Kenn Villegas

Agrarian Law Cases

Jovendo del Castillo vs. Abundio Orciga, et al.
Facts:
Petitioner Jovendo del Castillo is the son and administrator of Menardo del
Castillo, who previously owned a 1.3300-hectare riceland located at Omabo,
Polpog, Bula, Camarines Sur.
Eugenio Orciga was awarded Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-070176 over
the said landholding on April 3, 1981.
On August 1, 1988, Eugenio Orciga died. Prior to the final selection and
determination of the successor of the deceased tenant, on July 1, 1991, the heirs
agreed to rotate among themselves the cultivation of the riceland covered by said
CLT. After cultivating and harvesting the riceland from 1989 to 1991, Ronald
Orciga abandoned the said farm on May 3, 1991 and left the town.
Respondents filed a Complaint on June 10, 1991, with the Office of Provincial
Adjudicator, DARAB, Naga City. for Reinstatement with Mandatory Injunction
and Damages. Petitiner (Del Castillo), in his Answer, averred that Orciga failed to
give lessor's share and was advised by DAR Para-legal Officer to take over the
cultivation of the land denying ejectment of respondents. He also claimed Orciga
mortgaged portions of the farm.
PARAD rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner. A Motion for
Reconsideration was filed by respondents, but the same was denied.
Issue: Who should be entitled to possess the disputed landholding under the DAR
Land Transfer Program the petitioner, as representative of the former titled
landowner, or the respondents, as successors of the deceased beneficiary?
Held:
The Court holds respondents to be the rightful possessors of the disputed
farmland and at the same time, rejects the instant petition. Undeniably, Eugenio
Orciga, the original beneficiary and predecessor-in-interest of respondents, was
awarded Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0070176 over the contested land

pursuant to PD No. 27. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, he is the
acknowledged owner of the contested land.
In the case at bar, the petitioner has two options; first, to bring the dispute on
the non-payment of the land to the DAR and the Barangay Committee on Land
Production that will subsequently resolve said dispute pursuant to Ministry of
Agrarian Reform (MAR) Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973 and other
issuances; and, second, to negotiate with the DAR and LBP for payment of the
compensation claim pursuant to Section 2 of EO No. 228. Eventually, the scheme
under EO No. 228 will result to the full payment of the compensation of the value
of the land to Menardo del Castillo, petitioner's father and former landowner.

Sps. Tuazon and vs. Vicente G. Tuazon

Facts:
The instant case arose from a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and
Damages filed by respondents Vicente G. Tuazon and John L. Tuazon against
petitioner spouses Francisco G. Tuazon and Ruth A. Tuazon. Respondents alleged
in their Complaint that they are the absolute owners of a 2.3119-hectare of land
located at Gotob, San Agustin, Canaman, Camarines Sur covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. RP-298 (224241). They acquired the land by way of a Deed
of Absolute Sale dated June 14, 1985 from its original owner, the late Rosa G.
Tuazon, who was Vicente's mother.
They further alleged that after the sale, Francisco Tuazon (a brother of Vicente)
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 20, a complaint for
Reconveyance of Property docketed as Civil Case No. RTC '92-2568 against
Vicente on the ground that their mother Rosa ceded to him one hectare of the
subject property. Rosa allegedly gave Francisco the one hectare of land in
exchange for the expenses which he and his wife incurred in redeeming the subject
property from Atty. Ricardo Gonzales and in paying the disturbance compensation
to Federico Adriano, the former tenant of the subject property. They alleged that
Francisco's complaint was dismissed on February 28, 1994 and the validity of the
Deed of Sale between Vicente and Rosa was upheld. The decision became final on
March 27, 1999. Respondents then averred that despite the finality of the decision
and their repeated demands to vacate the subject property, petitioners refused to
turn over its possession.
Petitioners pleaded tenancy as a special and affirmative defense. They alleged
that in 1986, before respondents purchased the subject property, Rosa instituted
Ruth as legitimate tenant of the land. Ruth was instituted tenant after she redeemed
the subject property from Atty. Ricardo Gonzales with her own money and paid the
disturbance compensation to the former tenants of the subject parcel.
The trial court conducted a preliminary hearing to receive evidence on
petitioners' defense of tenancy. During the hearing, Ruth presented two
certifications attesting that she is a tenant of the subject land. One was issued by
the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Canaman, Camarines Sur and
the other by the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC). Alex Tuazon also
testified that he regularly received twenty-five percent (25%) of the produce of the
land as landowner's share after his mother's death.

