Lawyerly

GR No. 192629

2015-11-25

BRION, J.

As early as 1990, the transfers of possessory rights over landholdings awarded under agrarian laws had been declared void in Torres v. Ventura.[7]

GR No. 177903

2012-08-22

ASUNCION v. EMILIANO DE GUZMAN RAYMUNDO

MENDOZA, J.

Thus, any individual or juridical person dealing with agricultural lands covered by P.D. No. 27 must naturally subscribe to the provisions of the law. At the time of the sale between the heirs of Asuncion and Phil-Ville, respondent was already the holder of a CLT proving his inchoate ownership of the subject agricultural land primarily devoted to rice production. CLT is the provisional title of ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of the land's value or for as long as the beneficiary is an amortizing owner.[25] As the CLT holder, respondent was the rightful owner of the farmland by express grant of P.D. No. 27. As already stated, any other transfer of the land that circumvents the specific mandate of the law cannot be upheld. To rule otherwise would defeat the intent of the law, put tenant-farmers as susceptible prey, and make the land an open market for persons who are not even actual tillers thereof.[26]

GR No. 162446

2010-03-29

ROMANITA CONCHA v. PAULINO RUBIO

PERALTA, J.

While this Court in Torres v. Ventura[29] ruled that it was hard to believe that a tenant, who had been tilling the land in question for a long time, would suddenly lose interest in it and decide to leave it for good and at a time when he knew that full ownership over the same was soon going to be in his hands,[30] this Court believes that the same consideration should not apply to the case at bar.

GR No. 162721

2009-07-13

PETRONILA MAYLEM v. CARMELITA ELLANO

PERALTA, J.

Hence, even if we must assume that Abad for a consideration had waived his rights to the property when he surrendered possession thereof to petitioner, such waiver is nevertheless ineffective and void, because it amounts to a prohibited transfer of the land award. As the Court held in Lapanday Agricultural & Development Corp. v. Estita,[40] the waiver of rights and interests over landholdings awarded by the government is invalid for being violative of agrarian reform laws.[41] And in Torres v. Ventura,[42] the Court declared that the object of agrarian reform is to vest in the farmer-beneficiary, to the exclusion of others, the rights to possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding for himself; hence, to insure his continued possession and enjoyment thereof, he is prohibited by law to make any form of transfer except only to the government or by hereditary succession.[43]

GR No. 155640

2008-05-07

EUGENIA CASTELLANO and ERLAINE CASTELLANO v. SPS. FLORENTINO FRANCISCO and ESTELITA MATA FRANCISCO

CARPIO, J.

Indeed, the sale or transfer of rights over a property covered by a certificate of land transfer is void except when the alienation is made in favor of the government or through hereditary succession.[12] In this case, however, the Court of Appeals failed to consider that the basis for the issuance of Erlaine's emancipation patent was Florentino's voluntary surrender of the land to the Samahang Nayon, which qualifies as surrender or transfer to the government.

GR NO. 148777

2007-10-18

ESTATE OF LATE ENCARNACION VDA. DE PANLILIO v. GONZALO DIZON

VELASCO, JR., J.

The law is clear and leaves no room for doubt. Upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21, 1972, petitioner was DEEMED OWNER of the land in question. As of that date, he was declared emancipated from the bondage of the soil. As such, he gained the rights to possess, cultivate, and enjoy the landholding for himself. Those rights over that particular property were granted by the government to him and to no other. To insure his continued possession and enjoyment of the property, he could not, under the law, make any valid form of transfer except to the government or by hereditary succession, to his successors.[71] In addition, the prohibition was expanded not only to cover the title issued to the tenant-farmer but also the rights and interests of the farmer in the land while he is still paying the amortizations on it. A contrary ruling would make the farmer an "easy prey to those who would like to tempt [him/her] with cash in exchange for inchoate title over the same," and PD 27 could be easily circumvented and the title shall eventually be acquired by non-tillers of the soil.[72]

GR NO. 148157

2006-07-27

SPS. LUBINA CALIWAG-CARMONA AND RENATO CARMONA v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The DARAB and the CA correctly ruled that upon the promulgation of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972, Victoriano Caliwag was deemed the owner of the land in question. As such, he gained the rights to possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding for himself, which rights were granted to him by the government and to no other. To insure his continued possession and enjoyment of the property, he could not, under the law, make any valid form of transfer except to the government by other legal means, or by hereditary succession to his successors. The transfer by the tenant of the ownership, rights or possession of a landholding to other persons, or the surrender of the same to the former landowner constitute a violation of P.D. No. 27, and therefore, null and void.[20]

