ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139376. September 8, 1999]

SPS. SHALI vs. TIANGCO

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 8 1999.

G.R. No. 139376 (Sps. Aurora Shali and Ahmed Shali vs. Jorge L. Tiangco.)

The core of the present controversy is a parcel of land which was acquired by private respondent who, as former beneficiary, was issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2005 by virtue of Emancipation Patent No. 14858889 which was later entered in the Registry of Deeds.

However, prior to the issuance of Emancipation Patent, private respondent entered into a "Kasunduan" and a deed of absolute sale with petitioners over the subject parcel of land. In consideration of the abovementioned transaction, petitioners opened a bank account on the name of private respondent containing P60,000.00, but after the execution of said transactions, petitioner Aurora Shali withdrew said amount and closed the account prompting private respondent to file an action for annulment of sale with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB).

In its decision, the PARAB declared the deed of Absolute sale void but rules that the transfer of tenancy rights from private respondent to petitioners as valid consequently ordering the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer to determine petitioners' legal qualification as tenant/beneficiary over the subject property.

On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board reversed which decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Thus, the instant petition which we find unavailing.

Initially, the Court notes that the certification on non-forum shopping was signed by counsel and not by petitioners themselves.

Over and above this technical flaw is the fact that the Court finds no error committed by both the PARAB and the Court of Appeals. As correctly concluded, the real intention of the parties when they entered into the subject "Kasunduan" was not to place petitioners in place of private respondent as farmer-beneficiary or tenant in the subject land but as buyer of purchaser thereof. The parties admitted that the subject land in the case at bar is within the realm of the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program of the government and embraced under Presidential Decree No. 27. Therefore, the transaction entered into by the parties violated the law which proscribes any transfer of ownership over awarded lands under P.D. 27 except in favor of specified parties, and, petitioners do not qualify as such. Consequently, the deed of absolute sale and the "kasunduan" are essentially void applying Paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 1409, the New Civil Code, which provide:

Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:

(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, goods customs, public order or public policy;

x x xx x xx x x

(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.

These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived.

Finally, the Court has ruled that findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals (Vda. De Nazareno vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 589 [1996]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due process course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE