Case Summary (G.R. No. 193747)
Factual background and initial administrative petitions
Petitioner filed two substantially identical petitions with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) in 2003 seeking (a) exemption of the subject landholding from coverage under the government’s Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program pursuant to PD 27 and related agrarian law and (b) cancellation of respondent’s emancipation patent. Petitioner alleged he had bought the property from Garcia (1982 deed of sale), that he had occupied and tilled the land, and that the emancipation patent to respondent was issued without notice to him.
MARO report and PARO action
The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) found the subject property to have been owned by Garcia, who was a perennial PD 27 landowner, and concluded that the PARO had erroneously identified the parcel as owned by petitioner’s late father. The MARO recommended exempting the subject landholding from OLT coverage and allowing petitioner to withdraw amortizations deposited by respondent with the Land Bank of the Philippines as rental payments. The PARO adopted these recommendations and, in an undated resolution, cancelled respondent’s emancipation patent, directed petitioner to permit respondent to continue peaceful possession subject to a leasehold contract under RA 3844, and authorized withdrawal of respondent’s deposited amortizations.
DAR Regional Director and DAR Secretary rulings
The DAR Regional Director (November 30, 2004) affirmed that petitioner, as the true owner, could challenge OLT coverage and declared the landholding exempt from OLT coverage; however, he did not order cancellation of respondent’s emancipation patent and directed petitioner to pursue cancellation before the DAR Adjudication Board. The DAR Secretary (DARCO Order dated September 12, 2007) affirmed the Regional Director’s findings in full, including the erroneous owner identification and petitioner’s landholdings being below retention limits, thereby sustaining the exemption determination.
Court of Appeals decision and grounds
The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA (April 30, 2010) reversed and set aside the DAR Secretary’s ruling. The CA doubted petitioner’s ownership claim derivable from the 1982 deed of sale because of inconsistent allegations concerning notarization dates in petitioner’s pleadings and absence of a copy of the deed in the records. The CA held that the 1982 sale was null and void under PD 27, which prohibits transfer or alienation of covered agricultural lands after October 21, 1972 except to tenant-beneficiaries, and observed that petitioner was not a tenant-beneficiary. The CA also held that petitioner’s actions constituted an improper collateral attack on a registered title in violation of Section 48 of PD 1529. Reconsideration was denied.
Issues raised to the Supreme Court on certiorari
Petitioner argued that the CA erroneously declared the sale null and void, asserting an antecedent oral sale in 1976 (with the 1982 deed merely formalizing the earlier oral transaction), alleging non-tenancy of respondent and asserting denial of due process in issuance of the emancipation patent. Respondent countered that petitioner impermissibly changed his theory on appeal, that the 1982 deed was unregistered and thus not binding, and that petitioner’s administrative petitions amounted to a collateral attack on a registered title prohibited by PD 1529.
Procedural ruling on change of theory and admissibility of new arguments
The Supreme Court applied the established rule that a party may not change the theory upon which the case was tried and decided and then raise a new theory on appeal unless the factual basis of the new theory requires no further evidence (e.g., matters judicially noticed or judicially admitted). Petitioner had advanced novel factual theories at the Supreme Court level — (1) an oral sale in 1976 as the basis of ownership and (2) denial of respondent’s tenancy — neither of which had been judicially admitted or subject to judicial notice and both of which required proof. Consequently, the Court refused to entertain these newly asserted theories and constrained petitioner to his prior position that his ownership rested on the 1982 deed of sale and that respondent’s status as tenant was undisputed.
Substantive analysis—applicability of PD 27 and invalidity of the 1982 sale
The Court analyzed PD 27’s prohibition on transfers of tenanted rice and/or corn lands after October 21, 1972 except to the actual tenant-tiller (tenant-beneficiary). The subject landholdin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 193747)
Case Caption and Decision Source
- Reported at 710 Phil. 454, Second Division; G.R. No. 193747; Decision promulgated June 05, 2013; opinion by Justice Perlas-Bernabe.