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Presidential Decree No. 27, or more popularly known as the Emancipation Decree, was signed into law in view of the fact that the old concept of land ownership by a few has spawned valid and legitimate grievances that gave rise to violent conflict and tension. The law points out that reformation must start with the emancipation of the tiller from the bondage of the soil.[28] It recognized the importance of encouraging a more productive agricultural base of the nation's economy. In order to achieve this objective, the decree laid down a scheme for the purchase by small farmers of the lands they were tilling. Landowners of agricultural lands which were devoted primarily to rice and corn production and exceeded the minimum retention area were thus compelled to sell, through the intercession of the government, their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and conditions.[29]

GR No. 162890

2005-11-22

HEIRS OF JULIAN DELA CRUZ v. HEIRS OF ALBERTO CRUZ

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The DARAB further declared that, even if the private document may be considered a waiver of Leonora's tenancy rights over the landholding, nevertheless, the CLOA and the title may still be canceled as such waiver is null and void. Citing Torres v. Ventura,[19] it held that the pari delicto doctrine is not applicable. The DARAB ruled that under DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994, such sale, the CLOA and the Torrens title issued over the landholding in favor of Alberto may be cancelled by it.[20] Alberto filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision which the DARAB denied on February 11, 2002.[21]

GR No. 162890

2005-11-22

HEIRS OF JULIAN DELA CRUZ v. HEIRS OF ALBERTO CRUZ

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In the present case, the DAR Secretary approved CLOA No. 51750 in the name of Alberto in the exercise of his administrative powers and in the implementation of the agrarian reform laws. The approval was based on the Report of the MARO, the November 16, 1990 Order of the PARO and the recommendation of the DAR Director of the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution, over whom the DAR Secretary has supervision and control. The DAR Secretary also had the authority to withdraw the CLOA upon a finding that the same is contrary to law and DAR orders, circulars and memoranda. The resolution of such issues by the DAR Secretary will entail the application and implementation of agrarian reform laws, inclusive of P.D. No. 946 as well as the implementing orders, circulars and rules and regulations issued by the DAR. On the issue of who may be or shall be declared as the owner-cultivator of the landholding, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian reform laws, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978 as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 14, Series of 1988, and DAR Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 1980 will apply. On the issue of whether or not the petitioners sold their tenancy rights over the landholding and barred them from asserting their rights, either by pari delicto, prescription or laches, the DAR Secretary will apply P.D. No. 27 and the rulings of this Court in Torres v. Ventura[34] and Corpus v. Grospe,[35] reiterated in Siacor v. Gigantana.[36] On the issue of whether the petitioners were denied of their right to substantive and procedural due process, the DAR Secretary will take into account, inter alia, Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1990.

GR NO. 136211

2005-03-31

HEIRS OF VICENTE HIDALGO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The purpose of the OLT program is to emancipate the tenants from the bondage of the soil. In the case of Torres v. Ventura,[19] we pronounced:. . . [T]o remind those who are involved in the execution of agrarian laws that it is the farmer-beneficiary's interest that must be primarily served. This also holds that agrarian laws are to be liberally construed in favor of the farmer-beneficiary. Anyone who wishes to contest the rights of the farmer to land given to him by the government in accordance with our agrarian laws has the burden of proving that the farmer does not deserve the government grant. Culled from the above expositions, it is our conclusion that the parcels of land subject of the instant case are not exempt from the coverage of the OLT program of the government.

GR No. 146480

2004-07-14

CONCEPCION TORALBA v. FRANCISCO MERCADO

QUISUMBING, J.

. . . Pursuant to P.D. No. 27, a farmer-beneficiary cannot make any valid form of transfer of the land adjudicated to them, except to the government or by hereditary succession to their respective successors.[23] The farmer-beneficiary alone has title over the agricultural land covered by the Certificate of Land Transfer granted to him. In Victoriano Torres v. Leon Ventura,[24] the Court did not hesitate to declare void ab initio the contract executed by an allocatee under P.D. No. 27 relinquishing his rights over the landholding awarded to him. Likewise, as held in Gloria Cahinusayan Vda. de Oliver v. Sesinando Cruz,[25] rights and interests covered by CLTs are beyond the commerce of man.

