FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 183659. November 21, 2018.]
PEDRO GERA, FLORA EMPALMADO, LYDIA E. MANUBAT AND VISITACION LUNESA, petitioners, vs.AMPARO ZOSA, CONSOLACION M. VELEZ, CORAZON M. GUTIERREZ, TERESITA V. MERCADO AND CARIDAD Q. MERCADO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 21, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 183659 (PEDRO GERA, FLORA EMPALMADO, LYDIA E. MANUBAT and VISITACION LUNESA, Petitioners, v. AMPARO ZOSA, CONSOLACION M. VELEZ, CORAZON M. GUTIERREZ, TERESITA V. MERCADO and CARIDAD Q. MERCADO, Respondents.) — On April 4, 1997, the respondents herein brought a complaint against the petitioners for the recovery of ownership and damages, and the cancellation of titles in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, in Toledo City. In their amended complaint, the respondents alleged that:
x x x that they are all heirs of the late Severina Mercado who died in Cebu City in 1948; that at the time of her death, she left properties, one of them being Lot No. 538 located in Sangi, Toledo City; that sometime in January 1997, the caretaker of this subject property reported to the [respondents] that the trees and crops were destroyed and damaged when the government of Toledo City brought in equipments (sic) to the land in question, prompting the plaintiffs to send a letter to the City Mayor of Toledo [Annex "A" attached to original complaint]; that the City Mayor through the City Attorney of Toledo City sent a letter to [respondents] [Annex "B"] in answer to the said [respondent's] letter that it was herein [petitioners] who allowed the City of Toledo to enter inside the subject property because [petitioners] alleged that they were the owners of the subject property; that attached to said letter of the City Mayor of Toledo City was the authorization signed by [petitioners], tax declarations and titles in their own names [Annexes "C" to "M"]; CAIHTE
x x x that was the first time [respondents] came to know about that part of the property was placed under operation land transfer; that consequently, [respondents'] undersigned counsel wrote a letter [Annex "O"] to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer requesting the said officer to furnish him with all the copies of documents showing that [respondents] were notified that their subject property was going to be placed under Operation Land Transfer, notices showing further that how the just compensation of their property was going to be fixed and to whom payment has been made; that the said Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer was only able to furnish [respondents] a copy of the final notification letter dated June 24, 1991 [Annex "P"] addressed to Corazon M. Gutierrez, brothers and sisters, care of Amparo M. Zosa, at 670 Osmeña Blvd., Cebu, City;
x x x that herein [respondents] did not receive said letter considering that none of them resides at 670 Osmeña Blvd., Cebu, City as their true and correct respective address were indicated in paragraph 1 hereof; that it is equally clear that the [respondents] were deprived of their property without due process of law and without just compensation, so that the titles issued to defendants should be declared null and void and the portions of Lot No. 538 by [petitioners] from January 1997 up to the time that their titles are cancelled and that the portions occupied by [petitioners] should be restored to the former;
x x x that all the parcels of land granted to [petitioners] are all residential lands and not agricultural; that [respondents] have suffered damages by reason of their being deprived of portions of Lot No. 538 by [petitioners] from January 1997 up to the time that their titles are cancelled and that the portions occupied by defendants are restored to herein [respondents]; that the filing of the instant case, [respondents] spent the sum of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees and the sum of P10,000.00 as litigation expenses. 1
In their answer, the petitioners countered that the complaint stated no cause of action; and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case inasmuch as the issue involved was an agrarian reform matter between the respondents as the landowners and the petitioners as the farmer-beneficiaries.
