ASTRID O.

NAMBONG,
Complainant,
-versus- APO Case No. APO-0407-
0221-2019
CIRILO B. NAMUCO, SR. AND CANC-4B07-0004-2012
CIRILO M. NAMUCO, JR. THE
PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN
REFORM OFFICER OF DAR-
PALAWAN AND REGISTER
DEEDS OF THE CITY OF PUERTO
PRINCESA,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

For consideration is the Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) matter

in the above-entitled petition for cancellation filed in the Office of
Provincial Adjudicator, Puerto Princesa, Palawan on 30 July 2009 by Astrid
Nambong, involving Lot No. 11405 Cad-798-D, C-13 covered by Original
Certificate of Title OCT No. C-5742/CLOA No. 00248620 with an area of
Fifty seven thousand one hundred ninety one (57,191), square meters, more
or less, located in Santa Cruz, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan and registered
in the names of Spouses Cirilo B. Namuco, Sr. and Cirilo M. Namuco Jr.
The title was awarded on 18 June 2007 and registered in the Registry of
Deeds of Palawan on 22 June 2007.
On 14 November 1997, Namuco Sr., obtained several loans from
Nambong, secured by a contract of mortgage and a promissory note. After
the former refused to pay said debts, a collection suit was instituted by
Nambong before the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Quezon (MCTC)
Palawan in September 2004 which rendered a decision on 4 July 2006 in
favor of Nambong. Despite said court decision, a Certificate of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA) i.e., CLOA No. 00248620 was issued on 18 June
2007 in favor of Namuco Sr. and Namuco, Jr. said CLOA was registered on
22 June 2007. On the other hand, a Certificate of Sale was issued by the
Sheriff on 20 October 2007, declaring Nambong as the new owner of the
land. From then on, the petitioner was able to work on said land. However,
in May 2009, respondent forcibly entered the land, causing Nambong to file
a case against the respondent.
On 25 August 2009 an Answer was filed by Spouses Namuco Sr. and
alleging that the judicial sale is void since it contained the respondent’s
family home and thus exempt from execution1.
1
Rollo p. 55
 Page 2 of 5

APO-0404-XXXX-2019

On 30 September 2009 an Answer with Special Affirmative Defense was

filed by the Provincial of Agrarian Reform Officer II (PARO) alleging that:
1. Respondents are in possession of the land prior to the issuance
of the writ dated 16 February 2009 and during the generation of
the CLOA;
2. That CLOA No. 00248620 came under the operation of the
Torrens System of Registration;
3. that the action was filed after the lapse of more than two (2)
years from the issuance of CLOA No. 00248620;
4. The Land is exempt from attachment as per R.A. No. 3844,
section 64, in relation to R.A. No. 6657, section 75, since no
mortgage contract was presented, and even if there was, the
portion of the land belonging to Namuco Jr. should not have
been sold at the public auction; and
5. Since the judgement of the MCTC included the portion of
Namuco Jr. the judgement should be void2.
On 08 October 2009 the 1st Indorsement Letter for the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Magbanua was filed by the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB)3
On 9 November 2009 an Order was issued by DARAB dismissing the
aforementioned petition for cancellation of OCT No. C-5742/CLOA No.
00248620, issued by virtue of CLOA No. 00248620, for lack of jurisdiction
and for the Provincial Clerk of the Board to cause the transmittal of the case
folder with attachments to the Secretary of the DAR4.
On 1 December 2009 a Memorandum was issued by the acting
provincial clerk of the DARAB5 for the Office of the Secretary (OSEC)
transmitting original case folder of Astrid O. Nambong vs. Cirilo B.
Namuco, Sr. And Cirilo M. Namuco, Jr. The Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer Of Dar-Palawan And Register Deeds Of The City Of Puerto
Princesa City.