	GR No. 192629 2015-11-25	FILINVEST LAND v. EDUARDO R. ADIA BRION, J.
As early as 1990, the transfers of possessory rights over landholdings awarded under agrarian laws had been declared void in Torres v. Ventura.[7]
	GR No. 177903 2012-08-22	ASUNCION v. EMILIANO DE GUZMAN RAYMUNDO MENDOZA, J.
Thus, any individual or juridical person dealing with agricultural lands covered by P.D. No. 27 must naturally subscribe to the provisions of the law. At the time of the sale between the heirs of Asuncion and Phil-Ville, respondent was already the holder of a CLT proving his inchoate ownership of the subject agricultural land primarily devoted to rice production. CLT is the provisional title of ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of the land's value or for as long as the beneficiary is an amortizing owner.[25] As the CLT holder, respondent was the rightful owner of the farmland by express grant of P.D. No. 27. As already stated, any other transfer of the land that circumvents the specific mandate of the law cannot be upheld. To rule otherwise would defeat the intent of the law, put tenant-farmers as susceptible prey, and make the land an open market for persons who are not even actual tillers thereof.[26]
	GR No. 162446 2010-03-29	ROMANITA CONCHA v. PAULINO RUBIO PERALTA, J.
While this Court in Torres v. Ventura[29] ruled that it was hard to believe that a tenant, who had been tilling the land in question for a long time, would suddenly lose interest in it and decide to leave it for good and at a time when he knew that full ownership over the same was soon going to be in his hands,[30] this Court believes that the same consideration should not apply to the case at bar.
	GR No. 162721 2009-07-13	PETRONILA MAYLEM v. CARMELITA ELLANO PERALTA, J.
Hence, even if we must assume that Abad for a consideration had waived his rights to the property when he surrendered possession thereof to petitioner, such waiver is nevertheless ineffective and void, because it amounts to a prohibited transfer of the land award. As the Court held in Lapanday Agricultural & Development Corp. v. Estita,[40] the waiver of rights and interests over landholdings awarded by the government is invalid for being violative of agrarian reform laws.[41] And in Torres v. Ventura,[42] the Court declared that the object of agrarian reform is to vest in the farmer-beneficiary, to the exclusion of others, the rights to possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding for himself; hence, to insure his continued possession and enjoyment thereof, he is prohibited by law to make any form of transfer except only to the government or by hereditary succession.[43]
	GR No. 155640 2008-05-07	EUGENIA CASTELLANO and ERLAINE CASTELLANO v. SPS. FLORENTINO FRANCISCO and ESTELITA MATA FRANCISCO CARPIO, J.
Indeed, the sale or transfer of rights over a property covered by a certificate of land transfer is void except when the alienation is made in favor of the government or through hereditary succession.[12] In this case, however, the Court of Appeals failed to consider that the basis for the issuance of Erlaine's emancipation patent was Florentino's voluntary surrender of the land to the Samahang Nayon, which qualifies as surrender or transfer to the government.
	GR NO. 148777 2007-10-18	ESTATE OF LATE ENCARNACION VDA. DE PANLILIO v. GONZALO DIZON VELASCO, JR., J.
The law is clear and leaves no room for doubt. Upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21, 1972, petitioner was DEEMED OWNER of the land in question. As of that date, he was declared emancipated from the bondage of the soil. As such, he gained the rights to possess, cultivate, and enjoy the landholding for himself. Those rights over that particular property were granted by the government to him and to no other. To insure his continued possession and enjoyment of the property, he could not, under the law, make any valid form of transfer except to the government or by hereditary succession, to his successors.[71] In addition, the prohibition was expanded not only to cover the title issued to the tenant-farmer but also the rights and interests of the farmer in the land while he is still paying the amortizations on it. A contrary ruling would make the farmer an "easy prey to those who would like to tempt [him/her] with cash in exchange for inchoate title over the same," and PD 27 could be easily circumvented and the title shall eventually be acquired by non-tillers of the soil.[72]
	GR NO. 148157 2006-07-27	SPS. LUBINA CALIWAG-CARMONA AND RENATO CARMONA v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The DARAB and the CA correctly ruled that upon the promulgation of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972, Victoriano Caliwag was deemed the owner of the land in question. As such, he gained the rights to possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding for himself, which rights were granted to him by the government and to no other. To insure his continued possession and enjoyment of the property, he could not, under the law, make any valid form of transfer except to the government by other legal means, or by hereditary succession to his successors. The transfer by the tenant of the ownership, rights or possession of a landholding to other persons, or the surrender of the same to the former landowner constitute a violation of P.D. No. 27, and therefore, null and void.[20]