On March 25, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the respondents and against all the petitioners, 2 disposing:
WHEREFORE, in View of all Foregoing Premises, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs as against all of herein defendants, and, an order is hereby issued:
[1] Declaring the following:
Tax Declarations:
"Exhibit "B-2" Tax declaration No. 54952 in the name of Pedro Gera; DETACa
"Exhibit "B-3" Tax declaration No. 54951 in the name of Pedro Gera;
"Exhibit "B-4" Tax declaration No. 54953 in the name of defendant Pedro Gera;
"Exhibit "B-5" Tax declaration No. 54954 in the name of Celvino Empalado;
Original Certificates of Titles:
"Exhibit "B-6" O.C.T. No. EP-872 in the name of defendant Visitation Lunesa;
"Exhibit "B-7" O.C.T. No. EP-862 in the name of defendant Pedro Gera;
"Exhibit "B-8" O.C.T. No. EP-868 in the name of defendant Celvino Empalado;
"Exhibit "B-9" O.C.T. No. EP-863 in the name of defendant Pedro Gera;
"Exhibit "B-10" O.C.T. No. EP-847 in the name of defendant Pedro Gera;
Issued in the names of defendants as all null and void ab initio;
[2] Ordering defendants to vacate the portions of Lot 538 occupied by them;
[3] Ordering defendants to jointly and severally pay plaintiffs the following amounts:
[a] The sum of P500.00 a month from January 1997 up to the time they shall have evacuated the said portions of Lot 538 occupied by them;
[b] The sum of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
[c] The sum of P5,000.00 as costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but their motion was denied on August 5, 1999. 3 aDSIHc
On appeal by the petitioners, the CA promulgated the assailed decision on July 11, 2005, 4 affirming the RTC.
After the CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration dated December 2, 2005, 5 they have brought this appeal.
Issues
There are two issues that have been raised by the petitioners, namely: (1) whether or not the RTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction to annul the emancipation patents (EPs) issued to them; and (2) whether or not the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) observed the necessary processes in implementing the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program of the Government, and as a consequence, whether or not the respondents were deprived of due process and just compensation.
Ruling of the Court
In affirming the RTC, the CA opined that the RTC had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint initially filed by the respondents herein; that the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action was determined by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein; and that the subject matter of the case did not involve an agrarian dispute or matter inasmuch as it had not been established by the petitioners that there was a tenancy relationship between them and the respondents.
We find no error on the part of the CA.
1.
Jurisdiction pertained to the RTC
The petitioners insist that the portions of the land subject of this case were now covered by EPs duly issued to them as farmer beneficiaries by the DAR, and for which Original Certificates of Title Nos. EP-872, EP-862, EP-868, EP-863 and EP-847 were issued by the Register of Deeds; that any irregularities committed in the transfer and registration of the portions of the land respectively transferred to them should be brought to the DAR through its adjudication board; and that the DAR should be given the chance to correct its lapses during the acquisition proceedings conformably with the rule on the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
We disagree with the petitioners' insistence.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, and is determined from the allegations of the complaint that comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. 6 Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. 7 ETHIDa
In this case, the RTC already found, and the CA has affirmed, that the petitioners did not establish their tenancy relationship with respect to their respective portions of the land. The doctrine is well-settled that the allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land does not automatically make the case an agrarian dispute; it is necessary to first allege and establish the existence of the tenancy relationship between the litigants. 8 Pertinently, the following essential requisites must be shown to concur in order to establish the tenancy relationship, namely: (a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (b) the subject matter is agricultural land; (c) there is consent; (d) the purpose is agricultural production; (e) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (f) there is a sharing of harvests between the parties. 9
Any claim that one is a tenant does not automatically give rise to security of tenure. The elements of the tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the claimant to security of tenure. Considering that the tenancy relationship cannot be presumed, there must be evidence to prove the allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question. 10 The principal factor in determining whether the tenancy relationship exists or not is intent. 11
Herein, there was a factual finding by the RTC and the CA that the petitioners did not establish the tenancy relationship, whether express or implied, written or unwritten, between them, as the tenants, and the respondents or their predecessor in interest, as the landlords. As to this, the RTC noted in its decision as follows:
In the case at bar, defendants failed to show that herein plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest, the late Severina Mercado, consented to the relationship of between her and later on herein plaintiffs and defendants as landlords and tenants. The consent must have been established by a contractual agreement between herein plaintiffs and/or their predecessor-in-interest.
Furthermore it has not been duly established by competent evidence that there was a sharing of profits of the subject property between plaintiffs and/or predecessor-in-interest and herein defendants and/or their predecessor-in-interest in absence of any receipt in writing of the produce by the plaintiffs' or predecessor-in-interest's own agent or representative. 12
It was not enough for the petitioners to aver the existence of tenancy and profit sharing; they must still present substantial evidence to establish their averment. Moreover, the fact alone of working on another's landholding did not warrant a presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. In this regard, substantial evidence did not only entail the presence of a mere scintilla of evidence in order that the fact of sharing be established; there must still be concrete evidence on record adequate enough to prove the element of sharing. 13 cSEDTC
With no tenancy relationship being established, the RTC had original and exclusive jurisdiction. The absence of the tenancy relationship removed the case from the ambit of an agrarian dispute that would have placed it under the DARAB's original and exclusive jurisdiction.
