1.

Qualified Beneficiaries (Section 22)

DAR v. Polo Coconut Plantation Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 168787, September 3, 2008
FACTS:respondent Polo Coconut Plantation Co., Inc. (PCPCI) sought to convert 280 hectares of its Polo
Coconut Plantation in Tanjay, Negros Oriental into a special economic zone (ecozone) under the PEZA.
PCPCI applied for the reclassification of its agricultural lands Sangguniang Panglungsod  adopted
Resolution No. 16 reclassifying subject land as mixed residential, commercial and industrial lands. ,
petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Stephen M.
Leonidas, notified PCPCI that 394.9020 hectares of the Polo estate had been placed under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)10 and would be acquired by the government.

, PCPCI filed a petition for certiorari16 in the Court of Appeals (CA) asserting that the DAR acted with
grave abuse of discretion in placing the Polo estate under the CARP. It argued that the Polo estate
should not be subjected to the CARP because Resolution No. 16 had already designated it as mixed
residential, commercial and industrial land. Moreover, petitioners-beneficiaries were not qualified to
receive land under the CARP. CA found that the Polo estate was no longer agricultural land when the
DAR placed it under the CARP in view of Resolution No. 16. Furthermore, petitioners-beneficiaries were
not qualified beneficiaries as they were not tenants of PCPC. DAR and petitioners-beneficiaries moved
for reconsideration but they were denied. 18 Hence, this recourse.

The DAR asserts that the reclassification of the Polo estate under Resolution No. 16 as mixed residential,
commercial and industrial land did not place it beyond the reach of the CARP. Petitioners-beneficiaries,
on the other hand, insist that they were qualified beneficiaries. While they were neither farmers nor
regular farmworkers of PCPCI, they were either seasonal or other farmworkers.

Issue:w/n petitioners-beneficiaries were not qualified beneficiaries as they were not tenants of PCPCI.

Held: Section 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. - The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as
much as possible to landless residents of the same baranggay, or in the absence thereof,
landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:

(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;

(b) regular farmworkers;

(c) seasonal farmworkers;

(d) other farmworkers;

(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;

(f) collectives or cooperatives of the abovementioned beneficiaries and

(g) others directly working on the lan

Section 22 of the CARL does not limit qualified beneficiaries to tenants of the landowners. Thus, the DAR
cannot be deemed to have committed grave abuse of discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries
were not tenants of PCPCI.

Transferability (Section 27)

