NINTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 44655. January 19, 1999.]
SPOUSES AURORA SHALI AND AHMED SHALI, petitioners, vs. JORGE L. TIANGCO, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, C., J p:
Assailed in this Petition for Review is the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in DARAB Case No. 2973 reversing in part the judgment of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of the Province of Bataan, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed portion of the decision particularly paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the dispositive portion of said decision is hereby reversed and another judgment is entered:
1. Declaring the "'Kasunduan" invalid, the same being contrary to law, rules and regulations, public policy and public order;
2. Ordering Defendants-Appellees and their agents to vacate the subject landholding and to surrender the same to Plaintiff-Appellant;
3. Costs against Defendant-Appellees.
SO ORDERED."
The facts:
"Plaintiff-Appellant Jorge Tiangco, together with three (3) brothers and a sister, are co-owners of a parcel of land situated at Balanga, Bataan, known as Lot No. 14, L.R.C. Re. 179 of Balanga Cadastre, containing an area of eight point twenty seven hundred twenty seven (8.2727) hectare which they acquired through as Will and Testament duly approved and probated by the Regional Trial Court, branch III, of Bataan, executed in their favor by the former owner, Dona Concepcion de Leon Vda. De Naval. This land was placed under the Operation Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, otherwise known as the Emancipation Decree. Plaintiff-Appellant, having been cultivating on a portion of said land with an area of one point eighty six hundred eighty six (1.8686) hectares was identified as farmer-beneficiary and later on issued a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2005 by virtue of an Emancipation Patent No. 1485889 on December 2, 1992 and entered in the Registry of Deeds of Bataan Province on November 11, 1993. The said portion was known as Lot 14-A of the subdivision plan Psd-03-040364 (OLT) and the total value of said land was fully paid by the herein Plaintiff-Appellant-farmer-beneficiary on February 21, 1994.
However, prior to the issuance of the Transfer Certificate of Title (Emancipation Patent) in favor of Plaintiff-Appellant, a 'Kasunduan' (agreement) and a Deed of Absolute Sale were made and executed by and between Plaintiff-Appellant and Defendant-Appellee Aurora Shali married to Ahmed Shali, an Arabian nationality, [sic] on May 27, 1992 and duly subscribed and sworn to and acknowledged before a notary public. Defendant-Appellee, before the execution of the two documents, had already opened a bank accounts in the name of Plaintiff-Appellant and deposited Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as earnest money, on March 27, 1992, under SA No. 207-112533-8. This initial deposit was followed by subsequent deposits in the total amount of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) made on August 31, 1992, after the execution of the aforesaid agreement and deed of sale. But, the said account/deposit was withdrawn and closed by Defendant-Appellee Aurora Shali. On December 23, 1993, Plaintiff-Appellant filed the instant case for annulment of sale against Defendants-Appellees on the principal reason that said sale lacks consideration. On March 4, 1994, Defendant-Appellee tendered its answer with counterclaim that in the event the sale of Lot 14-A is considered as not consummated, Plaintiff-Appellant should reimburse and/or return to Defendants-Appellees the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) representing the amounts paid to the former and improvement introduced by the latter on Lot 14-A, with interest."
After due hearing, the PARAD of Bataan, in a decision dated July 12, 1994, voided the Deed of Absolute Sale contracted by the parties herein, but declared as valid the transfer of tenancy rights from respondent to petitioner whose qualification as a tenant beneficiary was to be determined by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Balanga, Bataan.
Not satisfied, respondent, alleging that the decision was not supported with evidence, contrary to law and issued with grave abuse of discretion, interposed a timely appeal to the DARAB.
On November 18, 1996, the DARAB, reversed a portion of the PARAD decision.
Petitioners moved to reconsider the judgment, but the DARAB, finding that no new matters were adduced by the movant warranting a reversal of the Board's decision, denied the same.
Hence, the instant petition on the main issue of whether or not the transfer of tenancy rights by respondent to petitioner Aurora Shali over Lot No. 14-A should remain effective despite the annulment of the deed of absolute sale.
Petitioners contend that the "Kasunduan" should stand because respondent received consideration for the transfer which has been implemented, with petitioners now in actual possession and cultivation of the subject property. Petitioners next contend that respondent cannot be a beneficiary nor a tenant of the agricultural land on the ground that he is the owner of the same by virtue or testamentary succession. Moreover, petitioners decry the bad faith of respondent in selling the lot which the latter knew his predecessor forbade him to do.
We find no merit in this petition.
There in no question that the deed of absolute sale in question is void. As correctly pointed out by the DARAB, the "Kasunduan", from its letter and spirit, conveyed ownership, not merely tenancy rights over the property. Another significant admitted fact is that the land subject of this case is within the realm of the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program of the government and embraced under Presidential Decree No. 27.
Conformably, with these admissions, We find that the transaction entered into by and between the parties herein violated the law which is 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 New Civil Code, We find that the deed of absolute sale and the "Kasunduan" are essentially void.
On petitioners' submission that respondent do not possess the qualification of a tenant, We find that this is a question of fact and, cognizant of the well-settled doctrine of primary jurisdiction. (Machete vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 176; Vidad vs. RTC of Negros Oriental, 227 SCRA 271). We defer to the factual findings of the Department of Agrarian Reform which is the lead agency which screens the applications of farmer beneficiaries.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in all respects.
SO ORDERED.