FOURTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. SP No. 40160.  February 4, 1999.]

TOMAS SOBREVIÑAS, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) and GRACIANO PALELE, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

RASUL, J., J p:

            Before Us for appropriate action is a petition for review which seeks to reverse and set aside the assailed decision of respondent Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirming in toto the assailed decision of the Provincial Adjudicator in favor of private respondent Graciano Palele on the Amended Petition for the Recall and Cancellation of two (2) Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 2362 covering Lot No. 2683 and No. 2361 covering Lot No. 2679 issued in the name of Graciano Palele, quoted hereunder, to wit:   IASEca

            "WHEREFORE, premises considered, a decision is hereby rendered, as follows:

1.      DECLARING protestant-petitioner to be disqualified to purchase the subject lots;

2.      DECLARING TCT-CLOA 2362, covering lot no. 2683, containing an area of 1,044 sq. Meters, located at Brgy. Luacan, Dinaluppihan, Bataan, issued in the name of Graciano Palele to be validly and correctly issued;

3.      DIRECTING the Register of Deed of Bataan to cancel TCT-CLOA No. 2361, covering Lot No. 2679, containing an area of 3,071 sq. Meters, located at Brgy. Luacan, Dinalupihan, Bataan, issued in the name of Graciano Palele;

4.      DIRECTING the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office, Dinalupihan, Bataan to initiate the conduct of a subdivision survey of the aforementioned lot 2679, and thereafter issue a new CLOA, covering 1,000 sq. Meters of the same to Graciano Palele and the rest be awarded to the actual occupants or to qualified beneficiaries as the case maybe." ( p. 17, Rollo)

            The only ISSUE for Us to resolve in this appeal is simply whether or not TCT No. CLOA 2361 and TCT No. CLOA 2362 issued in the name of private respondent Graciano Palele should be cancelled as prayed for by petitioner Tomas Sobreviñas.

            The undisputed FACTS are as follows:

            The lots in dispute are a "landed estate" which formerly belonged to former haciendas or landholdings of private individuals or corporations, situated in the Municipality of Dinalupihan, Bataan, acquired by the government under different laws, for redistribution and resale to deserving tenants and landless farmers (Adm. Order No. 3, 1990).

            Petitioner-appellant filed his application to purchase disposable lands way back in 1962, more than 32 years ago, as revealed by the records of the MARO of Dinalupihan, Bataan. The installment payments were made by petitioner-appellant and the purchase price was paid fully to DAR, more than 20 years ago, or on September 7, 1973. This covers lot no. 707 of the Parcillary Map of Dinalupihan Estate, with an area of 9,939 sq. Meters. The original holder-cultivator of this lot No. 707 was Daniel Sobreviñas, deceased father of Tomas Sobreviñas, petitioner in this case, since before 1920, more than seventy (70) years ago today. Upon the death of Daniel Sobreviñas, he was succeeded by his son, Tomas Sobreviñas, herein petitioner, who filed his application to purchase lot 707 on May 2, 1962.   cDTACE

            Petitioner has been paying the annual real property tax for the said lot 707 for more than 30 years now, as reflected by the certification (Annex "J" or Exh. "10") issued by Municipal Treasurer Honuro Lopez of Dinalupihan, Bataan. Despite full payment, no title was issued to petitioner.

            In 1981, this lot no. 707 was subdivided into four (4) small parts by DAR employees without the knowledge and consent of petitioner's family, so that lot no. 707 disappeared from the Map and new numbers were created, namely:

1.      Lot No. 2681 with an area of 5,262 sq. m.;

2.      Lot No. 2682 with an area of 563 sq. m.;

3.      Lot No. 2683 with an area of 1,044 sq. M.;

4.      Lot No. 2679 with an area of 3,070 sq. m.;

                                                  Total           9,939 sq. m.

            Upon learning of this subdivision, petitioner filed the petition for cancellation of the two (2) aforementioned CLOA titles issued to respondent Graciano Palele by the DAR on August 18, 1992 before the DAR Provincial Adjudication Board of Bataan, based on several grounds. On January 18, 1993, petitioner filed the amended petition for cancellation.

            On September 23, 1993, the Provincial Adjudicator rendered a decision: (a) declaring the petitioner disqualified to purchase the subject lot; (b) declaring TCT CLOA 2362 covering lot no. 2683 with 1,044 sq. meters and TCT CLOA No. 2361 covering lot 2679 with 3,071 sq. Meters located at Luacan, Dinalupihan, Bataan, issued in the name of Graciano Palele validly and correctly issued; and (c) directing the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office to conduct subdivision survey of lot no. 2679 and issued new CLOA covering 1,000 sq. meters to Graciano Palele and the rest to others who are actual occupants or qualified beneficiaries.

            Petitioner has come to this Court on a petition for review, anchored on THREE (3) GROUNDS, to wit:

"I

            PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND JUST COMPENSATION WERE VIOLATED BY THE ISSUANCE OF THE TWO (2) CLOA-TITLES IN THE NAME OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT DARAB, THEREFORE, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN IGNORING AND SETTING ASIDE THIS ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY PETITIONER.   HaEcAC

II

            RESPONDENT DARAB COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN CONCLUDING THAT ALTHOUGH PETITIONER HAD FILED HIS APPLICATION TO PURCHASE LOT 707 MORE THAN THIRTY (30) YEARS AGO AND HAD FULLY PAID THE PURCHASE PRICE TO THE DAR MORE THAN TWENTY (20) YEARS AGO, PETITIONER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE ACQUIRED VESTED RIGHT ON SUBJECT LAND SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAS NOT TAKEN PERSONAL OCCUPATION OR CULTIVATION OF SAID LAND.

