775 Phil. 86; 112 OG No. 44, 7607 (October 31, 2016)
JARDELEZA, J.:
Petitioners claim that respondents' titles were illegal, having been obtained (1) in bad faith and/or (2) without complying with the legal requirements for the transfer and distribution of landholdings to qualified beneficiaries.[23] Thus, petitioners prayed for, among others, the cancellation of the titles issued in favor of respondents and the reconveyance of the corresponding portions.[24]
NAME PATENT NO.[21] DATE OF ISSUE[22] TCT No. LOT No. AREA (SQM)Bernardo Frianeza A-345889
A-345866
A-345881 May 31, 1989
May 31, 1989
May 31, 1989 10253
10252
10251 19
21
26 1,224
672
18,167Rodrigo Frianeza A-345875
A-345859
A-345857 May 31, 1989
May 31,1989
May 30, 1989 10248
10249
10250 22
23
27 15,644
553
875Alexandra Frianeza A-345695
A-345694
A-345863
A-345865
A-345876
A-345864 May 25, 1989
May 25, 1989
May 31, 1989
May 31,1989
May 31, 1989
May 31, 1989 10265
10254
10257
10256
10255
10258 1
2
18
20
25
28 2,530
315
26,968
843
1,851
608Hilario Villena A-345693
A-345688
A-345690
A-345697 May 25, 1989
May 26, 1989
May 25, 1989
May 25, 1989 10802
10245
10246
10247 3
7
8
9 7,044
599
419
831SaturninoVillena A-345882
A-345878
A-345883
A-345888 May 31, 1989
May 31, 1989
May 31, 1989
May 31, 1989 10244
10241
10243
10242 14
15
16
17 459
307
1,712
2,259Federico Flores A-345691
A-345689 May 25, 1989
May 26, 1989 10801
10261 5
6 3,198
553Pedro Flores A-345877
A-345887 May 31, 1989
May 31, 1989 10259
10260 12
13 371
7,373Marcelina Ramos A-345692
A-345696
A-345858
A-345860 May 25, 1989
May 25, 1989
May 31, 1989
May 31, 1989 10803
10262
10264
10263 4
10
11
24 6,029
518
10,295
935
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint in the instant case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of cause of action and/or for being premature.Regional Adjudicator Caddarao found that "the contention of [petitioners] that the subject landholding was sold by their mother to the respondents when she was too ill and incoherent was not proven by any evidence."[36] Quite the reverse, the different documents executed by Bernardina appear to indicate that she entered into the agreements voluntarily, her signatures appearing to be "in order and does not show that the person signing the same cannot do so."[37] He likewise found that respondents have fully paid the amortizations on the landholdings as shown by the Certification issued by MARO Martinez.[38]
SO ORDERED.[35]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the DARAB is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The questioned Emancipation Patents issued to the respondents covering the petitioners' landholding are NULLIFIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to their application for the issuance of new patents after showing compliance with the requirements of the law.
SO ORDERED.[43]
(1) | The mode of acquisition of the properties involved was through voluntary sale or direct payment scheme, hence, the rule on co- ownership should have governed such that since the sales were signed only by Bernardina Marinas, it shall affect only her own share and not those of her children; |
(2) | Due to the violations committed by respondents relative to the issuance of their emancipation patents, they should no longer be qualified to apply for new ones; |
(3) | There was an illegal conversion of the properties involved; and |
(4) | The properties fall within petitioners' lawful retention limits. |
Generally, sale arises out of a contractual obligation. Thus, it must meet the first essential requisite of every contract that is the presence of consent. Consent implies an act of volition in entering into the agreement.Thus, for as long as the property is covered under PD 27, the obligation to transfer ownership of the property arises. Consent of one, some or all of the co-owners to the transfer is immaterial to its validity.
