Case Digest (G.R. No. 173923)
Facts:
Pedro Mago (Deceased), represented by his spouse Soledad Mago; Augusto Mago (Deceased), represented by his spouse Natividad Mago; and Ernesto Mago, represented by Levi Mago, petitioners, v. Juana Z. Barbin, respondent, G.R. No. 173923, October 12, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.On November 11, 1994, Juana Z. Barbin filed before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Camarines Norte a complaint for Cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs), Disqualification of Tenant‑Beneficiary, Repossession and Damages. She alleged ownership in fee simple of an irrigated riceland of 4.7823 hectares in Barangay Guinacutan, Vinzons, and accused several Magos (including Augusto, Crispin, Ernesto, and Pedro Mago) of tenancy and failure to pay lease rentals for more than two years.
The Magos answered that the land had been included under the Operation Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27); respondent’s original title (OCT No. P‑4672) had been cancelled and Emancipation Patents were issued to Augusto (EP No. 745), Crispin (EP No. 746), Ernesto (EP No. 747) and Pedro (EP No. 749) on February 20, 1987. Transfer Certificates of Title derived from the EPs were registered with the Registry of Deeds on February 9, 1989. Petitioners maintained that prior to issuance of the EPs they had paid lease rentals and that after issuance the land ceased to be subject to leasehold.
In a Decision dated January 30, 1997, the PARAD denied respondent’s petition for lack of merit. PARAD found that the land was covered by the Operation Land Transfer under Letter of Instruction No. 474 (LOI 474) and that payment of lease rentals to landowners covered by the Operation Land Transfer terminates when the value of the land is established; PARAD recommended that respondent pursue a claim for just compensation.
On administrative appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) reversed PARAD and, by its Decision of June 18, 2004, ordered cancellation of EP Nos. 745, 747 and 749 (August0, Ernesto, Pedro) and directed reallocation of the subject lands to qualified beneficiaries. DARAB found that although PD 27 removed the tenancy relationship when lands were placed under the Operation Land Transfer, petitioners had entered into direct‑payment Deeds of Transfer obligating them to pay amortizations to the landowner; except for Crispin, the petitioners defaulted in payment of three consecutive amortizations as contemplated in DAR Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994 — a ground for cancellation.
DARAB denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. SP No. 87370, affirmed the DARAB Decision in a Decision dated October 20, 2005 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution of July 13, 2006. Petitioners then filed a petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the petition properly raise only questions of law reviewable under Rule 45, or are the Court of Appeals’ and DARAB’s factual findings conclusive?
- Can Emancipation Patents and Transfer Certificates of Title issued under PD 27 become indefeasible after one year so as to preclude cancellation?
- Were the Emancipation Patents properly cancelled for petitioners’ default in amortization payments under the direct payment scheme governed by EO 228 and DAR Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)