FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 190801-02. November 21, 2018.]
INOCENCIO CASTILLO, FELIXBERTO CASTILLO, GLICERIA CASTILLO, RESTITUTO CASTILLO, ELEONOR CASTILLO, ROSENDA CASTILLO, PEDRO CASTILLO, ELIADORA CASTILLO, CORAZON VDA. DE CASTILLO, ARESENIO CASTILLO, JR., LOURDES CASTILLO, BELEN CASTILLO AND TITO CASTILLO, petitioners, vs.GAUDENCIO OPENA, DOMINGO MONDRAGON, MAXIMO PAMBAGO, PEPE MONDRAGON, MAXIMINO PAMBAGO, DEMETRIO MAGNO, FELIX DE CHAVEZ, ISIDRO REYES, DOMINGO YASON, FRANCISCO GONZAGA, MODESTO GONZAGA, JAIME GONZAGA, ROLANDO MONDRAGON, CANDIDO MAGNO, MODESTO GONZAGA, PEPE MONDRAGON, RICARDO M. MONDRAGON, AURELIO MONDRAGON, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICE OF STO. TOMAS, BATANGAS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGION IV, AND THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BATANGAS, TANAUAN BRANCH, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 21, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 190801-02 (INOCENCIO CASTILLO, FELIXBERTO CASTILLO, GLICERIA CASTILLO, RESTITUTO CASTILLO, ELEONOR CASTILLO, ROSENDA CASTILLO, PEDRO CASTILLO, ELIADORA CASTILLO, CORAZON VDA. DE CASTILLO, ARESENIO CASTILLO, JR., LOURDES CASTILLO, BELEN CASTILLO and TITO CASTILLO, Petitioners v. GAUDENCIO OPENA, DOMINGO MONDRAGON, MAXIMO PAMBAGO, PEPE MONDRAGON, MAXIMINO PAMBAGO, DEMETRIO MAGNO, FELIX DE CHAVEZ, ISIDRO REYES, DOMINGO YASON, FRANCISCO GONZAGA, MODESTO GONZAGA, JAIME GONZAGA, ROLANDO MONDRAGON, CANDIDO MAGNO, MODESTO GONZAGA, PEPE MONDRAGON, RICARDO M. MONDRAGON, AURELIO MONDRAGON, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICE OF STO. TOMAS, BATANGAS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGION IV, AND THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BATANGAS, TANAUAN BRANCH, Respondents.) — The petitioners seek the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on July 21, 2009, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the ruling of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). SDAaTC
Antecedents
The factual and procedural antecedents are summarized by the CA as follows:
Sometime in 1971, Felicisimo, Arsenio and Inocencio, all surnamed Castillo, acquired the subject properties measuring approximately 13.85 hectares located at Sta. Maria, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, by virtue of sale from their late father Lucio Castillo. On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27) was enacted, establishing a system of land acquisition and distribution for the welfare and emancipation of tenants. In January 1973, the Deeds of Sale executed by Lucio Castillo in favor of his three sons were registered in the Registry of Deeds of Tanauan, Batangas. Subsequently, real property tax declarations were issued in their names where the properties were described as "COCOLAND," although it was originally devoted to the production of rice and corn.
Between 1978 and 1979, Arsenio, Felicisimo and Inocencio Castillo, under the supervision and guidance of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), executed separate lease agreements entitled "Kasunduan Buwisan sa Sakahan" corresponding to the landholdings leased to each of the private respondents. The aforenamed sons of Lucio Castillo were recognized in the aforesaid documents as the owners of the subject properties.
In September 1981, petitioner Inocencio received notice that the subject parcels of land were covered by PD 27. In August of 1985, petitioners filed their separate applications for retention of their respective landholdings with the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, where they alleged, among others, that the MARO required them to sign the "Kasunduan Buwisan sa Sakahan."
The subject properties of petitioners were subdivided by the government into several lots, for which individual EPs and tax declarations were issued, and were subsequently awarded to each of the private respondents. These Emancipation Patents were registered by the awardees-respondents in 1989 and an annotation was entered at the back of each and every EP stating:
"The farm/home lot described in this Emancipation Patent is encumbered in favor of: HRS. OF LUCIO CASTILLO, LBP/Landowner, to ensure full payment of its value under PD 27, LOI 705 by the farmer-beneficiary named herein.
(Date)
(SGD.) GERMINIANO C. ESGUERRA"
On July 26, 1995, Inocencio received a letter from the Land Bank of the Philippines, addressed to the heirs of Lucio Castillo, advising them of a land transfer claim for payment under PD 27 with respect to one of the subject lots. Inocencio informed the bank that he was not interested in receiving payment under PD 27 as he was contesting the transfer of his properties to private respondents. In its reply, Land Bank acknowledged the existence of the protest lodged by Inocencio. acEHCD
Inocencio Castillo, thereafter, filed a petition with the Provincial Adjudication Board of Batangas against private respondents Gaudencio Opena, Domingo Mondragon, Maximo Pambago, Pepe Mondragon, Maximino Pambago and public respondents Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Sto. Tomas Batangas (MARO) and the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Region IV. The petition docketed as DARAB Case No. (DCN) 019-95, sought the cancellation of the Emancipation Patents issued to the abovenamed private respondents.
On June 17, 1996, petitioners, Constancia Caponpon Castillo, Felixberto Castillo, Gliceria Castillo, Restituto Castillo, Eleanor Castillo, Rosenda Castillo, Pedro Castillo and Eliadora Castillo, filed a similar petition, docketed as DCN 0439-96, against the same public respondents and private respondents Demetrio Magno, Felix de Chavez, Isidro Reyes, Domingo Yason, Francisco Gonzaga, Modesto Gonzaga, Jaime Gonzaga and Rolando Mondragon.