The absence or vitiation of consent renders the sale either void or voidable.xxx
The twin process of expropriation of lands under agrarian reform and the payment of just compensation is akin to a forced sale, which has been aptly described in common law jurisdictions as "sale made under the process of the court, and in the mode prescribed by law," and "which is not the voluntary act of the owner, such as to satisfy a debt, whether of a mortgage, judgment, tax lien, etc." The term has not been precisely defined in this jurisdiction, but reference to the phrase itself is made in Articles 223, 232, 237 and 243 of the Civil Code, which uniformly exempt the family home "from execution, forced sale, or attachment." Yet a forced sale is clearly different from the sales described under Book V of the Civil Code which are conventional sales, as it does not arise from the consensual agreement of the vendor and vendee, but by compulsion of law. Still, since law is recognized as one of the sources of obligation, there can be no dispute on the efficacy of a forced sale, so long as it is authorized by law.[47] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Section 1. 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.In fact, similar arrangements also appear in subsequent agrarian reform laws.[49] Bernardina's choice to avail of the direct payment scheme concerns only the manner of payment/mode of compensation and does not affect the compulsory obligation to transfer arising from law. It does not serve to remove the transaction over the property from the coverage of agrarian reform laws.xxx
Section 3. Compensation shall be paid to the landowners in any of the following modes, at the option of the landowners:
(a) Bond payment over ten (10) years, with ten percent (10%) of the value of the land payable immediately in cash, and the balance in the form of LBP bonds bearing market rates of interest that are aligned with 90-day treasury bills rates, net of applicable final withholding tax. One-tenth of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance until the tenth year. The LBP bonds issued hereunder shall be eligible for the purchase of government assets to be privatized. (b) Direct payment in cash or in kind by the farmer-beneficiaries with the terms to be mutually agreed upon by the beneficiaries and landowners and subject to the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform; and (c) Other modes of payment as may be prescribed or approved by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
xxx It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to anymore leave the landowner's dominion, thus sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process.[53]Thus, under PD 27, an affected landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it. Under Republic Act No. (RA) 6657,[54] retention by the landowner is not to exceed five (5) hectares, and three (3) hectares to each child, under certain specified conditions.[55]
E. Period Within Which to Exercise the Right of RetentionAdministrative Order No. 4, Series of 1991[57] subsequently issued likewise provides:
1. Under Compulsory Acquisition (CA)The right of retention and the possibility of award to children, where applicable, must be availed of by the landowner within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of Notice of Coverage from the DAR that his landholding is subject to compulsory acquisition. Failure to respond within the specified period and after due notice would mean that the landowner waives his right to choose which area to retain.2. Under Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS)The right to retention may be exercised at the time the land is voluntarily offered for sale. The VOS should indicate the landowner's choice of retained area, which should be not more than five (5) hectares, plus the area/s to be awarded to the qualified children. These areas should be specifically identified and segregated from the portion covered by the VOS.
A landowner who voluntarily offered his retained area for CARP coverage may be allowed to withdraw his offer. (Emphasis supplied.)
In addition, under the 2003 Rules and Procedures Governing Landowner Retention Rights, failure to state an intention to retain upon offer to sell or application under the voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme shall result in a waiver of the right.[58]
- A landowner is deemed to have waived his right of retention over a parcel of land by the performance of any of the following acts:
- Signing of the Landowner-Tenant Production Agreement and Farmer's Undertaking (LTPA-FU) covering the subject property;
- Entering into a direct-payment scheme agreement as evidenced by a Deed of Transfer over the subject property; and
- Signing/submission of other documents indicating consent to have the subject property covered, such as the form letter of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) on the disposition of the cash and bond portions of a land transfer claim for payment, and the Deed of Assignment, Warranties and Undertaking executed in favor of the LBP. (Emphasis supplied.)