Issues: Whether or not the lower court (RTC) has jurisdiction over the complaint
filed by the respondents against the petitioners.
Held:
To determine whether a case involves a tenancy dispute, the following essential
requisites must be present: 1. the parties are the landowner and the tenant; 2. the
subject matter is agricultural land; 3. there is consent between the parties; 4. the
purpose is agricultural production; 5. there is personal cultivation by the tenant;
and, 6. there is sharing of the harvests between the parties. Not all of these
requisites obtain in the case at bar.
Petitioners' contention that their previous claims of ownership over the subject
property are immaterial and do not negate the tenancy relationship defies logic.
Tenancy is established precisely when a landowner institutes a tenant to work on
his property under the terms and conditions of their tenurial arrangement.
Petitioners cannot anomalously insist to be both tenants and owners of the subject
land.

Berboso and vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
On 29 November 1973, herein private respondents Belen and Corazon Carlos,
together with Manuel, Alberto, Antonio and Rafaelito, all surnamed Carlos, filed
with the Bureau of Land Acquisition, Distribution and Development of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), a joint request for the conversion of their
parcel of land consisting of 48.2789 hectares of unirrigated riceland situated at
Calvario, Iba, and Camalig, Meycauayan, Bulacan, and covered by TCTs No.
48182 and No. 48183 issued by the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan.
On 22 January 1975, DAR Secretary Conrado F. Estrella issued an Order
declaring the said parcels of land suitable for residential, commercial, industrial
and other urban purposes.
On 1 September 1989, private respondents Carloses filed with the DARAB
Region III a Petition for Confirmation of the Order of Conversion and for the
Determination of the Amount of Disturbance Compensation. Private respondents
Carloses and Emiliano Berboso, brother of herein petitioners Berbosos and the
named respondent in DARAB Case No. 101-Bul '89, filed with the DARAB a
Joint Motion to Determine the Amount of Disturbance Compensation due to the
respondent/tenant agreeing to abide with the decision of the Board.
In its Decision dated 18 December 1989, the DARAB ordered private
respondents Carloses to pay Emiliano Berboso the total amount of P112,644.00
equivalent to five years disturbance compensation.
On 15 January 1990, Emiliano Berboso filed with the DARAB a Motion to Set
Aside the 18 December 1989 Decision of the DARAB assailing therein the amount
of disturbance compensation. He, together with the other petitioners Berbosos,
asserted that he is entitled to either the thirty percent (30%) physical portion of the
lot, or the equivalent value thereof in cash, as disturbance compensation. He
further asserted that petitioners Berbosos, being tenants of the subject land, should
have been included also as parties in the Joint Motion filed in DARAB Case No.
101-Bul '89.
On 26 December 1990, petitioners Berbosos filed an Action for Maintenance of
On 25 March 1992, petitioners Berbosos filed a Petition before the DARAB,
docketed as DARAB Case No. 368-Bul '92, seeking to exercise their right of
redemption under Republic Act No. 3844, as amended. They similarly prayed for
the reversion of the subject land to its original agricultural use contending that