- Petition for review on certiorari assails Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated April 30, 2010 and Resolution dated September 13, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 101185, which dismissed petitioner Joselito C. Borromeo’s petitions.
- The petitions sought: (a) exemption of petitioner’s claimed landholding from coverage of the government’s Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program under Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27); and (b) cancellation of respondent Juan T. Mina’s title (emancipation patent) over the subject property.
Subject Property and Documentary Basis
- Subject property: a 1.1057-hectare parcel of agricultural land located in Barangay Magsaysay, Naguilian, Isabela, denominated as Lot No. 5378; covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. EP-43526.
- Respondent’s registered title over the property is based on Emancipation Patent No. 393178, issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) on May 2, 1990.
- Petitioner alleges acquisition of the property from Serafin M. Garcia by a deed of sale notarized February 19, 1982 (referred to as the 1982 deed of sale); petitioner admitted he did not effect transfer of title in his name after purchase.
Petitioner’s Administrative Petitions and Claims
- Petitioner filed a Petition dated June 9, 2003 before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO), docketed as Adm. Case No. A-0204-0113-03, seeking:
- Exemption of his claimed landholding (subject landholding) from OLT coverage under PD 27; and
- Revocation and cancellation of respondent’s emancipation patent.
- Petitioner alleged he purchased the property from Garcia (supported by the 1982 deed of sale), was surprised by issuance of an emancipation patent in respondent’s favor without notice to him, and claimed his total agricultural landholdings amounted to 3.3635 hectares, within retention limits under PD 27 and Republic Act No. 6647 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988).
- Petitioner filed a subsequent Petition dated September 1, 2003 with identical allegations (collectively referred to as the PARO petitions).
MARO Investigation and Recommendation
- Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Joey Rolando M. Unblas issued a Report dated September 29, 2003 finding:
- The subject property was erroneously identified by the office as the property of petitioner’s father, the late Cipriano Borromeo.
- The true owner was Serafin M. Garcia, described as a “perennial PD 27 landowner,” who later sold the property to petitioner.
- MARO recommended:
- Exempting the subject landholding from OLT coverage; and
- Allowing petitioner to withdraw any amortizations deposited by respondent with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) as rental payments for respondent’s use of the property.
PARO Ruling
- PARO issued an undated Resolution adopting MARO’s recommendations and:
- Cancelled respondent’s emancipation patent;
- Directed petitioner to allow respondent to continue peaceful possession and cultivation of the property and to execute a leasehold contract pursuant to Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code); and
- Authorized petitioner to withdraw from the LBP all amortizations deposited by respondent as rental payments.
Administrative Appeals to DAR Regional Office and Secretary
- Respondent appealed administratively to the DAR Regional Director.
- DAR Regional Director Renato R. Navata, on November 30, 2004, issued an Order:
- Found petitioner to be the true owner of the subject property and entitled to impugn its OLT coverage;
- Noted erroneous identification of the landowner and that petitioner’s total agricultural holdings of 3.3635 hectares were below retention limits; and
- Declared the subject landholding exempt from OLT coverage, affirming PARO’s decision in that respect but did not order cancellation of respondent’s emancipation patent; directed petitioner to pursue cancellation before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
- Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration challenging petitioner’s ownership, alleging lack of sufficient basis to show Garcia was actual owner and noting petitioner did not protest issuance of the emancipation patent earlier (asserting petitioner slept on his rights for 21 years).
- The Regional Director denied the motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated February 10, 2006.
- DAR Secretary Nasser C. Pagandaman, by DARCO Order No. EXC-0709-333, series of 2007, dated September 12, 2007:
- Affirmed in toto the DAR Regional Director’s ruling;
- Upheld findings that the subject landholding was improperly placed under OLT coverage due to erroneous identification of owner and that petitioner’s total landholdings were below retention limits.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Respondent filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
- CA Decision dated April 30, 2010:
- Reversed and set aside the DAR Secretary’s ruling.
- Expressed doubt about petitioner’s claim of ownership based on the 1982 deed of sale due to inconsistent allegations regarding its notarization dates in the two PARO petitions and absence of a co