ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™  

Like 0 Tweet
Custom Search
Share Search

   

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence >

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 155181. April 15, 2005]

LIBERTY AYO-ALBURO, Petitioners, v. ULDARICO

MATOBATO, Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Being assailed via Petition for Review on Certiorari

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the August 28,
2002 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
SP No. 49406 which dismissed the Petition for Review
of Liberty Ayo-Alburo (petitioner).

The controversy in the case at bar involves a parcel of

private agricultural land primarily devoted to rice with an
area of 1.787 hectares situated at Barangay San Pedro,
Alangalang, Leyte (the property) which was owned by
Dr. Victoria Marave-Tiu.

On October 21, 1972, then President Marcos issued

Presidential Decree No. 27 (P.D. 27),2 otherwise known
as the Tenant Emancipation Decree, which transfers to
qualified tenant-farmers the ownership of the lands they
till. The Decree is applicable to agricultural lands
primarily devoted to rice and corn.

As the property was covered by Operation Land Transfer

pursuant to P.D. 27, Dr. Marave-Tiu submitted to the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) a list of the
names of her farmer-tenants including petitioner's
adoptive father Estanislao Ayo (Estanislao) who was
also administrator of the property.

The property was eventually awarded to Estanislao who,

being at that time already old and sickly, requested that
it be instead registered in the name of petitioner. The
request was granted.3

Certificate of Land Transfer No. D-0385644 covering the

property was thus issued in petitioner's name on April
23, 1984. And Emancipation Patent No. A-0251735 with
the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
TE-7756 covering the property was subsequently issued
in petitioner's favor on March 5, 1987.

The Department of Agrarian Reform, represented by the

Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Leyte and its
Regional Director for Region VIII, and Uldarico Matobato
(respondent) later filed a Petition dated April 2, 1996
before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD) of Tanghas, Tolosa, Leyte, docketed as DARAB
Case No. R-0801-0016-96, for the cancellation of the
Certificate of Land Transfer and Emancipation Patent
issued in petitioner's favor and for the issuance of a
new certificate and patent in respondent's name.

Respondent alleged that since 1966 until the filing of the

petition before the PARAD, he had been cultivating the
property and giving shares of the harvest as rentals to
petitioner; and that the Certificate of Land Transfer and
Emancipation Patent had been issued to petitioner "due
to a possible oversight, inadvertence and excusable
neglect," she not having ever been engaged in the actual
cultivation and tillage of the property.

As of April 20, 1996, petitioner had fully paid to the Land

Bank the amortization for the property.7

In her Answer8 dated May 25, 1996, petitioner countered

that respondent, whose farm lot was adjacent to the
property, had indeed planted rice seedlings on the
property but that was only in 1985 and only upon
tolerance by her family, respondent having pleaded to
her uncle, Mauricio Ayo, to allow him to plant his excess
rice seedlings thereon.

By Decision9 of September 25, 1996, the PARAD found

in respondent's favor. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads, quoted verbatim:

WHEREFORE, premises considered dicision (sic) is

hereby rendered in favor of the private petitioner and
against the private respondent:

1. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Leyte to cancell

(sic) TCT NO. TE-775 with Emancipation Patent No. A-
025173 containg (sic) an area of 17,870 square meters
located at Barangay San Pedro, Alangalang, Leyte in the
name of Liberty Ayo;

2. Declaring the said title null and void;

3. Ordering the DAR Provincial Office, Tanghas, Tolosa,

Leyte, Attention: Operations Division to process the
reallocation of the land covered by TCT No. TE 775, EP
No. A-025173 registered in the name of Liberty Ayo in
favor of Uldarico Matobato;

4. Ordering the Register of Deeds Province of Leyte in

coordination with the DAR Provincial Office, Tanghas,
Tolosa, Leyte to issue a new title and register covering
subject landholding in favor of Uldarico Matobato as
reallocatee and;

5. Ordering the forfieture (sic) of the land amortization

payment paid in the name of Liberty Ayo in favor of the
reallocatee Uldarico Matobato. (Underscoring supplied) ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

SO ORDERED.10

In finding for respondent, the PARAD reasoned:

From 1985 up to the present, it is the private petitioner

who tilled the land and gave shares to the private
respondent. He also paid the land amortization with the
Land Bank in 1985 and 1986. In effect private
respondent has taken the shoes of a landlord, an
inimical practice the Agrarian Reform Program among
others is designed to abolish if not eradicate. Having
tolerated private petitioner in the cultivation of the land
in question and received shares for the past eleven (11)
years is no different at all from having installed a tenant.
Farmer beneficiaries are prohibited from installing
tenants on the land they acquired under P.D. 27. xxx
even a transfer of the right to use or cultivate the land
constitutes a grave violation of P.D. 27 and its
implementing rules and regulation. xxx

xxx the sanction is not limited to cancellation of the

Emancipation Patent (EP) and Certificate of
Landownership (CLOA) but among others reallocation
of the land to qualified beneficiary.