private respondent JKM had already started utilizing the said land by bulldozing it.
Finally, they deposited with the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (RARAD)
the amount of P1,000,000.00 as redemption money. DARAB Case No. 368-Bul '92
was consolidated with DARAB Case No. 217-Bul '90.
On 1 March 1996, the Office of the President rendered a Decision reversing and
setting aside the Order of DAR Secretary Garilao dated 5 January 1994 and
reinstating the Order of the former DAR Secretary Estrella dated 22 January 1975.
Issue: Whether or not The Court of Appeals erred in invalidating the Transfer
Certificates of Titles of the Petitioner Berbosos in the absence of direct attack.
Held:
Petitioners Berbosos' arguments are without merit. As to the issue of whether
or not there was a direct attack on the validity of the TCTs No. EP-149-M and No.
EP-150-M of the petitioners Berbosos by private respondents Carloses and JKM
thus allowing for the cancellation of said titles, we rule in the affirmative.
It is well-settled that a judgment which had acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable, thus, may no longer be modified in any respect except
to clerical errors or mistakes, all the issues between the parties being deemed
resolved and laid to rest. Since the lawfulness of the determination of the award of
disturbance compensation was already settled in the 26 March 1992 Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 20147, we hold that the legality and
validity of the 22 January 1975 Conversion Order is also settled because
determination of disturbance compensation necessarily follows the Conversion
Order. Simply put, there would be no determination of disturbance compensation
without a Conversion Order being first validly issued.

Samuel Estribill. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform a

Facts:
The petitioners, with the exception of two, are the recipients of Emancipation
Patents (EPs) over parcels of land located at Barangay Angas, Sta. Josefa, Agusan
del Sur. The parcels of land, the subject matters in this Petition, were formerly part
of a forested area which have been denuded as a result of the logging operations of
respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI). Petitioners, together with other persons,
occupied and tilled these areas believing that the same were public lands. HMI
never disturbed petitioners and the other occupants in their peaceful cultivation
thereof. HMI acquired such forested area from the Republic of the Philippines
through Sales Patent No. 2683 in 1956 by virtue of which it was issued OCT No.
P-3077-1661. The title covered three parcels of land with a total area of 527.8308
hectares. HMI, through a certain Joaquin Colmenares, requested that 527.8308
hectares of its landholdings be placed under the coverage of Operation Land
Transfer. Receiving compensation therefor, HMI allowed petitioners and other
occupants to cultivate the landholdings so that the same may be covered under said
law.
The RARAD rendered a Decision declaring as void the TCTs and EPs The
Decision was based on a 26 March 1998 report submitted by the Hacienda Maria
Action Team. Petitioners' TCTs and EPs were ordered cancelled. Petitioners filed a
Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied. Petitioners appealed to the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) which affirmed the
RARAD Decision. After the DARAB denied petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration, the latter proceeded to the Court of Appeals with their Petition for
Review on Certiorari. The Court of Appeals denied the assailed Resolution:
Petitioner Samuel A. Estribillo, in signing the Verification and Certification
Against Forum Shopping, falls within the phrase "plaintiff or principal party" who
is required to certify under oath the matters mentioned in Rule 7, Section 5 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Such was given emphasis by this Court when we
held in Mendigorin v. Cabantog and Escorpizo v. University of Baguio that the
certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by the plaintiff or any of the
principal parties and not only by the legal counsel. In Condo Suite Club Travel,
Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission.
The same confusion, uncertainty and suspicion on the distribution of
government-acquired lands to the landless would arise if the possession of the