However, although the tenant-farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till, they are still required to pay the cost of the land. In the case at bar, there is no competent evidence to prove that the respondents have paid the full amortizations for the lots awarded to them. While the Regional Adjudicator stated in his decision that the respondents have paid the full amortizations as per certification dated May 2, 2001 by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, Eduardo A. Martinez, nothing of such sort could be found from the records. Indeed, findings of facts by administrative bodies are usually accorded with respect and not disturbed by the appellate court, but this applies only if the same is supported by the evidence on record. The petitioners have consistently raised the lack of full payment of their landholdings from the Regional Adjudicator to the DARAB and to this Court, but the respondents never bothered to present proofs of payment after the lapse of considerable length of time. Neither did they dispute the allegation. In the absence of such evidence, it can be presumed that full payment has not been effected by the respondents.We find that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the cancellation of respondents' emancipation patents.xxx
It could be gleaned from PD 266, in relation to PD 27 and the jurisprudence applying the same, that emancipation patents should be issued only after full payment of the amortizations as determined by law. Although the respondents have been issued emancipation patents, and as could be inferred from PD 266, such issuance could indicate payment of the full amortization of the land covered thereby, the same could not be relied upon in this case inasmuch as the petitioners managed to produce receipts of payment issued to some of the respondents clearly showing that they were issued after the date of the questioned emancipation patents. On that score, it could be said that the questioned EPs were issued sans complete compliance with the process for the application of PD 27. Under the prevailing jurisprudence, the respondents may complete payment of the unpaid amortizations under RA 6657, the present Agrarian Reform Law. But until such time that the respondents have shown full payment thereof, they are not entitled to the issuance of emancipation patents. Accordingly, the EPs already issued to them are hereby cancelled.[60] (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 8. Voluntary Land Transfer.—xxx The general guidelines for voluntary land transfer are:The records of this case show that Bernardina chose to enter into a Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme. The Landowner-Tenant Fanners Deed of Undertaking executed between the parties on May 23, 1989 also contains the signatures of DAR representatives, implying compliance with the applicable guidelines.[62] This Deed of Undertaking, with its terms and conditions voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, should be held binding upon Bernardina and her successors-in-interest.
(a) The beneficiaries are determined by the DAR to be the same individuals who would be eligible to purchase the land in case the government under this Order acquired the land for resale; (b) The area of land to be transferred is no less than the area which the government, under this Order, would otherwise acquire for resale; (c) The terms and conditions of the government's standing offer to purchase from the landowner and standing offer to resell to the beneficiaries are fully known and understood by both parties; (d) The voluntary transfer agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by either party and shall be binding and irrevocable for both parties, and shall be duly recorded at and monitored by the DAR.
We likewise note the consequence provided by the parties for respondents' failure to pay amortizations. Under their agreement, failure of the farmer-beneficiary to pay for a period of three (3) years will be cause for the foreclosure by the landowner of their corresponding portion.[64] This proviso further supports the view that title over the properties immediately vested upon respondents, without prejudice to Bernardina's right to foreclose on the property in case of default on payment for the stipulated period.
- That the LANDOWNER does hereby convey and transfer pursuant to PD 27 to the FARMER-BENEFICIARIES the parcels of land for and in consideration of the amount indicated opposite their names below:
xxx - That the amount indicated will be paid in cash or its equivalent in kind to the LANDOWNER without any interest;
xxx
- That in case the FARMER-BENEFICIARIES opt to pay the LANDOWNER in installment basis, the land value will be increased to P10,000 per hectare which will be amortized by the FARMER-BENEFICIARIES for a period of three (3) years only;
- That in case of failure of the FARMER-BENEFICIARIES to pay the landholdings awarded to him for a period of three (3) years, the LANDOWNER has the right to foreclose on the property and subsequently award it to other qualified beneficiary within the locality; xxx.[63] (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 8. Voluntary Land Transfer.—Landowners whose lands are subject to redistribution under this Order have the option of entering into a voluntary agreement for direct transfer of their lands to appropriate beneficiaries, under terms and conditions acceptable to both parties xxx.See also Sections 18 to 21 of Republic Act No. 6657.
Section 9. Voluntary Offer to Sell.—Thegovernmcnt shall purchase all agricultural lands it deems productive and suitable to farmer cultivation voluntarily offered for sale to it at a valuation determined in accordance with Section 6. Such transactions shall be exempt from the payment of capital gains tax and other taxes and fees. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. (Emphasis supplied.)[52] G.R. No. 133507, February 17, 2000, 325 SCRA 856.
The terras and conditions of VLT/DPS should include the immediate transfer of possession and ownership of the land in favor of the identified beneficiaries. In this regard, Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) shall be issued to the [agrarian reform beneficiaries] with proper annotations. (Emphasis supplied.)[71] Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) due to Unlawful Acts and Omission or Breach of Obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) and for Other Causes.