SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215315. September 11, 2017.]
SPOUSES ELPIDIO D. PASCUA AND LOLITA OTERO PASCUA, petitioners,vs. SEVERINO D. PASCUA, SERVILLANO N. PASCUA, AND ZENAIDA PASCUA-CARIAGA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 September 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215315 (Spouses Elpidio D. Pascua and Lolita Otero Pascua v. Severino D. Pascua, Servillano N. Pascua, and Zenaida Pascua-Cariaga)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the November 26, 2013 Decision 1 and July 23, 2014 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 93685 for failure of petitioners Spouses Elpidio D. Pascua and Lolita Otero Pascua (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in reversing and setting aside the April 3, 2009 Joint Decision 3 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 31 (RTC), and consequently: (a) ruling that the case should not have been dismissed on the basis of respondent Severino D. Pascua's (Severino) unproven admissions in a separate case that was heard by another tribunal; (b) declaring the sale of the subject land to petitioner Elpidio D. Pascua (Elpidio) as a prohibited transfer under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27; 4 (c) annulling Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-30871 in Elpidio's name; (d) ordering petitioners to reconvey the subject land to Severino; and (e) directing the Register of Deeds of Talavera, Nueva Ecija to reinstate TCT EP No. 44358 in Severino's name. ATICcS
As correctly ruled by the CA, the rules on judicial notice do not apply since the complaint where the admissions were supposedly made was not submitted in evidence before the RTC, and as such, constitutes unproven admissions that should not have been considered. The CA was likewise correct in declaring the questioned sale as tantamount to a prohibited transfer under PD 27, having been purportedly made in favor of an ineligible transferee 5 and is therefore, null and void. 6 The Court cannot give credence to petitioners' claim 7 that they were deprived of the right to meet the issue of violation of PD 27 which was not raised in respondents' complaint, considering that — (1) among the issues framed by the parties during the pre-trial was "[w]hether or not an Emancipation Patent can be the subject of sale other than by hereditary or succession of (sic) rights;" 8 and (2) petitioners themselves invoked the application of PD 27 to support their claim that: (a) the questioned sale was not contrary to the said law; 9 and (b) Severino had abandoned the subject land, rendering him disqualified to own the subject land 10 — which necessarily called for the application of PD 27 in resolving the rights of the contending parties. The questioned sale having been declared null and void, Elpidio did not acquire any valid right or title to the subject land, calling for the consequent nullification of his title based on such void sale, and the reinstatement of Severino's title to the subject land.
SOORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 32-46. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with Associate Justices Jane Aurora Lantion and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
2.Id. at 24.
3. See Joint Decision dated April 3, 2009; records (Civil Case No. 1460-G), pp. 45-51.
4. Entitled "DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM THEREFOR"; approved on October 21, 1972.
5. PD 27 provided that title to land acquired thereunder "shall not be transferable except by hereditarysuccessionortotheGovernment in accordance with the provisions of [said] Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reforms and other existing laws and regulations." Notably, while Section 27 of RA 6657, as amended, further allowed transferstotheLBPandtootherqualifiedbeneficiaries, and imposed a restriction of ten (10) years on transferability, at the time of the questioned sale on August 7, 2003 until the filing of the complaint before the RTC on September 10, 2007, the said provision onlyappliedtolandsacquiredbybeneficiariesunderthesaidAct. It is not until the passage of RA 9700 in 2009 that the aforementioned limitations were made to apply to lands acquired by beneficiaries under other agrarian reform laws.
6. Pursuant to Ministry of Agrarian Reform Memorandum Circular No. 7, series of 1979, entitled "RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING LANDS COVERED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27" (April 23, 1979).
7.Rollo, pp. 14-16.
8. See Pre-Trial Order dated January 15, 2008; records (Civil Case No. 1460-G), p. 61.
9. See id. at 301.
10. See rollo, pp. 17-18. The issue of whether or not Severino has become disqualified to own the subject land is not within the competence of the courts but within the primary and exclusive original jurisdiction of the DARAB Adjudicators (See DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedure).