ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 146500.February 28, 2000]
ZARA vs. CABIBARA, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28 2001.
G.R. No. 146500(Juanito Zara vs. Apolonio Cabibara, et al.)
Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the order issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform which in turn affirmed that of the Regional Director of DAR Region V. Disposed thus the Secretary of Agriculture:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Order is hereby issued:
1. Affirming the Order dated May 8, 1996, issued by Regional Director of DAR Region V;
2. Denying the instant appeal for utter lack of merit;
3. Granting Juanito Zara the right to retain seven hectares of tenanted riceland, but the area of 6.85 18 hectares which was sold on August 6, 1974 should form part of the seven hectare retention thus, he is entitled to retain a balance of only 0.1482 hectares; and
4. Covering the excess area of 6.4158 hectares under Operation Land Transfer and the tenants thereon, if already qualified under the existing rules and regulations, shall be issuedEmancipation Patents (Eps).
Petitioner owns several parcels of agricultural land with an aggregate area of 29.5162 hectares located at Plaridel, Basud, Calumpit, and Pamorangon, Daet, Camarines Norte per his certification dated August 20, 1982. Of the aggregate area of 29.5162 hectares, 14.9700 hectares are considered riceland and 14.5462 hectares coconut land. He also owns a residential lot with an area of 426.5 square meters.
In their Certifications dated October 28 and November 21, 1996, respectively, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Center certified that the tenanted ricelands consist of an aggregate area of 13.4 158 hectares and these are tilled and cultivated by the duly identified farmer beneficiaries.
The remaining untenanted riceland with an area of 1.5542 hectares was considered as petitioner's other agricultural lands. Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Certificates of Land Transfers (CLTs) were issued/generated in favor of farmer-beneficiaries therein.
In a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 1, 1974, petitioner sold 10 hectares of coconut land to his brother which deed was registered on July 12, 1982.
And in another Deed of Absolute Sale executed August 6, 1974, petitioner sold another 6.8518 hectares of riceland in favor of his brother-in-law and the same was registered only on October 15, 1975.
On December 24, 1975, petitioner executed a Small Landowners Undertaking and Application for Retention which was reiterated on August 11, 1991 in his Amended Application for Retention, declaring inter alia, his desire to retain his tenanted riceland of seven hectares located at Plaridel, Basud, Calumpit, Daet, Camarines Norte.
The Regional Director, in his order dated January 19, 1995, ruled that the sale of tenanted riceland after October 21, 1972 was considered as committed to circumvent Presidential Decree No. 27, hence illegal. However, with respect to the sale of ten (10) hectares of coconut land, the same was considered valid, therefore, the petitioner should be granted the retention of seven hectares of tenanted riceland sold in 1974.
Displeased, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which yielded positive results when in a subsequent order dated June 20, 1995, then OIC Regional Director Jose Z. Grageda modified the January 19, 1994 order issued by Regional Director Romeo S. Perez, Jr., and instead granted the retention of seven hectares, this time excluding the property (riceland) sold by petitioner, using as basis for such modification an alleged Option to Buy Real Estate document dated May 29, 1970 which was entered into by petitioner and his brother involving the subject riceland.
Aggrieved, private respondents, the tenants in the subject land, filed a motion for reconsideration but to no avail. Hence, they brought the matter to the Secretary of Agriculture which issued the above assailed order dated June 4, 1997. Petitioner again filed a motion for reconsideration which failed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, dismissing petitioner's petition for review.
Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail primarily for being premature as no motion for reconsideration has been filed with the Court of Appeals and there are no sufficient allegations to bring the case with the recognized exceptance (Lasco vs. United Nations Revolving Fund to National Resources Exploration, 241 SCRA 681 {1995}).
More importantly, the Court finds no reversible error committed either by the Court of Appeals and the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, they having passed upon the same factual and legal issues.
As correctly applied, petitioner's act of transferring the ownership of the subject land to his brother and brother-in-law is covered by DAR Memorandum Circular dated January 19, 1982 which pertinently provides:
x x x November, 1972 is the launching of Operation Land Transfer and October 21, 1972 remains and still is the effectivity date of P.D. No. 27; {hence, transfers} executed by landowners after October 21, 1972 shall all be considered acts committed to circumvent P.D. No. 27, as provided under MAR Memorandum Circular No. 8, S of 1974.
With respect to transfers of ownership of lands covered by P.D. No. 27 executed prior to October 21, 1972 but not registered with the Register of Deeds concerned before said date in accordance with the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) shall not be considered a valid transfer of ownership insofar as the tenant-farmers are concerned and therefore the land shall be placed under Operations Land Transfer.
Petitioner, in an attempt to evade the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27 allegedly sold 6.8518 hectares of tenanted riceland to his brother, Pedro Zara, under an alleged Option to Buy Real Estate document dated May 29, 1970, which was, however, not registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Carnarines Norte. Neither was it annotated nor entered as encumbrance at the back of the cancelled title of petitioner. The transfer of ownership of the 6.8518 hectares of tenanted riceland under the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 6, 1974, was registered only on October 15 , 1975, that is three years after Presidential Decree No. 27 became effective on October 21, 1972.
Private landowners ought to realize, and eventually accept, that property rights must yield to the valid exercise by the State of its all important power of eminent domain (J.M Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413).
WHEREFORE, petitioner is denied due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
