May 17, 2004
DAR OPINION NO. 13-04
Mr. Francisco T. Sycip, Jr.
214 Pilar Street
Mandaluyong City
Dear Mr. Sycip:
This refers to your series of letters, the latest of which is your letter of 08 December 2003, requesting a careful investigation of the issues raised in your Affidavit of Complaint dated 15 October 2003 involving properties situated in Manjuyod, Negros Oriental.
You stated, among others, the following: that to classify your complaint as a "recycled" complaint is misleading because the real story is a story of violation of administrative procedures, short-cuts, graft and fraud covering the Sycip Plantation, Inc. — Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (SPI-CARP) transaction from the very beginning; that the title investigation had never taken place but had pretended to have taken place; that a Disclosure was never issued to confirm the inspection and the existence of the fatal defects on the questionable land titles (TCT Nos. II and 158 and others); that top DAR Officials who pretended that the Certificate of Compliance was non-existing and with fraud, lied in their defense that nothing will affect the landownership of the farmers as basis for them to totally ignore the land title investigation distributing the CLOA to the farmers in 2000; that said officials continued the CARP land-grabbing scam by continuing to ignore the land title investigation from 2000 to 2003 until the undersigned took a second look about your complaint that you have been following up since 2000; that any DAR investigation can be called another "cosmetic investigation" if: 1) there is no Official Report on the questionable SPI land titles based on the primary investigation by DAR title investigators themselves; 2) if there is no disclosure statement about the fatal defects of all the SPI titles issued by the government auditor of the office that acquired the titles from SPI; and 3) if DAR does not write to LRA to request for assistance to investigate the authenticity/validity of the questionable SPI "primary" titles (TCT Nos. 11, 158, T-4195 and T-4196).
You stated further that because the elaborate administrative procedures were crafted and have been in place for the clean, fair and successful implementation of CARP and not followed in the SPI-CARP case, complainant was given no choice but to view the problem as a clear example of "deliberate group conspiracy" and a "land title scam case" participated by three (3) groups, namely: a) some high level officials of DAR-CARP-Land Bank group, b) the SPI group composed of its general manager, the auditor and the lawyers, the board of directors and stockholders, all acting as one; and c) the farmer-beneficiaries and cooperative group in connivance with their auditor and lawyers.
Your complaint affidavit of 15 October 2003 prayed for the following:
"1. That the SPI-CARP transactions be suspended until LRA investigation on SPI titles is completed;
2. That the respective 8-CLOA titles be recalled or suspended until the land ownership issue is settled by LRA;
3. That the balance 69% of all Sycip Plantation revenues be immediately placed under escrow;
4. That DAR should stop negotiating with all those SPI Officers who swindled DAR;
5. That DAR gives an update to the farmer-beneficiaries."
It can be gleaned from foregoing facts that the primary issue in consideration is one of ownership.
In his memorandum dated 14 September 2000 for then Secretary Horacio Morales, Jr., then Negros Oriental PARO Jose D. Sotalbo stated the following, quote:
"It appears that Francisco T. Sycip, Jr. is raising the issue of ownership over the lots offered by SPI for CARP coverage. The allegations of the defects of the titles raised by Francisco T. Sycip, Jr. refer to the titles which preceded the issuance of the SPI titles, not on the titles presented to the DAR for coverage. It must be established for the record that the lots offered by SPI to the DAR were covered by certificates of title which are duly registered with the Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental. A perusal of the copies of the said titles, particularly TCT No. T-4195 and 4196 (hereto attached for reference), shows that there is nothing irregular on the face of the said titles. Thus, in accepting the offer of the SPI and in processing the VOS claim folder, the DAR was merely relying on a basic rule in property enunciated by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, viz:
"Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property." (Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 491; Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 642)
Nonetheless, when this matter was brought to the attention of PARO, Negros Oriental, research was done at the Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental and the results thereof were reflected in the letter of PARO Johnson Sinco to Director Gloria Fabia of the BLAD dated July 15, 1999. . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Francisco Sycip, Jr. intimated that the LRA is doing a land title investigation regarding this matter and that the LRA would correct this error by itself. This is legally impossible because registered titles can only be cancelled upon the order of a court of competent jurisdiction. . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
The failure and/or the delay on the part of Francisco Sycip, Jr. to file such action is perhaps indicative of the extreme difficulty in establishing merit to his claims before the courts." (emphasis supplied)
Likewise, may we invite your attention to DAR Opinion No. 32, Series of 2000 dated 23 October 2000, subject matter of which involves the same property and issues. We would like to reiterate our stand, to wit: CTEacH
"It bears stating at the outset that pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6657, the DAR is mandated to cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. Thus, although ownership of said landholdings is under investigation or litigation, the DAR may still proceed with their acquisition considering that no matter what the outcome of the investigation or litigation may be, the lands are still covered under CARP.
In the instant case, if dispute of ownership is pending with court, the value of subject properties shall be deposited with the court. However, if no case is yet filed with the court, we advise the oppositor to file the controversy in court for proper determination of the legal owner. Otherwise, we will be compelled to deposit the amount in the name of the registered owner which shall be withdrawable any time. Meanwhile, upon effecting the deposit and transfer of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, we are forthwith legally mandated to take possession of the properties and proceed with the redistribution thereof to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries." (emphasis supplied)
Moreover, please take note of the earlier letter of then Land Bank Senior Vice-President Roberto C.A. Ong dated 28 February 2000 addressed to you, specifically on Land Bank Board Resolution No. 75-68, which states:
"This refers to your letter of 21 December 1999, regarding the land transfer claim of Sycip Plantation, Inc. (SPI), which we referred to our Agrarian Legal Officer (ALO) for evaluation.
Per advice of our ALO, your complaint against SPI should be brought before the SEC or appropriate Court of Justice for resolution of the issues raised This is in accordance with Land Bank Resolution No. 75-68, which states that "Land Bank shall not withhold payment to the landowners notwithstanding written requests from third parties unless a Court Order has been issued so directing the Land Bank to withhold said payments." Furthermore, said Board Resolution states that "In all cases . . . wherein third party claims are made, the landowners, prior to payment shall be required to execute an Affidavit under oath that they shall hold the Land Bank forever harmless from the claims reported to the Land Bank by third parties and that they shall be directly responsible to said claims in case the same are adjudged against them by judicial action.
Please be advised that we can withhold further processing and action on the SPI claims for a period of thirty (30) days within which time you can file your complaint and secure a Court/SEC Order restraining Land Bank from taking action on SPI's claims; otherwise we have no alternative except to proceed with the processing and payment of SPI's claims, in accordance with the aforementioned Board Resolution No. 75-68." (emphasis supplied) TcSCEa
In view of all the foregoing, it is our considered opinion that the issue of ownership as it relates to the authenticity/validity of the alleged questionable SPI "primary" titles (TCT Nos. 11, 158, T-4195 and T-4196) be lodged with the proper court.
Thank you for communicating with us.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) RICARDO S. ARLANZA
Undersecretary for Policy, Planning and Legal Affairs Office