SPECIAL SIXTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 40828. March 31, 1997.]
BENEDICTO SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs. DANIEL PINEDA, MANUEL DELA CRUZ and VIRGILIO REYES, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
MARTINEZ, A. M., J p:
This is a petition for review of a Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board decision (DARAB) reversing the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator of Gapan, Nueva Ecija. The DARAB decision declared respondents Daniel Pineda, Manuel dela Cruz and Virgilio Reyes as de jure tenant-farmer-beneficiaries.
The dispute is with respect to an agricultural land with a total area of 161,567 sqm. Situated at Bgy. Mahipon Gapan, Neuva Ecija formerly owned by the spouses Albino Pagsisihan and Constancia Cruz Pagsisihan. After the death of Albino in 1990, their ten children executed a deed of extrajudicial partition dated 6 December 1978 where Constancia waived her rights and interests over the land in favor of their ten children. In said partition, the ten children also sold portions thereof to several persons three of whom are the respondents namely: Daniel Pineda, Virgilio Reyes and Manuel Dela Cruz. The said partition also stated that the land is untenanted.
On 8 September 1984, respondents Virgilio Reyes, Daniel Pineda and Manuel Dela Cruz together with a certain Dioscoro Sulit, executed a "PAGPAPATUNAY" wherein they declared that:
"NA KAMI na tinutukoy na mga kasama (tenants) ng dating nasirang (deceased) Albino Pagsisihan sa isang lagay na lupain na nakalugar sa Mahipan, Gapan, Neuca Ecija na lumilitaw din sa talaan ng Ministry of Agrarian Reform ng mga kasama ay sa katotohanan ay hindi talagang kasama (tenants) sa lupang sakahin ni nasirang Albino Pagsisihan. Ang aming pagkakagawa ng nabanggit na lupain ay dahilan sa kami ay inuupahan lamang at kami ay walang napagkasunduan na kami ay kikilalanin bilang mga kasama namumuwisan. Ang maging pagkakaroon ng talaan sa Ministry of Agrarian Reform ay dahilan sa aming walang kaalaman na noong sinusukat ang mga lupang sakahing ay hindi namin naliwanagan at naintindihan kung bakit nila sinusukat ang mga nasabing lupain. Nitong mga huling araw na lang nila sinusukat ang mga nasabing lupain. Nitong mga huling araw na lang naming napag-alaman na ang pagsusukat palang ginawa ay siyang magiging batayan para ang isang gumagawa ay kikilalanin bilang isang kasama sa lupang kanyang ginagawa;
NA dahil sa nabanggit na pagkakamali sa pagtatala ng aming pangalan bilang mga kasama ay nasirang Albino Pagsisihan, aming nilalayon at hinihiling sa mga kinauukulan lalong-lalo na sa Ministry of Agrarian Reform na pawalang saysay ang mga dokumanto na aming nilagdaan at iba pang dokumento na nagsasaad na kami nga ay kasama sa nabanggit na lupain." (p. Records)
On 10 June 1985, two of the respondents sold their undivided portions to petitioner Benedicto Sanchez with right of repurchase. Manuel Dela Cruz, Teresita Dela Cruz and Ricardo Dela Cruz as co-owners sold their 12,000 sq. meter portion while Virgilio Reyes sold his 10,000 sq. meter portion as conveyed to them under the Deed of Extra Judicial Partition.
On 31 March 1986, the ten children executed a deed absolute sale in favor of petitioner Benedicto Sanchez over a 119,657 square meter portion of their property. The deed states that the land is untenanted.
On the strength of the "PAGPAPATUNAY", petitioner filed his complaint before the provincial adjudicator seeking to eject defendants. Plaintiff claims that despite the voluntary execution of the abovequoted document, defendants insist that they be recognized as tenants thereon.
On 27 May 1993, the provincial adjudicator ruled as follows:
"1. Declaring the respondents as having no right to remain in possession of the premises being they are (sic) mere farmhelpers thereof hired occasionally by the petitioner.