III

            RESPONDENT DARAB COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT GRACIANO PALELE DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A BENEFICIARY." (Pp. 5-6, Rollo)

            Let us carefully examine the pertinent arguments of the parties in this case so as to enable us to draw our findings and conclusions on the aforementioned legal issues before Us in this petition for review.

            Firstly, respondent DARAB heavily relied for its decision in favor of the private respondent on the argument of private respondent himself: that although petitioner had filed his application to purchase lot 707 more than thirty (30) years ago and had fully paid the purchase price to the DAR more than twenty (20) years ago, petitioner cannot be considered to have acquired vested right on the subject land because he has no personal occupation or cultivation of said land. To this respondent's argument, petitioner-appellant countered that upon full payment of subject lot on September 7, 1973, he was already entitled to receive a patent for public land since at that time all the requirements of the law have been complied with by him. Even before the patent is actually issued by the Land Department, petitioner argued he has complete equity in the land itself which, by our jurisprudence, he can sell and convey (Juanico vs. American Commercial, G.R. No. L-7549, June 23/55); Mesma vs. Pineda, G.R. L-14722, May 23/60). The issuance to petitioner of a Free Patent or Certificate of Title according to our jurisprudence, served only as a confirmation of his ownership (Ombe Bergoha vs. Daga, G.R. L-15743, July 26/66).   DcTSHa

            Secondly, this Court is of the belief that petitioner-appellant should not be penalized for the inaction or negligence of the DAR. He should not be declared disqualified to purchase subject lot under Administrative Order No. 3, 1990 nor under the New Agrarian Reform Act of 1988 which took effect on June 15, 1988, thirteen (13) years after petitioner's full payment of land's purchase price on September 7, 1973, "when subject land ceased to be part of the public domain (the Dinalupihan Estate) and goes beyond the authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of" (Napocor vs. The Court of Appeals, 218 SCRA 41).

            Thirdly, according to our pertinent law and jurisprudence, when the full payment was made to the DAR on September 7, 1973, petitioner's right to the land has become vested even prior to the issuance of the patent (McDaniel versus Apacible and Cuisa, 42 Phil. 7491). In other words, petitioner's right has become fixed or established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy (Down vs. Blunt, 170 Fed Rep. 15). In fine, such right of petitioner, according to our jurisprudence, cannot anymore be affected by subsequent law (such as Adm. Order No. 3, 1990 requiring personal cultivation and occupation nor under the New Agrarian Reform Law dated June 15, 1988, thirteen years after (Sept. 7, 1973) nor by subsequent grant by the government, such the private respondent's certificate of land ownership award no. 2362 covering lot no. 2683, and lot no. 2361 covering lot no. 2679 issued in the name of Graciano Palele (Heron versus Dater, 120 US 464). Clearly, We are convinced that these two awards should properly and rightfully be cancelled or recalled under the aforecited jurisprudence. This is precisely because these two lots were taken from lot 707 which, under existing Supreme Court ruling, absolutely and unconditionally belong to herein petitioner (Villareal vs. Santos, 34 SCRA 432; Maxez vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 189 and Lugue vs. Villegas, 30 SCRA 417)

            Fourthly, the original lot 707 in the name of the petitioner is an agricultural lot (not a homelot), as claimed by private respondent, with an area of one (1) hectare only. It was parcelled out or subdivided into four (4) small lots and, hence, lot 707 disappeared from the map. It can be observed that the parcelling of the lot 707 was rather hasty since there was deliberate omission by MARO Ernesto Dizon to notify herein petitioner Sobreviñas of the application and processing of the said two (2) lots. Thus, this question now crops up: Why was there was no notification to petitioner, an old-time occupant, who has a fixed or vested right? In this regard, under the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Balboa vs. Farrales (51 Phil. 498), protested properly under Section 1, Art. III of the 1986 Constitution includes vested right. Hence, petitioner cannot be deprived of property right without due process of law. Considering the records of petitioner which are available in the Office, it is Our submission that MARO Dizon's omission to notify him undoubtedly makes his motive in granting the titles within serious reproach. Besides, the requirement of personal cultivation or occupation under the laws — subsequent to the full payment made by petitioner of lot 707 and considering various laws prohibiting ejectment of other tenants — becomes unenforceable. Certainly, this is not the faults of herein petitioner.

            Furthermore, private respondent's Palele was not a tenant of lots 2679 and 2683 which were wrongfully titled to him by the DAR. Suffice it to state that he was actually working in lot 3-B-16 or the 3.5 hectares riceland, owned by his brother Francisco Palele, located at Bakong Hermosa, Bataan. Private respondent's claim that he is entitled to the two lots titled by the DAR in his name because of his personal occupation, is one-sided and completely wrong, for the records belie this claim. We can only state that it is impossible for private respondent to occupy two lots titled to him by the DAR as homelots, due to his work with the riceland of his brother in 3-B-16. Indeed Section 14 of Land Tenure Administration No. 2, dated September 1, 1955, provides that the acquisition of homelot by any individual is limited to only one. Consequently, private respondent is clearly disqualified to acquire the two (2) homelots aforementioned.   CScTED

            WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition for review is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the respondent Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), affirming the decision of the Provincial Adjudication Board, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOA) No. 2362 covering lot 2683, and CLOA No. 2361 covering lot 2679, are ordered RECALLED and CANCELLED.

            SO ORDERED.

            Morales and Abesamis, JJ., concur.