ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 141793. March 13, 2000]
VELINA M. CLAVEL, et al. vs. LUDOVICO SOLIS, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 13 2000.
G.R. No. 141793 (Velina M. Clavel, et al, vs. Ludovico Solis, et al.)
Spouses Nemesio and Vicenta Magno are the owners of several parcels of land in San Alfonso, Cateel, Davao Oriental, portions of which were placed under land reform pursuant to P.D. No. 27 and awarded to herein respondents Ludovico Solis, Dionisio Balaquit, Jr., Simeon Solis, Roberto Solis, Dominador Balaquit, Jr., and Alfonso Balaquit, Jr. as tenant-beneficiaries. In three complainants filed with the Agrarian Reform Regional Adjudicator, herein petitioners, Vicenta Magno and her daughter Velina Clavel, claimed that the subject landholdings were within the retention limit and, thus, should not have been covered by Operation Land Transfer under P.D. No. 27. They, therefore, sought the cancellation of the emancipation patents issued to respondents.
Petitioner's complaints were. However, dismissed in three separate decisions of the Regional Adjudicator which were subsequently affirmed by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). They filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, but their petition was again dismissed. Their motion for reconsideration was later denied. Hence this petition.
First. Petitioners contend that the spouses Magno already sold the subject landholdings to their children and that the respondent shares of each fall within the retention limit of seven hectares.
The contention is without merit. As the Court of Appeals, quoting from the decision of the DARAB, noted:
Despite the purported sale to the children, titles of these landholdings remained in the name of the Spouses Magno. Lot Nos. 3729-A and D which [are] the subject of DARAB Case No. XI-029 [are] covered by TCT No. T-0051 and T-10048 both in the name of Vicenta Magno. The Deed of Sale which was allegedly executed between Vicenta Magno and Velina M. Clavel on December 19, 1972 was not annotated at the back of said titles.
If these purported sales in 1972 were really genuine transfers, why is it that Vicenta Magno caused the issuance of the aforementioned Transfer Certificate[s] of Titles in her name in 1986?
With respect to Lot 2126 (involved in DARAB Case No. XI-0030), the same was allegedly sold to Velinda Magno in 1976 but Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-13204-1242 still bears the name of Nemesio Magno as its registered owner and does not contain an annotation of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Likewise, Lot No. 3728, an untitled property subject of DARAB Case No. XI-0031, was allegedly sold to Virginia Magno Abarca in 1977 (1/3 portion) and to Vivian C. Magno (the other three-hectare portion) in a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on May 5, 1985. However, Tax Declaration No. 9663 dated August 24, 1982 shows that the owner is Nemesio Magno.
Although it is not the province of this Board to inquire into the validity of the purported transfer of subject properties or the authenticity of the Deeds of Absolute Sale, it has become imperative to inquire into the ownership of these lands to ascertain who is the real party in interest who could legally claim for the retention of subject lands.
Granting en arguendo, that these purported sales really exist, the question is, is the transfer valid and legal? DAR Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 1974, the subject of which is Interim Policy of Status Quo relationship between Landowners and their tenant-tillers, provides:
. . . .
4. No act shall be done to undermine or subvert the intent and provisions of Presidential Decrees, Letters of Instructions, Memoranda and Directives, such as the following and/or similar acts:
5. Transferring ownership to tenanted rice and/or corn lands after October 21, 1972, except to the actual tenant-farmers or tillers but in strict conformity to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27 and the requirements of the DAR.
The execution of the different Deeds of Absolute Sale, being a clear violation of the aforecited Circular, was null and void and thus did not vest any ownership rights to the vendees.
Since ownership of the lands is still in the name of Spouses Nemesio and Vicenta Magno, they are the only real parties in interest who are entitled to claim for the right of retention under Presidential Decree No. 27. (pp. 15-17, Decision of the Adjudication Board)
Furthermore, records show that aside from the subject landholdings, spouses Nemesio and Vicenta Magno own other agricultural lands with an aggregate area of 223,244 square meters.
Letter of Instruction No. 474, dated October 21, 1976 provides for the placement under Presidential Decree No. 27 of all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven (7) hectares or less belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven (7) hectares in aggregate areas.
Second. Petitioners contend that respondent Ludovico Solis cannot be a beneficiary because the latter does not personally till the land awarded to him. In support of their claim, they cite the affidavit of a certain Pablo Liquidan stating that he (Liquidan) had been cultivating the land awarded to Solis.
The contention is likewise without merit. A reading of the affidavit shows that Liquidan became a tenant of Ludovico Solis after the latter had been awarded the property and not while the property was still owned by the spouses Magno.
Third. Nor can we give merit to petitioners' contention that they have been deprived of due process because the landholdings in question were awarded to respondents without any hearing conducted to determine whether the latter were indeed qualified tenant-beneficiaries. Such bare assertion cannot overcome the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. 1 Rule 131, Section 3 (m)
Fourth. Finally, petitioners contend that P.D. No. 27 is unconstitutional because it impairs the legitimes of the heirs. They claim that even if the spouses Magno had not sold the subject landholdings to their children, only half of the same should have been placed under land reform, while the other half should have been reserved for the spouses' children under the law on legitime.
The constitutionality of P.D. No. 27 has long been settled. As stated by the Court in Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,2 175 SCRA 343 (1989) P.D. No. 27 is a social justice measure to which private rights must yield on the time-honored principle that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. Art. XII, �6 of the Constitution provides that the use of property bears a social function and ownership thereof is "subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good so demands."
WHEREFORE, the petition DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
