Case Summary (G.R. No. 193747)
Subject Property and Ownership Record
– Lot No. 5378 (1.1057 ha), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. EP-43526.
– Title based on an emancipation patent issued under Presidential Decree No. 27.
– Petitioner claims ownership via a February 19, 1982 deed of sale from Serafin M. Garcia.
Key Dates
– October 21, 1972: Effective date of PD 27 prohibiting transfers of covered agricultural lands except to tenants.
– February 19, 1982: Notarization of deed of sale from Garcia to petitioner.
– May 2, 1990: Issuance of emancipation patent in respondent’s favor.
– June 9, 2003 & September 1, 2003: Petitioner’s exemption petitions filed with PARO.
– November 30, 2004 & September 12, 2007: DAR Regional Director and DAR Secretary decisions finding exemption but not cancelling patent.
– April 30, 2010: Court of Appeals decision reversing DAR and denying cancellation of patent.
– June 5, 2013: Supreme Court decision affirming CA.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process guarantees).
– Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27) on land emancipation, barring post-1972 transfers of tenanted rice/corn lands save to tenants.
– Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529) Section 48, prohibiting collateral attacks on registered titles.
– Civil Code Article 1409 on null and void contracts.
– Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), RA 6657/RA 9700 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), and RA 6647 on retention limits.
Factual Background
Petitioner alleges he purchased Lot 5378 from Garcia in 1982, but title was never transferred to his name. Unaware of pending proceedings, he later discovered respondent’s emancipation patent. Petitioner maintained that his total landholdings (3.3635 ha) fell within retention limits under PD 27 and subsequent agrarian laws, warranting exemption of Lot 5378 from OLT (Operation Land Transfer) coverage and cancellation of respondent’s patent.
Administrative Proceedings
– PARO/MARO findings: Property belonged to Garcia, not petitioner’s late father. Recommended exemption from OLT, cancellation of respondent’s patent, and lease arrangement under RA 3844.
– DAR Regional Director (2004): Affirmed exemption but declined to cancel patent, directing petitioner to pursue proper DARAB proceedings.
– DAR Secretary (2007): Fully upheld regional findings on exemption, without ordering patent cancellation.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA (April 30, 2010) reversed DAR rulings, finding:
- Petitioner’s deed of sale was not supported by consistent pleadings or record attachments.
- Sale post-1972 to a non-tenant violated PD 27 and was void.
- Collateral attack on a registered patent was barred under PD 1529.
Procedural Issue: Change of Theory
The Supreme Court held that petitioner may not alter his theory on appeal. He originally relied on the 1982 deed of sale and conceded respondent’s tenant status before DAR. His new claim of a 1976 oral sale and denial of tenancy status required additional pr
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 193747)
Facts
- Subject property: a 1.1057-hectare parcel of agricultural land in Brgy. Magsaysay, Naguilian, Isabela, Lot No. 5378, covered by TCT No. EP-43526 registered in respondent’s name.
- Respondent’s title derived from Emancipation Patent No. 393178 issued by DAR on May 2, 1990 under PD 27.
- Petitioner claims he purchased the property from Serafin M. Garcia by a deed of sale notarized February 19, 1982, but did not transfer title.
- Petitioner discovered issuance of emancipation patent in respondent’s favor without notice to him.
- Petitioner’s total agricultural landholdings amount to 3.3635 hectares, within retention limits of PD 27 and RA 6647.
PARO Petitions and Investigation
- June 9, 2003 petition filed with PARO seeking exemption of subject landholding from OLT coverage under PD 27 and cancellation of respondent’s emancipation patent.
- September 1, 2003 petition filed similarly, reiterating the same prayers and allegations.
- MARO Unblas, in a September 29, 2003 report, found:
- Subject property was erroneously identified as owned by petitioner’s father; true owner was Garcia.
- Garcia was a “perennial PD 27 landowner” who sold the land to petitioner.
- Recommendations: exempt the landholding from OLT coverage and allow petitioner to withdraw respondent’s rental amortizations from LBP.
PARO Resolution
- PARO adopted MARO’s recommendations, ordering:
- Cancellation of respondent’s emancipation patent.
- Allowing respondent to remain in peaceful possession under a leasehold contract per RA 3844.
- Authorization for petitioner to withdraw respondent’s rental amortizations from LBP.
DAR Regional Director’s Ruling
- DAR Regional Director Navata (Nov. 30, 20