ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 168470.
ALFREDO FAUSTINO v. HEIRS OF ANTONIO TUMACDER, NAMELY: MERCEDES PARICA VDA. DE TUMACDER, et al.
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court
dated
G.R. No. 168470 (Alfredo Faustino v. Heirs of Antonio Tumacder, Namely: Mercedes Parica Vda. de Tumacder, et al.)
Antonio Tumacder was a farmer-beneficiary of the Operation Land Transfer Program of the government under Presidential Decree No. 27. He was thus issued Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0264323 covering 4.11 hectares of land. When he suffered from cancer of the intestine in 1977, he was forced to mortgage a portion of the landholding to Alfredo Faustino. When Antonio died in 1979, Faustino offered an additional amount to Antonio's wife, Mercedes, who was forced to accept it due to extreme poverty. The total loan amounted to P14,000.00. For this reason, Faustino was allowed to possess and cultivate the 4-hectare portion of the landholdings.
In 1984, the Heirs of Antonio Tumacder offered to redeem the
property from Faustino. However, the
latter claimed that he already purchased the 4-ha land for a consideration of
P14,000.00. It appears that Mercedes
Tumacder had executed an Affidavit, and the Heirs a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
The Adjudicator
[1]
cralaw
found that the alleged document executed by Mercedes Tumacder is void and
cannot be given effect as it was contrary to DAR Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series
of 1978, in relation to Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1984 and
Administrative Order No. 14, Series of 1988, providing for succession of
landholdings. Hence, on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1- Declaring the petitioners as the rightful owners of that 4.11 hectares covered by CLT No. 0264323 issued in favor of the deceased farmer beneficiary [Antonio] Tumacder issued on March 9, 1974 as shown in the Certification (Annex "A") issued by the DARMO of Licaab, Nueva Ecija, thru its Team Leader Jovencio Lacamento;
2- Ordering the respondent to vacate the peaceful possession and cultivation of the aforesaid 4.11 hectares covered by CLT 0264323 and turn over its occupation in favor of the petitioners;
3- Ordering the petitioners to pay the respondent the amount of [P14,000.00] with legal interest per annum until the full amount is paid; and,
4- Declaring Annexes "B," "C" and "D" of the petition as inexistent, and Free Patents 034914-96-6773 and 034914-96-6774 issued by the DENR in favor of the respondent cancelled, revoked and of no more force and effect.
All other claims by the parties are considered DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. [2] cralaw
On appeal to the Board, the latter affirmed in toto
the Adjudicator's findings and
conclusion in its Decision
[3]
cralaw
dated
Alfredo Faustino elevated his case to the Court of Appeals (CA)
via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court. However, the CA found no cogent reason to
disturb the decisions of the Adjudicator and the Board. Thus, on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit. ACCORDINGLY, the
Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board dated
SO ORDERED. [4] cralaw
On
During the pendency of the instant recourse, petitioner and private respondents, assisted by their respective counsels, entered into a Compromise Agreement [5] cralaw where petitioner (referred to as the FIRST PARTY) offered to buy the subject property and private respondents (SECOND PARTY) agreed to sell the same. Pertinent portions of the Compromise Agreement read:
2.1. The provisional area of the property as indicated in the CLT of the SECOND PARTY is 4.11 hectares, but the actual aggregate area thereof is 4.4227 (1,6356 + 2.7871) hectares as shown in the two (2) questioned Free Patents (Nos. 034914-96-6773/P-18944 and 034914-96-6774/P-18945) in the name of the FIRST PARTY, which also cover the same property.
3. The FIRST PARTY, in order to buy peace of mind, has offered the SECOND PARTY to buy the above-mentioned landholding embraced by CLT No. 0264323 and the SECOND PARTY have agreed to sell the same to the FIRST PARTY for a consideration of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00).
3.1- The FIRST PARTY has also agreed to pay the SECOND PARTY the FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of all the net harvests on the landholding from 1999 up to present as prescribed in the DARAB Order, dated July 6, 1999, in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php400,000.00).
4. The purchase price of Php500,000.00 and the said amount of Php400,000.00, for a total consideration j of NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php900,000.00), shall be paid as follows:
4.1 The amount of Php50,000.00 shall be paid upon the signing of this
agreement on
4.2 The amount of Php210,000.00 shall be paid on or before
4.3. The amount of Php210,000.00 shall be paid on or before
4.4. The amount of Php210,000.00 shall be paid on or before
4.5. The amount of Php220,000.00 shall be paid on or before
4.6. A TWO PERCENT (2%) monthly interest shall be charged against the FIRST PARTY on any amount Unpaid after the specified expiration of the dates of payment.
5. Upon full payment of the Php900,000.00 by the FIRST PARTY on
6. The parties shall, upon signing hereof, execute and submit the appropriate motion for the admission of this compromise agreement to the Honorable Supreme Court in the case cited above.
The aforesaid Compromise Agreement had been NOTED by the Court in its
WHEREFORE, finding the Compromise Agreement to be in order and not contrary to law, public morals, public policy and public order, the same is APPROVED and judgment is rendered in accordance therewith. The present petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Adjudicator Walter R. Garantes.
[2] cralaw Rollo , p. 66.
[3] cralaw Id. at 69-74.
[4] cralaw Id. at 124.
[5] cralaw Id. at 251-253.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