2.
EPs were properly declared null
The EPs in question were issued to the petitioners pursuant to the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program relevant to Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27. 14 It was found, however, that the DAR did not observe the necessary processes in implementing such program, and as a consequence, the respondents were deprived of due process and just compensation.
As the CA pointed out, two notices that were required for the valid implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), namely: one, the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC), Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), farmer-beneficiaries, and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989; and, two, the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner pursuant to Section 16 of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), were not sent to the respondents or to their predecessor-in-interest. That was fatal, because the compliance with the requirement was a necessary part of administrative due process.
In particular, the CA observed and concluded:
x x x when they [respondents] wrote a letter to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer requesting the latter to furnish them with copies of all documents showing how they were notified that their property was going to be placed under Operation Land Transfer of DAR and notices how just compensation of their property was fixed and to whom payment was made, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer was only able to furnish them with a copy of a final notification letter dated June 24, 1991 addressed to "Corazon M. Gutierrez, brothers and sisters, care of Mrs. Amparo M. Zosa, 670 Osmeña Blvd., Cebu City." However, plaintiffs-appellees never received the said letter considering that none of them resides at 670 Osmeña Blvd., Cebu City. Hence, the court a quo, taking account of this fact, opined: SDAaTC
So that the said final notification letter to the landowner [Exhibit "D"] was not duly received at all by the plaintiffs. For the said reason, they did not obtain any knowledge of what happened to their property and what further transpired in the office of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer. The absence of notice of plaintiffs while their property was being brought under operation land transfer by the Agrarian Reform Office virtually made all the processing of claims of defendants over the subject property all ex-parte, thus, compounding the violation of their right to due process making the transfer thereof to defendants equally null and void. 15
There was also no payment of just compensation to the landowner. The non-payment was in gross violation of the guarantee of the Constitution that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." 16 With the DAR and the petitioners not having shown that just compensation had been paid to the respondents, the taking of their property or part thereof became patently illegal and unlawful. The illegality of the taking was true despite the petitioners' assertion that the lot was unregistered.
The doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens title had no application herein.
According to Republic v. Court of Appeals, 17 the main purpose of the Torrens system is to avoid possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely on the face of a Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned had actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry.
It is clear, therefore, that the doctrine of the indefeasibility of a Torrens title is not intended for the protection of the petitioners herein but for the protection of third persons or innocent purchasers in good faith who relied on the Torrens certificates of title. For one, the petitioners were not even innocent purchasers or purchasers in good faith, for they acquired their ownership by virtue of the OLT program of the Government. In fact, they actually recognized the respondents as the heirs of the "original owner" of the land, the late Severina Mercado. They did not also contradict the "prior" ownership of the respondents and their predecessor-in-interest, for they merely contended themselves to be the heirs of the "farmer-beneficiaries" who had been tenants on the land.
In any case, registration under the Torrens system is not the same as ownership because registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely evidence of ownership or title in the particular property described therein. 18
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on July 11, 2005; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit. acEHCD
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. 20-21.
2.Id. at 72-89; penned by Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos.
3.Id. at 99-100.
4.Id. at 19-32; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican with the concurrence of Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas.
5.Id. at 39-40; penned by Associate Justice Dicdican with the concurrence of Associate Justice Bato and Associate Justice Lanzanas.
6.Padlan v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 91.
7.Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. No. 174414, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 693, 706.
8.Benavidez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125848, September 6, 1999, 313 SCRA 714; Qua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 195318, June 11, 1991, 198 SCRA 236.
9.Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170346, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 202, 209.
10.Valencia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122363, April 29, 2003, 401 SCRA 666.
11.Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170346, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 202, 209-210.
12.Rollo, p. 87.
13.Berenguer, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-60287, August 17, 1988, 164 SCRA 431.
14. Also known as the "Tenants Emancipation Decree," October 21, 1972.
15.Rollo, pp. 29-30.
16. Section 1, Article III, the 1987 Constitution, February 2, 1987.
17. G.R. No. 116111, January 21, 1999, 301 SCRA 366.
18.Heirs of Clemente Ermac v. Heirs of Vicente Ermac, G.R. No. 149679, May 30, 2003, 403 SCRA 291, 298.