2. Declaring the respondent to vacate the subject landholding in favor of the petitioner.
3. Other claims are dismissed for insufficiency of evidence."
Respondents appealed the above decision before the DARAB and on 29 April 1996, DARAB reversed and set aside the provincial adjudicator's decision declaring judgment in this wise:
"WHEREFORE, finding reversible before in the assailed decision, the same is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and another one is entered:
1. Declaring Defendants-Appellants Manuel Dela Cruz and Daniel Pineda as bona fide de jure tenant-farmer-beneficiaries over their respective landholding formerly owned by spouses Elbino (Albino in other documents) Pagsisihan and Constancia Cruz, situated at Punot, Mahipon, Gapan, Nueva Ecija;
2. Declaring Leodegardo Reyes as a legitimate and de jure farmer beneficiary and awardee of the farmlot or farmholding covered by his Transfer Certificate of Title numbered 26105/Emancipation Patent No. A-260049, situated at Mahipon, Gapan, Nueva Ecija;
3. Ordering the DAR to generate, issue register and award to defendants-appellants Manuel dela Cruz and Daniel Pineda Emancipation Patents covering their respective farmlots or farmholdings in question without further delay;
4. Ordering plaintiff-appellee and any or all other persons acting in his behalf or proceeding from them to respect defendants-appellants and Leodegario Reyes in their rights as such, and to maintain them in the peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective farmholding;
5. Ordering plaintiff-appellee or any other persons proceeding from him to desist and cease from demanding lease rentals from defendants-appellants who should instead pay to the Land Bank of the Philippines their farmlots; and
6. Dismissing the complaint for utter lack of merit.
With costs against plaintiff-appellee."
Hence this petitioner for review by plaintiff.
Petitioner once more insists on the "PAGPAPATUNAY" executed by the respondents. However, We draw attention to the result of the preliminary conference presided over by the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) Chairman Alberto Bactol where it is reported that:
"6. At sangayon pa rin sa mga defendant Manuel Dela Cruz, Virgilio Reyes at Daniel Pineda ay nangyari silang nakapirma sa isang kasulatan sa dahilang bibigyan daw sila ng tigitigisang iktarya na patitituluhan sa kanilang pangalan at magbuhat pa noong taong 1984 at hanggang sa ngayon ay wala ang ipinangako ng plaintiff na si Benedicto Sanches.
7. Sangayon sa mga defendants, kailan man ay hindi sila naging upahan sa kanilang sinasakang lupa kayat nakikipag talo sira sila sa kanilang nilang (sic) nilangdaan sapagkat ito ay cover ng Operation Land Transfer.
8. Kayat ang nais na lamang nila ngayon ay ipagpatuloy na lamang nila na hintayin ang imansipation patent o titulo sapagkat nagbibigay naman sila ng buwis o amortization taon-taon at kung hindi man sila binibigyan ng recibo ng buwis amortization ay ipinaalam naman nila agad sa pangulo ng Samahang Nayon ng Barangay ng Mahipon, Gapan, Nueva Ecija." (p. 17, Records)
Thus it is not true that respondents executed the "PAGPAPATUNAY" voluntarily and that they never assailed the validity of the same. At the very outset, respondents made it clear that there was a consideration for executing the document but which consideration was never given them.
In this connection, the ruling in Dequito v. Llamas (66 SCRA 504) cannot be the basis for resolving the present controversy. In that case, the tenant agreed to relinquish his landholding after being paid the amount of P700.00. The receipt by the tenant of such consideration was duly presented as evidence. Here, the promised consideration was not honored by the landowner, and by reason of which, this controversy arose.
Were it not for the promise that respondents will be given one hectare each, they would not have signed the "PAGPAPATUNAY". Curiously, respondents were made to execute the "PAGPAPATUNAY" on 8 September 1984, attesting to the fact that they are not tenants. However, the land was already transferred to them earlier by virtue of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated 6 December 1978. If respondents as transferees were constituted as owners of the land conveyed to them under the Deed, there will be no need for the execution of the "PAGPAPATUNAY". Apparently, there was no genuine intention to transfer ownership over the land.
Indeed there is substantial proof that respondents are de jure tenants of the land.
