Case Digest (G.R. No. 189312)
Facts:
Fe B. Saguinsin v. Agapito Liban, Cesario Liban, Eddie Tanguilan, Pacencia Macanang, Isidro Natividad, Timmy Sibbaluca and Isidro Sibbaluca, G.R. No. 189312, July 11, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court. The Third Division (Velasco, Jr., Peralta and Perez, JJ., concurring) resolved a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution dated May 20, 2009 and August 25, 2009 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 98049 which affirmed the Office of the President (OP) Decision of December 28, 2006 in OP Case No. 06‑H‑301.The dispute concerns a 3.9524‑hectare parcel in Bacayan, Baggao, Cagayan originally titled to Cristino Sibbaluca (TCT No. T‑1336). Cristino purchased the lot in 1952. After the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD No. 27) on October 21, 1972 placing rice/corn tenanted lands under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT), Cristino sold seven hectares of the tract to Lito Sibbaluca on March 21, 1975, and sold the remaining 3.9524 hectares to Fe Saguinsin (petitioner) on October 12, 1976; Cristino executed an Affidavit of Non‑Tenancy for the latter sale.
Emancipation Patents were later issued (1987–1988) in favor of farmer‑beneficiaries including the respondents. On May 24, 1991 Isabel (Cristino’s widow) applied for retention of the 3.9524‑hectare parcel under Republic Act No. 6657; PARO and the DAR Regional Office (DARRO) recommended and ordered recognition of retention and cancellation or recall of CLTs/EPs, concluding the parcel was tenanted and covered by OLT. Isabel died during the proceedings and was not substituted.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Clarificatory Order with DARRO on May 12, 1998; DARRO on August 24, 1998 substituted petitioner for Isabel and affirmed petitioner’s right to retention, finding the parcel not tenanted at sale and within the retention limit. Respondents sought reconsideration; the DARRO denied it. The DAR Secretary dismissed respondents’ appeal (Order dated June 28, 2005), but respondents appealed to the OP. The OP reversed on December 28, 2006, finding the sale void for violating PD No. 2...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the lack of substitution for the deceased applicant preclude adjudication on whether Cristino’s heirs may still exercise the original landowner’s right of retention?
- Was the sale to petitioner valid and, consequently, did petitioner have a right of retention over the 3.9524‑hectare parcel under PD No. 27 and it...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)