NINTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 42538. January 19, 1999.]
SOLEDAD PERNECITA, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF PAMFILO SARIO, (namely: LUISA M. SARIO, MARIETA, ANTONIO, JULIECES, MARILYN, NORMA, JULIANA and EVELYN, all surnamed Sario), respondents.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, C., J p:
Challenged in this Petition for review is the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 2791 affirming in all respects the decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of the Province of Albay, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the defendant to immediately vacate and return the peaceful possession and cultivation of all four parcels of land covered by the four (4) Emancipation Patents issued in the name of the deceased complaint, to his surviving heirs, namely: the widow, Luisa M. Sario, and children Marieta, Norma, Antonio, Julieces, Marilyn, Juliana and Evelyn, all surnamed Sario.
Any Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) and/or Emancipation Patent issued or to be issued to the herein defendant involving any of the four parcels in controversy, the same is hereby declared null and void and therefore, ordered cancelled.
SO ORDERED."
The facts:
Pamfilo Sario, (now substituted by his heirs upon hid death during the pendency of this case on April 4, 1993,) was a holder of four (4) emancipation patents covering four parcels of rice lands formerly owned by Angela Manalang Gloria, more particularly described as follows:
a) Original Certificate of Title No. E-1293 (EP No. A-001916) for Lot 18, with an area of 129 square meters;
b) Original Certificate of Title No. E-1290 (EP No. A-001920) for Lot 5, with an area of 4,159 square meters;
c) Original Certificate of Title No. E-0289 (EP No. A-001919) for Lot 4, with an area of 6,486 square meters;
d) Original Certificate of Title No. E-1286 (EP No. A-001887) with an area of 12,174 square meters;
All of the aforecited titles were issued on October 21, 1986, although in his affidavit, Pamfilo Sario stated that he had been in actual cultivation of the said landholdings since 1975 until 1985, when due to health reasons, he had to go to Manila for the needed medical treatment of his tuberculosis. In great need for money for his medical expenses, Pamfilo Sario obtained a loan from Romeo Pernecita and Soledad Pernecita, herein petitioner, in the amount of P6,500.00. While the amount remained unpaid, Pamfilo Sario consented to petitioner's cultivation of his agricultural land, particularly Lot 0-02436 containing an area of 1.42 hectares, on condition that upon full payment and upon his recovery from his ailment, he would get back the property from petitioner.
On the other hand, petitioner alleged that respondent Pamfilo Sario had ceased cultivating the subject land, Lot 0-02436 since 1977; that the same land was conveyed to her as evidenced by a "contrata"; that the sale occurred in 1977, although the contract was reduced into writing only in 1985 upon full payment of the purchase price; that petitioner has been in actual cultivation of the subject land from the moment that it was sold to her.
A complaint for Recovery of Possession and Cultivation of Farmholding Covered by P.D. 27 was filed by Pamfilo Sario before the PARAD of the Province of Albay against petitioner.
On October 26, 1993, the PARAD ordered a relocation survey of the subject landholding because of its confusing boundaries. In his report to the PARAD, Engr. Eliseo Pormalejo, the Board's designated commissioner, found out that the exact location of Lot 2436 PMS 071 "1" is Lot 4, 5, and 18, Csd-05-002566 containing an area of 1.0774 hectares issued in favor of Pamfilo Sario and supposedly mortgaged to Soledad Pernecita (Records, p. 95-96)
On August 17, 1994, the PARAD of Albay decided in favor of the respondents.
Dissatisfied, petitioner interposed a timely appeal to the DARAB which affirmed in its entirety the PARAD decision is a judgment dated June 3, 1996.
On June 27, 1996, petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the DARAB's decision, which was however, Denied.
Hence, the instant Petition for Review on the following issues:
"That the issuance of emancipation patent to Pamfilo Sario, is not in accordance with law; that to maintain in possession of the subject parcels of land the heirs of Pamfilo Sario, who himself did not qualify as such beneficiary runs contrary to the specific provisions of law; That the transfer action made by the Team leader and the Re-allocation of the petitioner in lieu of Pamfilo Sario, is well within the provisions of law."
The first and second issues, being interrelated shall be discussed together.
Petitioner contends that Pamfilo Sario was not actually cultivating the land, instead, it was she and her spouse who were actual tillers of the subject landholding. However, this allegation was controverted by Pamfilo Sario's statement in his sworn affidavit (Records, p. 3) that he was tilling the land since 1977 until 1985 when, by force of circumstance, he decided to relocate to Manila. We find that the subject land was merely used as security for the loan obtained, and, as is practised in the provinces, the mortgagee normally takes possession of the mortgaged property (Heirs of George Bofill vs. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 451). It appears that such a situation happened in the case at bench. Moreover, the President of the Municipal Katipunan ng Samahang Nayon, Isaac Seva and the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee Chair, Jorge Orilla attested that Pamfilo Sario did not waive his rights over the property subject of the "contrata". The transaction entered into between herein petitioner and Pamfilo Sario violated the law which proscribes any transfer of ownership over awarded lands under P.D. 27 except in favor of specified entities. Consequently, applying Article 1409, paragraph 1 and 7 of the Neu Civil Code. We find that the "contrata" between the parties is void.
Anent the third issue, petitioner insists on the validity of the resolution of re-allocation of the DAR Team Office No. 155 at Polangui, Albay, on the basis of the presumption of regularity in the discharge of official duties.
However, this is merely a disputable not conclusive presumption defined as a "specie of evidence that may be accepted and acted on where there is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it stands, or one which may be overcome by other evidence" (pp. vs. De Guzman, 229 SCRA 795).
In the case at bench, the presumption of regularity is overcome by the absence of due process in the transfer action as shown by the evidence on record, which We find no reason to disturb, consistent with the principle that factual findings of the lower tribunals are entitled to great weight and value (Verdejo vs. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 781: Heirs of Felicidad Canque vs. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 741).
Moreover, in the case of Casuela vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 276 SCRA 635, the Supreme Court stressed that 'the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties must yield when there is proferred clear and convincing evidence to the effect that a public officer discharged his duties in flagrant violation of specific legal prescriptions".
In the case at bench, it appears that the concerned DAR officials veered away from the proper procedures and acted in such a way as to prejudice Pamfilo Sario and unduly benefit herein petitioner.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.