Voluntary surrender
A holder of a certificate of land transfer under the Agrarian Reform Law can not make any valid form of transfer of said land except by hereditary succession or by voluntary surrender to the government. Will the owner’s surrender or transfer to the Samahang Nayon qualify as surrender or transfer to the government? This is the issue raised and resolved in this case of the Spouses Tino and Ester.
Since 1955 Tino and Ester had been in possession of about 23,032 sq. m. of rice land. In 1976 pursuant to PD 27, Tino was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer over the land.
On
On
They alleged that in 1989 they borrowed P50,000 from Naty, the mother of Emilio in consideration of which they allowed Naty to possess and cultivate the land until full payment of the loan. The spouses said they promised to pay the loan within three years although the said agreement was not in writing. According to the spouses, in the latter part of 1992 they offered to pay the loan but Naty refused to accept payment. The spouses said they later learned that Naty was able to secure Emancipation Patent and Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of her son Emilio without their knowledge and consent and that the documents necessary for the valid transfer were fabricated and falsified.
But the Regional Adjudicator and subsequently the DARAB dismissed their complaint. It ruled that the spouses surrendered their possessory right over the land in exchange for P50,000 and physically abandoned it when they worked abroad which was sufficient ground for forfeiture of the awarded land and cancellation of the certificate of land transfer. The DARAB further held that it is the issuance of the emancipation patent in favor of the tenant beneficiary that vests him with absolute ownership such that Emilio had a superior right over the spouses who were mere holders of a certificate of land transfer.
On appeal however, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the DARAB decision. It ruled that Emilio’s emancipation patent should be canceled because under PD 27, the spouses could not make any valid form of transfer of said land except to the government or by hereditary succession to their heirs. Since the basis for the issuance of Emilio’s emancipation patent was the spouses’ alienation of their possessory right in favor of Emilio’s mother Naty, the transaction is void. Was the CA correct?
No. The CA failed to consider that the basis for the issuance of Emilio’s emancipation patent was Tino’s voluntary surrender of the land to the Samahang Nayon which qualifies as surrender or transfer to the government because such action forms part of the mechanism for the disposition and the re-allocation of the farmholdings of tenant-farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries. Under Memorandum Circular 8-80 of the DAR, the Samahan shall, upon notice from the agrarian reform team leader, recommend other tenant farmers who shall be substituted to all the rights and obligations of the surrendering tenant-farmer.
In this case, Tino’s intention to surrender the land to the Samahang Nayon was clearly shown by his waiver of rights and voluntary surrender of ownership on July 3, 1989 and by his salaysay stating that he had no objection to the transfer of the land in Emilio’s name. Emilio’s emancipation patent is therefore valid since it was issued pursuant to Tino’s voluntary surrender of the land to the Samahang Nayon, not pursuant to Tino and Ester’s alienation of their possessory right to Naty (Castellano and Castellaqno vs. Spouses Francisco, G.R. 155640, May 7, 2008)
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: [email protected]
- Latest
- Trending
