AGRARIAN LAW - August 9, 2017
Section 24 - AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
PEDRO MAGO VS JUANA BARBIN
BRIEFED BY: Ninya Saquilabon
CARPIO, J:
Facts:
Respondent Juana Barbin filed with PARAD of
Camarines Norte an ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF
EMANCIPATION OF PATENTS, disqualification of
tenant beneficiary, repossession and damages.
Respondent alleged that she is the owner in fee
simple of an irrigated Riceland located in Barangay
Guinacutan, Camarines Norte and that Petitioners Mago
were tenants of the subject holding.
Furthermore, respondent alleged that petitioners
violated the terms of their leasehold contracts when they
failed to pay lease rentals for more than 2 years, which is a
ground for their dispossession of landholding.
Subject landholding was placed under Operation
Land Transfer program pursuant to PD 27.
Respondents title was cancelled and subject
landholding was transferred to the petitioners who were
issued emancipation patents by the DAR.
Petitioners averred that prior to the issuance, they
already delivered their lease rentals to the respondent, the
subject landholding ceased to be covered by any
leasehold contract.
PARAD denied the petition of the respondent on
the ground that she owns other agricultural lands.
Respondent appealed to DARAB.
DARAB reversed and set aside and new judgment is
entered
o DARAB found that petitioners defaulted in their
obligation to pay their amortization for three consecutive
years from the execution of deeds.
Petitioners filed an MR, which DARAB denied for
lack of merit.
Petitioners appealed to CA, which was also denied
and affirmed DARAB decision.
Hence, this petition.
 In this case, petitioners entered into an agreement
with respondent for a direct payment scheme embodied
in the Deeds of Transfer. However, petitioners failed to
pay the amortizations to respondent landowner in
accordance with their agreed direct payment scheme.
In the first place, the Emancipation Patents and the
Transfer Certificates of Title should not have been issued
to petitioners without full payment of the just
Petitioners Argument compensation.
Emancipation Patents and Transfer Certificates of
title issued to them which were already registered with DAR will issue the Emancipation Patents only after
RD have already become indefeasible and can no longer the tenant-farmers have fully complied with the
be cancelled. requirements for a grant of title under PD 27. Although
PD 27 states that the tenant-farmers are already deemed
Issue: owners of the land they till, it is understood that full
Whether or not CA erred in affirming decision of CA? payment of the just compensation has to be made first
before title is transferred to them. Thus, Section 6 of EO
Held: 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired under PD
No. Petition is without merit. 27 may be transferred only after the agrarian reform
beneficiary has fully paid the amortizations.
This Court has already ruled that the mere issuance
of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of
the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and
scrutiny. Emancipation patents issued to agrarian reform
beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations
of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. In fact, DAR
Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994, which was
issued in March 1994, enumerates the grounds for
cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents or
Certificates of Landownership Award:
6. Default in the obligation to pay an aggregate of
three (3) consecutive amortizations in case of voluntary
land transfer/direct payment scheme, except in cases of
fortuitous events and force majeure;

Section 24 - AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
PADUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J:
FACTS:
Private respondents Pepito Dela Cruz, et al were
tenants of Lot Nos. 68 and 90 of the Dolores Estate in
Anao, Tarlac.
Upon the request of Anao Mayor Cruz, Respondent
et al. agreed to donate said properties to the municipality
on the condition that these be used as school sites.
The project did not materialize. Respondent asked
that the properties be returned to them. However, they
found out that Mayor Cruz had distributed Lot No. 68 to
Flor Labagnoy (Labagnoy) and Lot No. 90 to Edwin Cruz
(Cruz) who were each issued a Certificate of Land
Transfer (CLT).
Upon Petition for Cancellation of CLT filed by Dela
Cruz, et al., (DAR) Secretary Condrado Estrella issued an
Order cancelling the CLT issued to Labagnoy and Cruz.
Labagnoy and Cruz filed a Petition for Relief from
Judgment for lack of due process but was denied by
Secretary Estrella. They also appealed to the Office of the
President (OP) which was also denied.
However, during the pendency of the appeal before
the OP, Cruz executed an Affidavit of Waiver over his
interest and declaring Lot No. 90 open for
disposition.
DAR Secretary Miriam Defensor Santiago issued an
Order awarding Lot No. 90 to herein petitioner Roberto
Padua (Padua) who had been occupying said property
and paying the amortization thereon to the Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP).
Dela Cruz filed with the DAR Secretary a Letter
Petition for Cancellation.
DAR Secretary Garilao granted the Letter-Petition.
Upon being informed by MARO Mabborang of the
implementation of the Garilao Order.
Petitioner Padua filed with the CA a Petition for
Annulment of a Final and Executory Order of the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform with Prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction.
CA dismissed the Petition for Annulment for being
 the wrong mode of questioning the Garilao Order.
o It held that Rule 47 applies only to final judgments
and orders of Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in civil cases
and not to orders issued by the DAR Secretary.
The CA also affirmed the Garilao Order, holding
that then DAR Secretary Garilao had authority to resolve
the Letter-Petition as it involved an agrarian dispute.
Petitioner Padua filed a Motion for Reconsideration
which the CA denied.
Hence, this petition.
said property remains that of a mere potential farmer-
beneficiary whose eligibilities DAR may either confirm or
reject. In fact, under Section 2 (d) of Administrative Order
No. 06-00, DAR has authority to issue, recall, or cancel a
CLT, CBC, EP, or CLOA issued to potential farmer-
beneficiaries but not yet registered with the Register of
Deeds.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not CA committed reversible error in not

holding that the Department of Agrarian Reform acted
without jurisdiction?

Held:

NO. We find that the CA correctly dismissed the Petition

for Annulment and affirmed the Garilao Order.

The statutory mechanism for the acquisition of land

through agrarian reform requires full payment of
amortization before a farmer-beneficiary may be issued a
CLOA or EP, which, in turn, can become the basis for
issuance in his name of an original or a transfer certificate
of title.

As Padua himself admitted that he is still paying

amortization on Lot No. 90 to LBP, his status in relation to