Title
Supreme Court
Gua-an vs. Quirino
Case
G.R. No. 198770
Decision Date
Nov 12, 2012
A 2.88-hectare agricultural land dispute under P.D. 27; a Deed of Conditional Sale deemed prohibited, leading to CLT cancellation due to abandonment and invalid redemption by the former owner.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 198770)

Factual Antecedents

Prisco Quirino, Sr. executed a Deed of Conditional Sale on February 27, 1985, transferring ownership of the land to Ernesto Bayagna while reserving a right to repurchase. The sale stipulated a redemption price of P40,000, with a redemption period of eight years, extendable by four years. After more than a decade of possession and cultivation by Ernesto, Prisco attempted to redeem the land in 1996, but Ernesto refused, later allowing Aurelia and Sonia Gua-An to redeem it. Subsequently, Gertrudes Quirino filed a complaint against Ernesto and the Gua-Ans for specific performance and damages due to the disputed redemption rights.

DARAB Ruling

The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) ruled on December 29, 2004, that Prisco Quirino, Sr. violated agrarian reform laws by abandoning cultivation of the land for over two years, prompting cancellation of his CLT and the allocation of the land to a qualified beneficiary. The DARAB deemed the Deed of Conditional Sale a nullity, claiming Prisco's absence of active ownership as a violation of agrarian reform mandates.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed DARAB's decision, interpreting the conditional sale as an equitable mortgage rather than a prohibited transaction. The CA supported the argument that Prisco's heirs retained a preferential right of redemption due to their prior status as qualified beneficiaries under agrarian reform laws.

Petitioners' Position

In the current petition, the Gua-Ans contended that the CA's ruling misapplied legal principles, primarily arguing that without proper tender and consignation of the redemption money, Gertrudes lacked a valid cause of action. They also maintained that Prisco was not the absolute owner due to violations of pertinent agrarian reform laws, claiming he lost his rights as a farmer-beneficiary upon entering into the transaction with Ernesto.

Legal Framework and Analysis

The ruling heavily relied on the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27 and Republic Act No. 6657. Under these laws, transfers of landholdings by agrarian reform beneficiaries are strictly prohibited, protecting farmer-tenants as owners of the land they till. The Court emphasized tha

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.