A perusal of the evidence on record does not show of

any disqualification on the part of private petitioner as
reallocatee of the land in question. The only issue raised
against him is that he is not a tenant of the Marave's
Estate. But it is fact that in 1985, private respondent and
her uncle, Mauricio Ayo have allowed private petitioner
to cultivate the land continuously up to 1996, when the
relationship of the parties became estranged. In 1986
when private petitioner did not give shares private
respondent through her uncle, Mauricio Ayo moved to
get back the land. Nevertheless, private petitioner
continued the cultivation because of their friendship,
lack of funds on the part of private respondent to
operate the cultivation, assurance of her share every
harvest and the payment of the land amortization with
Land Bank by the private petitioner. It maybe posed
therefore who now deserves the land under P.D. 27?
Admittedly, Estanislao Ayo, the administrator-tenant had
it registered in the name of private respondent during
the land distribution in 1981 a short cut to succession
because Estanislao Ayo was already sickly in fact he
died on February 5, 1985 after the CLT was issued to
private respondent in April of 1984. Perhaps, for
humanitarian reason the DAR Officials of Alangalang,
Leyte, Oscar Ripalda and Romulo Bacale did not
consider the identification of private respondent
irregular on the honest belief that upon the death of
Estanislao Ayo, private respondent, assuming that she
is the only heir, would succeed (sic) the land anyway.
Nevertheless, the stubborn fact remains that from 1985
continuously up to the present it is private petitioner
who cultivated the land as tenant with private
respondent as landlord.11

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration12 of the

PARAD decision but it was denied for lack of merit by
Order13 of November 7, 1996 in this wise:

In the case at bar, it has been established that

[respondent] has for long a period been in cultivation of
the land in question and have (sic) shared produce with
[petitioner].

Finally, cancellation of Emancipation Patent and its

reallocation to other beneficiary is governed by PD 27,
Executive Order No. 228 and its implementing rules and
regulation. Acquisition of land under PD 27 is distinct
from other system of titling of alienable and disposable
land in that under PD 27 the title may be cancelled even
after one (1) year from issuance of title if it (sic) shown
that the beneficiary has transferred its use to another
person before full payment of its land value.14
(Underscoring supplied) ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

On appeal by petitioner to the Department of Agrarian

Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the DARAB, by
Decision15 of June 29, 1998, affirmed in toto the
September 25, 1996 PARAD Decision.

Petitioner thus filed before the CA a Petition for

Review16 which, by Decision of August 28, 2002, denied
the same.

Apart from echoing the ratiocination of the DARAB, the

CA explained:
Even assuming that the Emancipation Patent issued to
the petitioner is valid, a careful perusal of the case
shows that she had committed a violation of the terms
and conditions of the Land Title xxx

Markedly absent in the case of the petitioner is the

element of "personal" cultivation. Both the PARAD and
the DARAB found that the petitioner herself did not
actually cultivate the land, nor did her immediate family
or farm household. Instead, she permitted and actually
engaged the service of the private respondent to do the
farm work in exchange for the payment of the land
amortization and shares in the produce of the land.

In Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1990, the

Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) or the duly
designated official covering the area is authorized to
cancel the Order of Award (OA)/Certificate of Land
Transfer (CLT) and issue to qualified/actual
cultivator/occupant if the applicant (beneficiary), with
Order of Award/Certificate of Land Transfer, is not the
actual cultivator occupant of the land in question.

Likewise, Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1994,

provides that:

"The decision of the DARAB may include cancellation of

registered EP/CLOA, reimbursement of lease rental as
amortization to ARBs (Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries),
forfeiture of amortization, ejectment of ARB,
reallocation of the land to qualified beneficiary,
perpetual disqualification to become an ARB,
reimbursement of amortization payment and value of
improvements, and other ancillary matters related to the
cancellation of the EP or CLOA."17 (Underscoring
supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari 18

faulting the CA as follows:

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD DECIDED

THE INSTANT CASE IN A WAY PROBABLY
NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
COURT WHEN IT SET ASIDE THE
EMANCIPATION PATENT OF PETITIONER
AFTER IT HAD LONG BEEN ISSUED

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DEPARTED

FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE
OF PROCEEDINGS, OR SO FAR SANCTIONED
SUCH DEPARTURE BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM AS TO CALL FOR AN
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF SUPERVISION
WHEN IT AFFIRMED THAT PETITIONER WAS
GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF LAND
TRANSFER AND EMANCIPATION PATENT.