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Presidential Decree No. 27, or more popularly known as the Emancipation Decree, was signed into law in view of the fact that the old concept of land ownership by a few has spawned valid and legitimate grievances that gave rise to violent conflict and tension. The law points out that reformation must start with the emancipation of the tiller from the bondage of the soil.[28] It recognized the importance of encouraging a more productive agricultural base of the nation's economy. In order to achieve this objective, the decree laid down a scheme for the purchase by small farmers of the lands they were tilling. Landowners of agricultural lands which were devoted primarily to rice and corn production and exceeded the minimum retention area were thus compelled to sell, through the intercession of the government, their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and conditions.[29]
	GR No. 162890 2005-11-22	HEIRS OF JULIAN DELA CRUZ v. HEIRS OF ALBERTO CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
The DARAB further declared that, even if the private document may be considered a waiver of Leonora's tenancy rights over the landholding, nevertheless, the CLOA and the title may still be canceled as such waiver is null and void. Citing Torres v. Ventura,[19] it held that the pari delicto doctrine is not applicable. The DARAB ruled that under DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994, such sale, the CLOA and the Torrens title issued over the landholding in favor of Alberto may be cancelled by it.[20] Alberto filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision which the DARAB denied on February 11, 2002.[21]
	GR No. 162890 2005-11-22	HEIRS OF JULIAN DELA CRUZ v. HEIRS OF ALBERTO CRUZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the present case, the DAR Secretary approved CLOA No. 51750 in the name of Alberto in the exercise of his administrative powers and in the implementation of the agrarian reform laws. The approval was based on the Report of the MARO, the November 16, 1990 Order of the PARO and the recommendation of the DAR Director of the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution, over whom the DAR Secretary has supervision and control. The DAR Secretary also had the authority to withdraw the CLOA upon a finding that the same is contrary to law and DAR orders, circulars and memoranda. The resolution of such issues by the DAR Secretary will entail the application and implementation of agrarian reform laws, inclusive of P.D. No. 946 as well as the implementing orders, circulars and rules and regulations issued by the DAR. On the issue of who may be or shall be declared as the owner-cultivator of the landholding, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian reform laws, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978 as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 14, Series of 1988, and DAR Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 1980 will apply. On the issue of whether or not the petitioners sold their tenancy rights over the landholding and barred them from asserting their rights, either by pari delicto, prescription or laches, the DAR Secretary will apply P.D. No. 27 and the rulings of this Court in Torres v. Ventura[34] and Corpus v. Grospe,[35] reiterated in Siacor v. Gigantana.[36] On the issue of whether the petitioners were denied of their right to substantive and procedural due process, the DAR Secretary will take into account, inter alia, Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1990.
	GR NO. 136211 2005-03-31	HEIRS OF VICENTE HIDALGO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The purpose of the OLT program is to emancipate the tenants from the bondage of the soil. In the case of Torres v. Ventura,[19] we pronounced:. . . [T]o remind those who are involved in the execution of agrarian laws that it is the farmer-beneficiary's interest that must be primarily served. This also holds that agrarian laws are to be liberally construed in favor of the farmer-beneficiary. Anyone who wishes to contest the rights of the farmer to land given to him by the government in accordance with our agrarian laws has the burden of proving that the farmer does not deserve the government grant. Culled from the above expositions, it is our conclusion that the parcels of land subject of the instant case are not exempt from the coverage of the OLT program of the government.
	GR No. 146480 2004-07-14	CONCEPCION TORALBA v. FRANCISCO MERCADO QUISUMBING, J.
. . . Pursuant to P.D. No. 27, a farmer-beneficiary cannot make any valid form of transfer of the land adjudicated to them, except to the government or by hereditary succession to their respective successors.[23] The farmer-beneficiary alone has title over the agricultural land covered by the Certificate of Land Transfer granted to him. In Victoriano Torres v. Leon Ventura,[24] the Court did not hesitate to declare void ab initio the contract executed by an allocatee under P.D. No. 27 relinquishing his rights over the landholding awarded to him. Likewise, as held in Gloria Cahinusayan Vda. de Oliver v. Sesinando Cruz,[25] rights and interests covered by CLTs are beyond the commerce of man.

VICTORINO TORRES v. LEON VENTURA