The land in this case consisted of a 5,000 square meter lot covered by a Certificate of Land Transfer(CLT) issued in favor of Mang Ambo way back on November 11, 1973 pursuant to PD 27. Almost 5 years later, Mang Ambo was constrained to pass on the said land to Mateo for the amount of P 5,000 and P200 worth of rice because he was in dire need of money for medical treatment. He did not deliver to Mateo his CLT believing that their transaction was a verbal mortgage. In fact, in 1981 and 1983 Mang Ambo tried to pay off the loan and redeem the subject land. But he did not succeed because Mateo was demanding for the payment of P15,000.00 .
Later on, in 1987 Mateo had the subject land surveyed and planted with Mango trees. The local Department of Agrarian Reform(DAR) official who authorized the survey then issued another Emancipation Patent upon Mateo’s application and representation that the land was sold to him by Ambo. This eventually led to the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of Mateo.
When Ambo learned about these developments, he filed a Complaint before the Barangay Lupon for the purpose of redeeming his land. With no amicable settlement in sight, the complaint was referred to the DAR Regional Office. Mateo insisted that the land was sold to him by Ambo and asked that Ambo’s CLT be cancelled. While the DAR investigator found that Ambo indeed merely gave the land to Mateo as guarantee for the payment of a loan, the DAR Director found the act of Ambo in surrendering the subject land in favor of Mateo, as constituting abandonment thereof. Thus it denied Ambo’s prayer for redemption.
Was DAR correct?
No.
For abandonment to exist the following requisites must be proven:(a) a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property and (b) an external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect. There must be an actual, not projected, relinquishment; otherwise the right or claim is not vacated or waived and, thus susceptible of being appropriated by another. Abandonment or neglect is a willful failure of the agrarian reform beneficiary, together with his farm household, to cultivate, till or develop his land to produce any crop, or to use the land for any specific economic purpose continuously for a period of two calendar years. In the present case, no such willful failure has been demonstrated. Quite the contrary, Ambo has continued to claim dominion over the land. He repeatedly tried to redeem it and did not deliver the CLT which remained in his possession to date
Furthermore, even if Ambo did indeed abandon his right to possess and cultivate the subject land, the award cannot be granted to another like Mateo. Title acquired pursuant to PD 27 shall not be transferred except to the grantee’s heirs by hereditary succession, or back to the government by other legal means. In this case there was no valid transfer to the government. It was Mateo himself who requested the DAR to cancel Ambo’s CLT and to issue another one in his favor. Mateo can not, by himself take over a farmer beneficiary’s landholding allegedly on the ground that it was abandoned. The proper procedure must be followed to ensure that there was indeed an abandonment and that the subsequent beneficiary is a qualified farmer-tenant as provided by law. A voluntary surrender, for example, to the Samahang Nayon constitutes a valid transfer or surrender to the government. The surrender to the samahan forms part of the mechanism for disposition and reallocation of farmholdings of tenant-farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries of PD 27. The Samahan recommends other tenant farmers who shall be substituted to all the rights and obligations of the abandoning farmer upon notice from the agrarian reform team leader under Memo Circular 8-80 of the DAR. Such Samahan or cooperative is established precisely to provide a strong social and economic organization that will ensure that farmers will reap and enjoy the benefits of agrarian reforms. (Estolas vs. Mabalot G.R. 133706 May 7, 2002)