III
 THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DEPARTED
FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE
OF PROCEEDINGS, OR SO FAR SANCTIONED
SUCH DEPARTURE BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM AS TO CALL FOR AN
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF SUPERVISION
WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE AWARD OF THE
PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENT.

IV

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED A

QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT
THERETOFORE DETERMINED BY THE
SUPREME COURT, OR HAS DECIDED IT IN A
WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW
OR WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT WHEN IT ORDERED THE
FORFEITURE OF THE AMORTIZATION PAID
BY PETITIONER IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENT.

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DEPARTED

FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE
OF PROCEEDINGS, OR SO FAR SANCTIONED
SUCH DEPARTURE BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM AS TO CALL FOR AN
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF SUPERVISION
WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE
LATTER BASED ON ISSUES AND FACTS NOT
DULY RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT BELOW.19

P.D. 27 was anchored upon the fundamental objective of

addressing valid and legitimate grievances of land
ownership giving rise to violent conflict and social
tension in the countryside.20 It called for reformation to
start with the emancipation of the tiller from the
bondage of the soil21 and encourage a more productive
agricultural base of the country's economy. To achieve
this end, the decree laid down a system for the
purchase by small farmers, long recognized as the
backbone of the economy, of the lands they were
tilling.22

With the emancipation of farmer-tenants, they were

deemed owners of the land they were tilling and were
granted the right to possess, cultivate and enjoy the
landholding for themselves.23

Petitioner thus argues that since an emancipation

patent and a TCT had been issued to her, her ownership
of the property had become conclusive and no longer
open to doubt or controversy.24 Petitioner's argument
fails.

The mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not

put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary
beyond attack and scrutiny.25 Emancipation patents
may be cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules
and regulations. Section 12(g) of P.D. 94626 (issued on
June 17, 1976) vested the then Court of Agrarian
Relations with jurisdiction over cases involving the
cancellation of emancipation patents issued under P.D.
266.27 Exclusive jurisdiction over such cases was later
lodged with the DARAB under Section 1 of Rule II of the
DARAB Rules of Procedure.

Aside from ordering the cancellation of emancipation

patents, the DARAB may order reimbursement of lease
rental as amortization to agrarian reform beneficiaries,
forfeiture of amortization, ejectment of beneficiaries,
reallocation of the land to qualified beneficiaries,
perpetual disqualification to become agrarian reform
beneficiaries, reimbursement of amortization payment
and value of improvements, and other ancillary matters
related to the cancellation of emancipation patents.28

Petitioner nevertheless goes on to argue that the CA,

DARAB and PARAD erred in finding her guilty of violating
the terms and conditions of the certificate of land
transfer and emancipation patent, she asserting that
private respondent was not a bona fide tenant of the
property and thus praying for an assessment of the
evidence.

Only questions of law, however, can be raised in a

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. Findings of fact by the CA are final and
conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the
Supreme Court, more so if the factual findings of the
appellate court coincide with those of the DARAB, an
administrative body with expertise on matters within its
specific and specialized jurisdiction.29 This Court is not
thus duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the
evidence already considered in the proceedings below,
subject to certain exceptions.30

At all events, petitioner has not shown that her case

falls under any of the recognized instances when the
factual findings of the CA may be reviewed and set
aside.

By admittedly allowing respondent to cultivate the

property and receiving the owner's share of the produce,
petitioner implicitly recognized respondent as tenant.
There thus arose between them an implied contract of
tenancy.

As Felizardo v. Fernandez31 held:

A tenancy relationship may be established either

verbally or in writing, expressly or impliedly xxx

Although petitioners did not expressly give their consent

to a leasehold relation with respondent, in our view
petitioners consented to the tenancy albeit impliedly by
allowing respondent to cultivate the landholding in
question and by receiving from him the landowner's
share of the harvest over a considerable length of
time.32

Petitioner furthermore argues that the amortization

payments she made to the Land Bank in the amount of
P9,825.80 should not have been forfeited in favor of
respondent. On this score, the Court finds for petitioner.
While the DARAB has jurisdiction to order forfeiture of
amortizations paid by an agrarian reform beneficiary,33
forfeiture should be made in favor of the government
and not to the reallocatee of the landholding.