grantee of an EP would still be subject to contest, just because his certificate of title
was issued in an administrative proceeding. The silence of Presidential Decree No.
27 as to the indefeasibility of titles issued pursuant thereto is the same as that in the
Public Land Act.
After complying with the procedure, therefore, in Section 105 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree (where the
DAR is required to issue the corresponding certificate of title after granting an EP
to tenant-farmers who have complied with Presidential Decree No. 27), the TCTs
issued to petitioners pursuant to their EPs acquire the same protection accorded to
other TCTs. "The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible
upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the order for the
issuance of the patent, . . . . Lands covered by such title may no longer be the
subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to another person."
Issue: Whether the petitioners are entitled to right of retention.
Held:
Petitioners fault the appellate court for ignoring the "evidence" they discovered
when they had the opportunity to examine the records forwarded by the DAR to
the appellate court "that Grio was misled into believing that [the] CLTs had
been issued, when there were none, or that the [September 25, 1989] Maraya Order
denying Grio's petition for cancellation of [the] CLTs was without legal effect
because the (1) CLTs were inexistent, (2) he was dead by the time the Order was
rendered, and the property had long passed on to his heirs, and (3) the heirs were
never notified of said order, and there is no showing that it was sent even to Juan
Grio, Sr.'s address of record either."
At all events, these issues raised by petitioners, which substantially reiterate
those raised in their motion for reconsideration before the appellate court, were as
the appellate court observed, never raised in the proceedings below nor in
petitioners' petition for review before said court.

Heirs of Juan Grio vs. Department of Agrarian Reform

Facts:
Grios 9.35 hectares land in Brgy. Gua-an, Leganes, Iloilo was placed under the
coverage of P.D. No. 27 on account of which Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs)
covering a portion thereof were issued in favor of his tenants. Grio later filed in
the early 80's a letter-petition for the cancellation of the above-said CLTs,
contending that they were issued to the tenants without giving him an opportunity
to be heard, the area being a little over 6 hectares. In lieu of the land covered by the
CLTs, Grio offered seven hectares for each of the tenants from his 50-hectare land
in Brgy. Tad-y, Sara, Iloilo (which is mortgaged to the DBP).
Grio, however, later ordered to the DBP his 50-hectare land via dacion en
pago to settle his obligation to it. On July 10, 1985, Grio died. He was survived
by his wife and seven children. On June 22, 1988, his wife also passed away. On
June 15 RA 6657 or the CARL took effect. DAR-RD Antonio S. Malaya dismissed
the said petition by Order of September 25, 1989, citing letter of instructions No.
474. The LBP later advised Grio heirs, herein petitioners, by letter of June 6,
1996, of the DAR's submission of Grios 9.35 hectare land transfer claim for
payment under PD 27, its approval on June 5, 1996, and the requirement for the
parcels of the claim to be released. Petitioners later filed with the DAR Regional
Office an application for retention dated 14 March 1997 of the 9.35 hectare land.
They likewise sought the exemption of the 9.35 hectare land for the coverage of
either PD 27 or the CARL. Emancipation Patents were issued in favor of Grios 5
tenant on June 5 and 25, 1997. DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres
subsequently dismissed petitioners application for retention, by Order dated April
27, 1998.
Petitioners moved to reconsider the April 27, 1998 Order of the DAR RD but it
was denied by Order of August 18, 1998. Petitioners appealed to the DAR
Secretary but it was denied by Order dated September 3, 2002 of then Secretary
Hernani A. Braganza. Petitioners elevated the case before the Court of Appeals via
petition for review. The appellate court affirmed the September 3, 2002 Order of
the DAR Secretary.
Issue: Whether the petitioners are entitled to right of retention.

Held:
Petitioners fault the appellate court for ignoring the "evidence" they discovered
when they had the opportunity to examine the records forwarded by the DAR to
the appellate court "that Grio was misled into believing that [the] CLTs had
been issued, when there were none, or that the [September 25, 1989] Maraya Order
denying Grio's petition for cancellation of [the] CLTs was without legal effect
because the (1) CLTs were inexistent, (2) he was dead by the time the Order was
rendered, and the property had long passed on to his heirs, and (3) the heirs were
never notified of said order, and there is no showing that it was sent even to Juan
Grio, Sr.'s address of record either."
At all events, these issues raised by petitioners, which substantially reiterate
those raised in their motion for reconsideration before the appellate court, were as
the appellate court observed, never raised in the proceedings below nor in
petitioners' petition for review before said court.