Lebrudo v. Loyola, G.R. No. 181370, March 9, 2011
FACTS: Respondent Remedios Loyola (Loyola) owns a 240-square meter parcel of land located in Barangay Milagrosa, Carmona,
Cavite awarded by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under Republic Act No. 6657 petitioner Julian S. Lebrudo now
deceased and represented by his son, petitioner Reynaldo L. Lebrudo, filed with the Office of the PARAD for the cancellation of
the TCT/CLOA in the name of Loyola and the issuance of another for the one-half portion of the lot in Lebrudo’s favor. Lebrudo
alleged that he was approached by Loyola to redeem the lot, which was mortgaged by Loyola’s mother, Cristina Hugo, to
Trinidad Barreto. After Lebrudo redeemed the lot for ₱250.00 and a cavan of palay, Loyola again sought Lebrudo’s help in
obtaining title to the lot in her name by shouldering all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from her mother,
Cristina Hugo. In exchange, Loyola promised to give Lebrudo the one-half portion of the lot. Loyola then allegedly executed
a Sinumpaang Salaysay waiving and transferring her rights over the one-half portion of the lot in favor of Lebrudo. Thereafter,
Lebrudo asked Loyola to comply with her promise. However, Loyola refused. Lebrudo sought the assistance of the Sangguniang
Barangay  the Police (PNP) of and the DAR to mediate. However, there was no amicable settlement. Thus, Lebrudo filed an
action against Loyola.
In her Answer, Loyola maintained that Lebrudo was the one who approached her and offered to redeem the lot and the release
of the CLOA. Loyola denied promising one-half portion of the lot as payment for the transfer, titling and registration of the lot.
Loyola explained that the lot was her only property and it was already being occupied by her children and their families. Loyola
also denied the genuineness and due execution of the two Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 28 December 1989 and 3 December
1992. The records do not show whether Loyola renounced the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 1 December 1992. the PARAD of
Trece Martires City, Cavite decided the case in Lebrudo’s favor. the DARAB reversed the decision of the PARAD and ruled in
Loyola’s favor.
ISSUE: The main issue is whether Lebrudo is entitled to the one-half portion of the lot covered by RA 6657 on the basis of the
waiver and transfer of rights embodied in the two Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 28 December 1989 and 3 December 1992
allegedly executed by Loyola in his favor
HELD: A Certificate of Land Ownership or CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or awarded to the
beneficiary by DAR, and contains the restrictions and conditions provided for in RA 6657 and other applicable laws. Section 27
of RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700,20 which provides for the transferability of awarded lands, states:
SEC. 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. – Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this ACT may not be sold, transferred or
conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a
period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase
the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by
the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian
Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.The title of the
land awarded under the agrarian reform must indicate that it is an emancipation patent or a certificate of land ownership
award and the subsequent transfer title must also indicate that it is an emancipation patent or a certificate of land ownership
award.
It is clear from the provision that lands awarded to beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
may not be sold, transferred or conveyed for a period of 10 years. The law enumerated four exceptions: (1) through hereditary
succession; (2) to the government; (3) to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP); or (4) to other qualified beneficiaries. In short,
during the prohibitory 10-year period, any sale, transfer or conveyance of land reform rights is void, except as allowed by law,
in order to prevent a circumvention of agrarian reform laws.
Lebrudo’s assertion must fail. The law expressly prohibits any sale, transfer or conveyance by farmer-beneficiaries of their land
reform rights within 10 years from the grant by the DAR. The law provides for four exceptions and Lebrudo does not fall under
any of the exceptions.
 Lebrudo v. Loyola, G.R. No. 181370, March 9, 2011
FACTS: The respondents were the registered owners of various parcels of land located in Barangay Hugo Perez, Trece Martires, Cavite. These
properties were awarded to them pursuant to the (CARL),Filinvest Land, Inc. acquired possession of these properties thru Sinumpaang
Salaysay entitled Pagbibitaw ng Karapatan (affidavits). Based on these affidavits, the respondents relinquished all their rights over the
properties for valuable consideration. The respondents alleged that they surrendered possession of their properties with the understanding
that Filinvest would develop these into a residential subdivision, pursuant to a (JVA). They also entrusted their respective owner's duplicate
original copies of the TCTs to Filinvest because they were told that these would be used in preparing the development plans. The respondents
added that they were even given money to find their own place while the development was taking place.The respondents repeatedly requested
Filinvest to return their owner's TCT copies and to give them a copy of the JVA. Since development had not yet begun, they also sent a letter to
Filinvest to allow them to temporarily return to their lands. In its answer, Filinvest argued that (a) the respondents had relinquished their rights
over the property, (b) no JVA was signed, and (c) all of the respondents signed the affidavits under which possession was validly transferred to
Filinvest. the respondents' witnesses initially denied that they executed the affidavits but changed their answers when they saw their signatures
on them. Filinvest presented two witnesses. Leilanie Faforga (Faforga), the custodian of Filinvest's acquisition documents, testified that she did
not possess any documents on the properties other than the respondents' affidavits. To her knowledge, no JVA had been signed.Lina Ferrer-De
Guzman (De Guzman) testified that she was the Head of the Land Acquisition Department at the time of the transactions. She stated that the
sale with Filinvest did not push through because the properties were covered by the CARL. Under its Section 27, the properties cannot be sold,
transferred, or conveyed within a period of ten (10) years. Thus, instead of a sale, she negotiated a transfer of possession to Filinvest through
the affidavits until such time that a sale could be made.In its decision, the RTC found the respondents to be the lawful possessors. It then
ordered Filinvest to: (a) vacate the properties; (b) return all the TCTs to the respondents; and (c) pay two hundred thousand pesos as attorney's
fees. The CA affirmed the RTC's.
In its petition and supplemental petition, Filinvest insists that:

petitioner First, the affidavits are valid. Section 27 of the CARL only prohibits the sale, transfer, or conveyance of the
properties. It does not prohibit the assignment of possessory rights. When the respondents executed the affidavits,
they voluntarily assigned their possessory rights over the properties in Filinvest's favor. Filinvest is, therefore, the
lawful possessor of the properties.

Second, assuming arguendo that the affidavits are void, the respondents must return the consideration they received.
Otherwise, they will unjustly enrich themselves at Filinvest's expense.

Third, both parties are in pari delicto for entering into the void transaction. Thus, the Court should leave them as they
are. Furthermore, the pari delicto exception in Article 1416 of the Civil Code does not apply to void contracts.

respondent

First, the affidavits are void because they effectively transferred ownership, not just possession, over the properties.
The affidavits' provisions require a perpetual surrender of the respondents' ownership rights. This transfer violates
Section 27 of the CARL.

In Maylem v. Ellano,[4] this Court ruled that the waiver or surrender of possession of properties awarded under CARL
is a prohibited transfer. Thus, Filinvest's contention that they validly acquired possession through the affidavits is
baseless. Since the transfer to Filinvest is prohibited, the respondents are the properties' lawful possessors.

Second, all the requisites of Article 1416 of the Civil Code are present. Thus, the courts may return the properties to
the respondents' possession. Moreover, the respondents will not be unjustly enriched if the properties are returned to
them because Filinvest has possessed their properties for more than fifteen years.