On 5 January 2010 an Indorsement for the Regional Director of DAR

MIMAROPA was made by the OSEC for the appropriate action on the ALI
matter of the case6.
In 27 September 2010 a Memorandum for the Regional Director was
issued by Legal Officer Rocma M. Macarasm with recommendation that
the instant petition for cancellation of the case docketed as ARO-1700-0003-
2010 be granted7.
On 30 September 2010 a Memorandum was issued for the transmittal
of the two case folders8.
On 23 November 2010 a Memorandum for the Undersecretary of the
Legal Affairs Office (ULAO) concerning the transmittal of the case folders
2
Rollo p. 74
3
Rollo p. 75
4
Rollo p. 88
5
Rollo p. 90
6
Rollo p. 94
7
Rollo p. 108
8
Rollo p. 109
 Page 3 of 5

APO-0404-XXXX-2019

with docket numbers ARO-1700-0003-2010 and ARO-1700-0364-2010,

respectively was made by the Head Executive Assistant of the OSEC9.
On 11 November 2011 an Order was issued by the ULAO directing
the Petitioner to submit a disclosure statement pursuant to Administrative
Order (A.O.) No. 6 Series of 2011.
On 19 December 2011 a Manifestation/Compliance was submitted by
Nambong in response to the abovementioned 11 November 2011 Order.
Further, she stated that said parcel of land, then covered by Tax
Declaration No. 004-0753-A, was the subject of the final judgement
rendered by the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Quezon, Palawan in Civil
Case No. 14310.
On 25 May 2012 an Order was issued by the ULAO stating that the
Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) issues thereof have yet to be resolved
and thus endorsed and transmitted the Cancellation Case to the PARAD of
Vigan City, Ilocos Sur to begin the collation of documents for the required
case build up and to subsequently transfer them to the RD, Center for Land
Use Policy Planning (CLUPPI) or Regional CLUPPI to investigate and
make recommendations as to the resolution of the ALI issue11.
On 14 August 2012 a Notice to Comment was issued by PARAD
Andrew N. Baysa to Spouses Namuco Sr. and Magbanua.
On 1 September 2012 a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by spouses
Namuco Sr. and Magbanua and Namuco Jr. before the OSEC.
On 3 October 2012 a Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration was
filed by Petitioner before DARAB.
On 28 November 2013 a Letter forwarding the case folder was issued
by PARAD Omar, to the RD.
On 4 March 2014 a Memorandum was issued by Legal Officer Rocma
M. Macarasm to the RD. Said memo recommended that the petition for
cancellation be denied and that the remaining area of 2.85955 hectares be
returned to Namuco Jr. as he is not part of the abovementioned mortgage
between his father Namuco Sr. and Nambong.
On 4 March 2014 a Memorandum was issued by the RD to the OSEC,
concerning the transmittal of the Investigation Report with one case folder.
Further, the petition for cancellation was recommended for approval
insofar as the share of Namuco, Sr. and be disapproved in so far as the
share of Namuco Jr.
On 15 January 2016 a Memorandum by the Bureau of Agrarian Legal
Assistance Director Maria Celestina M. Tam was sent to the Assistant
Secretary for Legal Affairs Atty. Justin Vincent J. La Chica.
Hence, this petition is transmitted to this Office to resolve the ALI
matter under Administrative Order No. 2 Series of 2018.
The issue to be resolved are:
1. Whether Lot No. 11405 Cad-798-D, C-13 covered by OCT No.
C-5742/CLOA No. 00248620, excluded from the coverage of
Comrehensive Agrarian Reform Program; and
9
Rollo p. 110
10
Rollo p. 126
11
Rollo p. 131
 Page 4 of 5

APO-0404-XXXX-2019

2. Whether or not respondent may be EXCLUDED as an Agrarian

Reform Beneficiary over the said property.

This Office finds the petition NOT TENABLE.

