2. CAPITLE v.

ELBAMBUENA
G.R. No. 169193. November 30, 2006. * SPOUSES ILUMINADA CAPITLE and
CIRILO CAPITLE, petitioners, vs. FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA and ROSALINDA
C. OLAR, respondents.

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

FACTS:

Cristobal Olar was the husband of respondent Fortunata and the father-in-law of
respondent Rosalinda Olar. During Olar’ s lifetime, he was issued a Certificate of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA) covering a parcel of agricultural land subject of the present
controversy with an area of 1.8144 hectares and situated in Barangay Valle, Talavera,
Nueva Ecija. On account of which, he was issued Transfer Certificate of Title No.
CLOA-0-3514.

Upon Olar’s death in 1995, respondents claimed that Olar relinquished 1/2 or
0.9072 hectare of the lot to Rosalinda by a “Kasunduan” dated July 17, 1992, the
execution of which was witnessed by petitioner Cirilo Capitle while the remaining portion
was surrendered to Fortunata though an undated document. They alleged that they
allowed petitioners, upon the request of the latter, to occupy the lot to pursue their
means of livelihood. However, no payment of rentals was made by the petitioners since
1990 despite demands. Upon such default, petitioners did not vacate the property
despite demand to return the possession to respondents. This prompted respondents to
file a Petition for Recovery of Possession and Payment of Back Rentals against
petitioners before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
Regional Office in Talavera, Nueva Ecija.

Armed with the following documents: “Waiver of Rights” allegedly executed by

Olar renouncing in their favor hid rights over the subject lot; a “Sinumpaang Salaysay”
wherein Olar acknowledged that he co-possessed the lot with petitioner Capitle since
1960; and a Pinagsamang Patunay from the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
(BARC) Chairman and barangay chairman of Valle certifying that they (petitioners) are
the actual tillers and possessors of the lot, the petitioners claimed that they have been
in possession of the lot since 1960. Moreover, they argued that Fortunata has no right
to inherit the land, or any part thereof, as she was already separated from Olar since
1960.

While the said case was pending before the PARAD (Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator), the petitioners filed a separate petition for the cancellation of CLOA in the
name of Olar under the claim that they are the new farmer-beneficiaries evidenced by
the aforementioned documents evidenced by a Board Resolution of the Samahang
Nayon of Valle naming petitioners as new allocatees; a Joint Certification of the
BARC Chairman and barangay chairman; and MARO Certification that they have
been in actual possession of the lot. However, the respondents were not impleaded in
this case.

The two cases were jointly tried. PARAD ruled in favor of petitioners and ordered
the issuance of new CLOA under the name of petitioners Iluminada Capitle married to
Cirilo Capitle, cancellation of the record of the TCT under Olar’s name in the RD of
Nueva Ecija and cause the registration of the new one. The DARAB set aside this
decision, ordering the petitioners to vacate the subject lot and deliver its possession to
respondents and cause the issuance of CLOA in their favor. The CA affirmed this
decision in toto, ruling that that petitioners’ stay in Olar’s property had been by mere
tolerance of respondents.

Hence, this petition contending that their preferential right over the lot should be
recognized despite CLOA being issued under the name of Olar. They also contended
that respondents, though legal heirs of Olar, are not qualified to become farmer-
beneficiaries under the CARP as they did not till or cultivate the property nor help Olar
in his farming activities and it was actually them who tilled that land and took care of
Olar. They reiterated that Forutnata has no right to inherit being estranged from Olar up
until the latter’s death.

ISSUE: Whether or not estrangement of spouses is a legal ground for the

disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the deceased spouse - NO

HELD:

Olar’s death substantially passed all his rights and interest in and over the
subject property to his legal heirs by operation of law, including Fortunata as his
surviving wife, and to Rosalinda Olar, his son’s surviving spouse, acting for and in
behalf of her children with Nemesio Olar.THier relationship to Olar was never put into
issue in this case, their being legal heirs of the deceased gave them unqualified right to
participate in all proceedings affecting the subject property. Although estranged from
Olar, respondent Fortunata remained Olar’s wife and legal heir, mere estrangement not
being a legal ground for the disqualification of a surviving spouse as an heir of the
deceased spouse. Rosalinda, on the other hand, is the surviving spouse of Olar’s son.
The two are thus real parties-in-interest who stand to be injured or benefited by the
judgment on the cancellation of the CLOA issued in Olar’s name.

Even assuming arguendo that petitioners were indeed the actual tillers of the lot,
their petition for the cancellation of the CLOA issued in favor of Olar would not bind
respondents as they were not impleaded. Furthermore, the petitioners were not able to
overcome the presumption that the public officers who issued the CLOA to Olar
regularly performed their duties, including adhering to the provisions of Section 22 of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The averments of the petitioners that
Olar beginning 1959 up to the time of his death in 1995 lived all alone by himself and his
companions in his house are the petitioners serve as a virtual admission that their
possession was not in the concept of owners, they having merely “helped” in tilling the
lot, thereby acknowledging that Olar was the actual possessor and tiller. Moreover, the
title of Olar under the CLOA cannot be overthrown or supplanted by some
organizational resolution and/or barangay attestations/certifications.

PETITION DENIED.