Case Digest (G.R. No. 169193)
Facts:
Spouses Iluminada Capitle and Cirilo Capitle claimed that Cristobal Olar relinquished to them portions of Lot 1849 (1.8144 hectares) in Barangay Valle, Talavera, Nueva Ecija via a “Kasunduan” dated July 17, 1992 witnessed by Cirilo Capitle, and via an undated document allegedly surrendering the remaining portion to Fortunata Elbambuena; they also asserted that since 1960 they had occupied and tilled the land. Olar, however, had a CLOA issued in his favor covering the lot, leading to TCT No. CLOA-0-3514. After petitioners allegedly failed to pay rentals and to return possession, respondents Fortunata and Rosalinda Olar—as Olar’s surviving wife and daughter-in-law—filed a Petition for Recovery of Possession and Payment of Back Rentals before the DARAB.While that case was pending, petitioners filed before the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer a petition to cancel the CLOA (DARAB Case No. 6261’NNE’97), relying on Olar’s “Waiver of Rights”, related statements, and certifications fr
Case Digest (G.R. No. 169193)
Facts:
- Parties and the subject property
- The controversy involved a parcel of agricultural land containing 1.8144 hectares, identified as Lot 1849, located in Barangay Valle, Talavera, Nueva Ecija.
- A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) was issued to Cristobal Olar (Olar) covering Lot 1849, resulting in the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. CLOA-0-3514.
- Respondents were Fortunata Elbambuena (Fortunata) and Rosalinda Olar (Rosalinda), who were, respectively, the surviving spouse of Olar and the daughter-in-law of Olar (wife of Olar’s son), acting for and on behalf of her children with Nemesio Olar.
- Petitioners were Spouses Iluminada Capitle and Cirilo Capitle, who asserted rights over the lot based on documents executed by Olar.
- Respondents’ claim of relinquishment and basis for possession
- Fortunata and Rosalinda claimed that Olar relinquished one-half or 0.9072 hectare of the lot to Rosalinda by a “Kasunduan” dated July 17, 1992, which was allegedly witnessed by petitioner Cirilo Capitle.
- Respondents further claimed that Olar surrendered the remaining portion of the lot to Fortunata by an undated document.
- Respondents alleged that on petitioners’ request, petitioners were allowed to occupy the lot to pursue a livelihood.
- Respondents alleged that, since 1990, petitioners failed to pay rentals despite demand and also failed to return possession of the lot.
- These acts prompted respondents to file before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Regional Office in Talavera, Nueva Ecija a Petition for Recovery of Possession and Payment of Back Rentals, docketed as DARAB Case No. 5987’NNE’96.
- Petitioners’ competing claim of possession and ownership preference
- Petitioners claimed they had been in possession of the lot since 1960.
- Petitioners presented a “Waiver of Rights” executed by Olar, through which Olar allegedly renounced in petitioners’ favor his rights and participation over the lot.
- Petitioners presented a “Sinumpaang Salaysay” in which Olar allegedly acknowledged that he co-possessed the lot with petitioner Capitle since 1960.
- Petitioners also presented a “Pinagsamang Patunay” from the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) Chairman and barangay chairman of Valle, certifying that petitioners were the actual tillers and possessors of the lot.
- Petitioners further claimed that since 1959, Fortunata was already separated from Olar, and that she even remarried; hence, petitioners argued Fortunata had no right to inherit from Olar.
- Petitioners additionally argued that, notwithstanding CLOA issuance to Olar, petitioners’ preferential right should be recognized because they were the transferees pursuant to the “Waiver of Rights” and the actual tillers.
- Petitioners’ attempt to cancel the CLOA during pendency before the PARAD
- While respondents’ DARAB petition in DARAB Case No. 5987’NNE’96 was pending before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), petitioners filed before the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Talavera, Nueva Ecija a petition for cancellation of the CLOA issued to Olar, docketed as DARAB Case No. 6261’NNE’97.
- Petitioners claimed they were the new farmer-beneficiaries, citing among other evidence the “Waiver of Rights” executed by Olar.
- Proceedings before the PARAD (consolidated resolution)
- By Decision dated August 20, 1997, the PARAD jointly resolved DARAB Case Nos. 5987’NNE’96 and 6261’NNE’97.
- The PARAD ruled for petitioners, dismissing respondents’ petition in DARAB Case No. 5987’NNE’96 for lack of merit.
- The PARAD ordered:
- Recall/cancellation of TCT No. CLOA-0-3514 issued to the late Cristobal Olar.
- The issuance of a new CLOA in the name of Iluminada Capitle married to Cirilo Capitle.
- The cancellation and registration steps with the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija.
- Dismissal of other claims and counterclaims for lack of legal basis.
- DARAB reversal upon respondents’ appeal
- Respondents appealed to the DARAB, arguing that the PARAD erred in holding:
- Petitioners could no longer recover possession or demand back lease rentals.
- The petition for recall/cancellation of TCT No. CLOA-0-3514 would prosper.
- By Decision dated December 29, 2003, the DARAB set aside the PARAD decision and issued a new judgment ordering:
- Spouses Capitle and all persons acting for them to immediately vacate and deliver the subject landholding to Fortunata and Rosalinda.
- The issuance of CLOA in favor of Fortunata and Rosalinda as legal heirs of Cristobal Olar.
- Setting aside the PARAD decision in DARAB Regional Case No. 6261’NNE’97 for lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the heirs of Cristobal Olar.
- Denial of the demand for back lease rentals for lack of merit.
- Court of Appeals affirmance
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via petition for review.
- Petitioners argued the DARAB erred in concluding:
- The possession of the lot since 1960 deserved no merit for lack of basis in fact and law.
- The presumption that the CLOA issued to Olar was issued in the regular course of official function was never overcome by contrary evidence.
- The waiver executed by Olar in favor of Sps. Capitle was void for being contrary to law and public policy.
- The transfer action conducted by the Samahang Nayon of Valle, Talavera, Nueva Ecija contained substantial and material defects.
- The cancellation of TCT No. CLOA-0-3514 did not bind Fortunata and Rosalinda because they were not made parties to DARAB Case No. 6261’NNE’97.
- By Decision dated November 23, 2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the DARAB decision.
- The Court of Appeals reasoned, among others, that:
- Petitioners’ possession since 1960 was of dubious legality.
- Petitioners’ own averments—stating that Olar lived all alone with his house compa...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioners’ long possession and documentary evidence gave them lawful rights over Lot 1849 despite the CLOA issued to Olar.
- Whether the presumptions attending the CLOA issuance to Olar were overcome by petitioners’ evidence.
- Whether petitioners’ possession was in the concept of owners or merely by tolerance of respondents.
- Whether Olar’s waiver and related certifications and resolutions could defeat respondents’ legal heir status and the CLOA issued to Olar.
- Whether the “Waiver of Rights” executed by Olar was void for being contrary to law and public policy.
- Whether organizational resolution and barangay attestations could pass or recognize ownership rights as farmer-beneficiaries.
- Whether the cancellation/recall of TCT No. CLOA-0-3514 and the DARAB/PARAD rulings in DARAB Case No. 6261’NNE’97 could bind Fortunata and Rosalinda who were not made parties.
- Whether respondents were real parties in interest entitled to be impleaded in the cancellation proceeding.
- Whether Fortunata remained qualified as a legal heir and farmer-beneficiary despite alleged separation from Olar and her remarriage.
- Whether ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)