On August 21, 1996, the rest of the petitioners-heirs of Arsenio Castillo, also filed their own petition (DARAB Case No. R-0401-0691-96[)] seeking the cancellation of the Emancipation Patents issued to private respondents Candido Magno, Modesto Gonzaga, Pepe Mondragon, Ricardo Mondragon and Aurelio Mondragon. Likewise, the above-mentioned public respondents were impleaded.
A joint trial of the aforementioned petitions was conducted by the Provincial Adjudication Board followed by a formal offer of exhibits. On July 1, 1998, the Board rendered a joint decision dismissing the three petitions for lack of merit. The subsequent joint appeal filed by the petitioners before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) was likewise dismissed. On December 29, 2004, the DARAB rendered the second assailed Decision which also dismissed petitioner Inocencio Castillo's appeal.
The DARAB denied the petitions on the ground that there was no sufficient basis warranting the cancellation of the Emancipation Patents issued to private respondents. The Decision also pointed out that eight (8) years had elapsed from the issuance of the Emancipation Patents to the filing of the petitions for their cancellation before the Provincial Adjudication Board. It held that the titles of the respondents had become indefeasible after one year from issuance of the decree of registration in 1989 (Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals). Accordingly, EPs and CLOAs being titles brought under the operation of the Torrens System enjoy the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under the said system as provided under PD 1529 (DAR Memorandum No. 19 Series of 2004). DARAB also cited the failure of petitioners to present any evidence showing that MARO had approved their applications for retention. 2
On appeal to the CA, the petitioners argued that the encumbrances annotated on the emancipation patents (EPs) were erroneous because they were in favor of the heirs of Lucio Castillo, not in favor of the particular son who was the specific owner; that the properties had already been subdivided and sold to each of Lucio Castillo's sons prior to the effectivity of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27; and that, resultantly, the lands were no longer within the coverage of P.D. No. 27 because of the sizes of the areas owned individually by the petitioners. 3 SDHTEC
As stated, the CA promulgated the assailed decision, disposing:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The judgment of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.4
The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA for lack of merit. 5
Hence, this appeal, wherein the petitioners contend that the CA gravely erred in concluding that the deeds of sale executed in favor of the petitioners over the properties were invalid under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law); and in concluding that the deeds of sale were registered in January 1973, a year after P.D. No. 27 took effect. 6
The respondents counter that the CA correctly sustained the findings of the DARAB; 7 that the petitioners did not establish that the landholdings were exempt from the coverage of P.D. No. 27; 8 that the petitions for cancellation were filed more than eight years from the issuance of the EPs; that in the meanwhile the titles of the respondents had become indefeasible after the lapse of one year from the decree of registration issued in 1989; 9 and that the findings of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which had acquired expertise due to their jurisdiction being confined to specific matters, were generally accorded not only great respect but even finality. 10
Ruling of the Court
We dismiss the appeal of the petitioners, and affirm the assailed decision of the CA for being in accord with law and jurisprudence.
Under the last paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 was valid only when registered with the proper Register of Deeds within a period of three months after such effectivity. Pursuant to the provision, the registration was the operative act that conveyed title in registered land subject of the land reform program. According to Section 50 of Act No. 496, as amended by P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), it was the act of registration that operated to convey registered land or to affect title to such land.
Although the properties in question were sold in October 1971, prior to the effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972, the deeds of sale were only registered in January 1973, or more than a year after P.D. No. 27 took effect. The transfers were not valid within the context of Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657, and thus did not bind third parties. Consequently, the properties, being still considered as owned by the late Lucio Castillo, were necessarily subject to the coverage of P.D. No. 27.
The petitioners submit that even assuming that they owned the properties as the heirs of the late Lucio Castillo, they were nonetheless each entitled to retain a total of seven hectares in accordance with the retention provision of P.D. No. 27.
The submission is unwarranted. The right of the landowner to retain the seven hectares was not absolute because it was subject to the condition that the landowner was cultivating the area to be retained or would cultivate it upon effectivity of P.D. No. 27. There being no evidence presented by the petitioners to the effect that they were actually cultivating the land, or that they made known their intention to do so on or before October 1972, they could not validly claim the right of retention.
Still, the petitioners insist that the properties were not covered by P.D. No. 27 because the tax declarations classified the properties as "COCOLANDS."
The insistence lacks factual and legal bases. It is notable that the tax declarations were issued after the registration of the deeds of sale; hence, they suffered from the same infirmity affecting the deeds of sale. In short, the properties remained subject to the classification as being primarily devoted to the production of rice or corn as of October 21, 1972. AScHCD
In this connection, the DARAB found under its joint decision dated July 1, 1998 that the Kasunduan Buwisan sa Sakahan had indicated that the land covered by the EPs was devoted to the cultivation of rice and corn. Without satisfactory evidence showing the contrary, or that the properties were devoted to the cultivation and production of coconut prior to the enactment of P.D. No. 27, the properties must be presumed as primarily devoted to the production of rice or corn and thus within the coverage of P.D. No. 27.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on July 21, 2009; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 41-53; penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, and concurred in by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo.
2.Id. at 43-48.
3.Id. at 48.
4.Id. at 52.
5.Id. at 62.
6.Id. at 10.
7.Id. at 344.
8.Id. at 345.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 346.