale. Obviously, notice in writing does not contemplate registration otherwise registration would not have been specified separately from notice in writing. If a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.[44]
The only evidence of defendants (now petitioners) shows that the former owner, Victoria Homes, Inc., sold the lands covered by TCT Nos. (289237) S-6135 and (289236) S-35855 to defendant Springsun Management Systems Corporation on February 9, 1983 in the amount of P7,223,799.00 (Exh. '4'). The sale was made without notifying the lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform as mandated by Section 12 of R.A. 3844 despite the fact that the Deed of Sale was duly registered with the Register of Deeds on April 11, 1983 that cancelled the titles in the name of Victoria Homes, Inc. and TCT Nos. 120542 and 120541 were issued on the same date in the name of defendant Springsun.PDB nonetheless maintains that the summons received by Garcia in the action for issuance of writ of possession filed[47] in 1984 by PDB in RTC-Branch 36, Gapan, Nueva Ecija was effectively a notice in writing as required by law because the petition attached to the summons alleged, among others, the mortgage, foreclosure and sale of the subject property and PDB's consolidation of ownership.[48] This is correct.
Similarly, when Victoria Homes, Inc. sold its land described in TCT No. S-72244 to defendant Springsun on July 12, 1983 in the amount of P2,566,813.00 (Exh.'5'), no notice was ever sent either to the plaintiffs or to the Department of Agrarian Reform, notwithstanding that the Deed of Sale was registered on July 29, 1983 that resulted in the cancellation of TCT No. S-72244 in the name of Victoria Homes, Inc. and a new title bearing No. 123872 was issued to defendant Springsun.
In view of the absence of the notice to the plaintiffs and to the Department of Agrarian Reform as required by law, the inevitable conclusion is that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the subject lands from the defendants Springsun.[46] (Emphasis supplied)
The purpose of the written notice required by law is to remove all uncertainties as to the sale, its terms and its validity, and to quiet any doubts that the alienation is not definitive. The law does not prescribe any particular form of notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner. So long as the redemptioner is informed in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof, the period for redemption will start running. The letter received by petitioner, being bare, was not such written notice. It failed to make certain the terms, particulars and validity of the sale.[50]Garcia admits that he "came to know of the alienation of the subject property only when he received the summons from (the RTC)...in 1984" and that "immediately thereafter, (he) filed a complaint for recognition of tenancy ... (in) 1985.�[51] He also received a copy of the petition along with the summons.[52] It is fair to conclude therefore that Garcia did not entertain doubts about the transfer to PDB and that he received the "notice in writing" prescribed by law considering that "(t)he law does not prescribe any particular form of notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner."[53] As a result, when Garcia filed his petition for redemption in 1994, his right to redeem had already prescribed.