Finally, petitioner argues that the CA erred when it

affirmed the decisions of the PARAD and DARAB which
resolved to cancel petitioner's emancipation patent for
violation of the terms and conditions on the patent
whereas respondent's bases of filing of the complaint
before the PARAD were inadvertence, oversight or
excusable neglect.

Petitioner's argument is bereft of merit. It is the material

allegations of fact in the complaint, not the legal
conclusion or the prayer made therein, that determines
the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled.34

Significantly, the power of adjudication, vested then in

the now defunct Court of Agrarian Relations and now in
the DARAB, is not restricted to the specific relief
claimed or demands made by the parties to the dispute,
but may include in the order or decision any matter or
determination which may be deemed necessary and
expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or
preventing further disputes, provided said matter for
determination has been established by competent
evidence during the hearing.35 And the DARAB is not
bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence, to
the end that agrarian reform disputes and other issues
will be adjudicated in a just, expeditious and
inexpensive proceeding.36

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of

Appeals dated August 28, 2002 is AFFIRMED WITH the
MODIFICATION, in accordance with the foregoing
discussion, that the land amortization payments in the
amount of P9,828.50 made by petitioner, Liberty Ayo-
Alburo, are forfeited in favor of the government.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona,

and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1 Rollo at 42-48.

2 Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants

from the Bondage of the Soil Transferring to
them the Ownership of the Land They Till
and Providing the Instruments and
Mechanism Therefor.
3 Rollo at 111.

4 Id. at 92.
5 Id. at 93-94.

6 Ibid.

7 Certification dated April 29, 1996; Records

at 48.
8 Rollo at 107-109.

9 Id. at 116-127.

10 Id. at 126-127.

11 Id. at 124-126.

12 Id. at 128-130.

13 Id. at 131-132.

14 Ibid.

15 Id. at 142-147.

16 Id. at 50-90.

17 Rollo at 47-48.

18 Id. at 3-40.

19 Id. at 17-18.

20 Pagtalunan v. Tamayo, 183 SCRA 252,

258 (1990).
21 Torres v. Ventura, 187 SCRA 96, 103
(1990) (citation omitted).
22 Pagtalunan v. Tamayo, 183 SCRA 252,
258 (1990).
23 Estolas v. Mabalot, 381 SCRA 702, 708
(2002), Torres v. Ventura, 187 SCRA 96, 104
(1990).
24 Rollo at 19.

25F.M.Bacungan & Associates, Agrarian law

and jurisprudence, 134 (2000).
26 Reorganizing the Courts of Agrarian
Relations, Streamlining their Procedures, and
for Other Purposes.
27 Providing for the Mechanics of
Registration of Ownership and/or Title to
Land Under P.D. No. 27.
28DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of
1994 (Rules Governing the Correction and
Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered
Emancipation Patents and Certificates of
Land Ownership Award Due to Unlawful Acts
and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of
Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries and for Other
Causes).
29 Padunan v. Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board, 396 SCRA 196,
201 (2003) (citations omitted), Palele v.
Court of Appeals, 362 SCRA 141, 152 (2001)
(citation omitted).
30(1) when the factual findings of the Court
of Appeals and the trial court are
contradictory;

(2) when the findings are grounded entirely

on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;

(3) when the inference made by the Court of

Appeals from its findings of fact is
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;

(4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in

the appreciation of facts;

(5) when the appellate court, in making its

findings, goes beyond the issues of the case,
and such findings are contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee;

(6) when the judgment of the Court of

Appeals is premised on a misapprehension
of facts;

(7) when the Court of Appeals fails to notice

certain relevant facts which, if properly
considered, will justify a different conclusion;

(8) when the findings of fact are themselves

conflicting;

(9) when the findings of fact are conclusions

without citation of the specific evidence on
which they are based; and cralawlibrary

(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of

Appeals are premised on the absence of
evidence but such findings are contradicted
by the evidence on record [Oarde v. Court of
Appeals, 280 SCRA 235, 244 (1997)
(citations omitted)].
31 363 SCRA 182 (2001).

32 Id. at 190.

33 DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series

of 1994.
34 Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage
Bank v. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 241, 253
(2000) (citation omitted), Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS)
v. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 287, 302
(1998) (citation omitted).
 35 Coconut Cooperative Marketing
Association, Inc. (COCOMA) v. Court of
Appeals, 164 SCRA 568, 582-583 (1988)
(citation omitted), Teodoro v. Macaraeg, 27
SCRA 7, 22-23 (1969) (citation omitted).
36Machete v. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA
176, 183 (1995) (citation omitted).

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

FEATURED DECISIONScralaw

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Search

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRoblesPublishing Company|  Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™  RED