As for the first issue, Lot No. 11405 Cad-798-D, C-13, is not
excluded and may be covered by CARP. As provided for in the
Memorandum dated 07 November 2019 issued by the Chief Legal of
Palawan, Atty. Reychelle Anne B. Villarta, there is no sufficient ground to
cause the cancellation of OCT No. C-5742/CLOA No. 00248620 as the
procedure in the issuance thereof was in accordance with the DAR
guidelines cited in paragraph A7 B of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 7
Series of 1993. Further, Memorandum dated 04 March 2014 issued by Legal
Officer Rocma M. Macarasm stated in page 5 thereof, that there is a
presumption of regularity in the processing and issuance of CLOA and
unless the same is voided, the it is presumed issued under regularity

Based on the records of the case, it is incontrovertible that the land

covered by OCT No. C-5742/CLOA No. 00248620 is the same land
previously awarded to the complainant by way of levy upon the 29
September 2006 order of the 7th MCTC of Palawan.

As per the 4 March 2014 a Memorandum was issued by Legal Officer

Rocma M. Macarasm, the records reveal that the subject property is owned
by the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to the fact that the Land was
once a settlement area and then eventually declared by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as alienable and disposable.
Thereafter, the DENR indorsed said property to the DAR for proper
disposition. Therefore, unless distributed, the rightful beneficiary and
ownership of said land incontrovertibly belongs with the government.

In conjunction what the 4 July 2006 order involved was Tax

Declaration No.004-0755-A, which involved the subject property and was
under the name of herein respondents. However, in a catena of cases, the
Supreme Court consistently held that a tax declaration is neither title nor
does it confer ownership over an immovable property. That tax declaration
and corresponding tax receipts cannot be used to prove title or ownership
of a real property inasmuch as they are not conclusive evidence of the same
(Castillo vs. Escutin) Lastly, said document is only issued by the local
government concerned only for purposes of tax payment.

In light of the foregoing, it follows that since the respondent had no

actual ownership over the Land, considering that the rightful ownership
thereof remained with the government. Consequently, the order of the 7 th
MCTC of Palawan dated 29 September 2006 awarding the subject property
is erroneous, since the court therein took the subject property from a debtor
who had no lawful ownership over the land taken to begin with.
 Page 5 of 5

APO-0404-XXXX-2019

Finally, it is worth noting that a public land patent, when registered,

is a veritable torrens title (Dagdag vs. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. L-12691, Feb.
27, 1959) and becomes indefeasible as a torrens title (Ramoso vs. Obligado,
70 Phil. 86), upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance
thereof (Lucas vs. Durian, G.R. No. L-7886, Sept. 23, 1957). As such it can
no longer be cancelled and annulled.12 In the case at bar the disputed land
was registered in the name of herein respondents on 22 June 2007 while the
certificate of sale awarding the land to the petitioner was only issued on 20
October 2007. It is therefore evident that the certificate of sale awarded to
petitioner is without force of law since the registration of OCT No.
C-5742/CLOA No. 00248620 already attached with the respondent.

Accordingly, since the grant of the subject landholding preceded the

order of the 7th MCTC of Palawan, the issuance of OCT No. C-5742/CLOA
No. 00248620 to the respondent Namuco Sr. and Namuco Jr. is sustained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the ALI matter for the

erroneous identification, distribution and coverage of OCT No.
C-5742/CLOA No. 00248620 covering the area of Fifty seven thousand one
hundred ninety one (57,191) square meters, more or less, and located in
Brgy. Calumpang, Quezon, Palawan under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program by the complainant is hereby settled.

SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines. 20 September 2019

ZORAIDA O. MACADINDANG, Al-Hadj, JD.

Regional Director
NOT VALID WITHOUT DAR OFFICIAL SEAL

Cc:

CIRILIO B. NAMUCO SR.

CIRILIO B. NAMUCO JR.
Barangay Santa Cruz, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

ASTRID O. NAMBONG
Barangay Santa Cruz, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

The PARPO II
2nd Floor, DAR, City Coliseum
San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City

The REGISTRY OF DEEDS

Puerto Princesa, Palawan

ZOM/MJE/kevin

12
Ibid, p. 2