First, We note the manner by which the transfer was made under the Deed of Extra Judicial Partition. The conveyance was expressed in this wise:
"That for and in consideration of the sum of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P18,000.00) Philippine Currency, we PURIFICATION, BEATRIZ, OFELA, MARCOS, ERNESTO, TERESITA, CLARISSA, JUANITO, ADELINA, and VICTORIA, all surnamed Pagsisihan, do hereby sell, cede, transfer and convey by way of absolute sale an undivided portion of 12,000 sq. meters unto CORNELIA GUINTO, widow; CORAZON DELA CRUZ, married to Ernesto Parungao; VIRGILIO DELA CRUZ, married to Felicidad Sulit, MANUEL DELA CRUZ, married to Anastacia Alvarez; and MARIANO DELA CRUZ, married to Josefina Garcia; TERESITA DELA CRUZ, single; and RICARDO DELA CRUZ, married to Dolores Peralta; 10,000 sq. meters unto VIRGILIO REYES, married to Rose Sulit, 10,000 sq. meters unto DIOSCORO SULIT, married to Anatalia Sarmiento; and another 10,000 sq. meters unto DANIEL PINEDA, married to Maria Velayo; all of legal ages, Filipinos and residents of Gapan, Nueva Ecija; (p. 35, Records)
Notably, the transfer was made to several persons of undetermined portions of the land. It was not clear how the consideration of P18,000.00 was divided among the vendees. After the purported transfer, there appears no effort to subdivide the land to determine the exact portion conveyed.
Second, there was no actual partition of the land with a view to the issuance of title to the individual transferees. From 1978, the date of the extrajudicial partition up to 1985 and 1986, the dates of the sale to petitioner, no actual partition of the land was made and no title was secured and issued in the name of the individual respondents as transferees in the Deed of Extra Judicial partition.
To give meaning to the conveyance made to respondents, a deed absolute sale should have been separately executed in favor of the transferees, enabling them to obtain title thereto. Absent such act, we can only conclude that the ostensible transfer to the respondents together with other person was fictitious.
Overthrowing declarations that the land is untenanted is the existence of an emancipation patent in favor of Virgilio Reyes, one of the ostensible transferees in the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition. It is rather unusual why an untenanted land be the subject of an emancipation patent. Eventually, on the basis of such emancipation patent a Transfer Certificate of Title was issued to Virgilio's son, Leodegario Reyes on 28 June 1988. This can be taken to mean that the area has been tenanted and remained to be so.
Petitioner's claims are self contradictory. First, he sought to eject the tenants in the land by asserting that the land he bought is untenanted. This was to remove himself from the application of the agrarian reform law. At the same time, he invokes his right of retention under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform law. Sad to say, this right of retention requiring personal cultivation by the landowner or any his immediate farm household was hardly supported by evidence.
On the other hand, respondents had been in actual possession and cultivation of the land as reflected by the evidence extant in the case. The preliminary conference yielded the following findings to wit:
"5. Sangayon sa mga defendants hindi pa nangyari ang sinasabi ng Plaintiff na si Benedicto Sanchez na pangasiwaan ng personal na siya ang nagpapagawa ng kanilang sinasaka at ang tutuo lamang ang mga defendants na sina Manuel Dela Cruz, Virgilio Reyes at Daniel Pineda ang gumagawa, naghahanda gumagastos sa bawat simula ng mga taong papasok ng tagulan hanggang sa anihan ang palay at hindi sila upahan." (pp. 17-18, Records)
Two respondents in fact presented their leasehold agreements denominated as "KASUNDUAN BUWISAN SA SAKAHAN" to prove their actual occupation of the land. Two separate agreements were entered into by Albino Pagsisihan as landowner or the "Maysakahang Nagpapabuwis" with petitioners Benjamin Dela Cruz and Virgilio Reyes as the tenants or "Nagsasakang Nanunuwisan". Thirty five (35) cavans per year are due from Benjamin Dela Cruz for the year 1968, 1969 and 1970 and twenty five (25) cavans per year from Virgilio Reyes for the same period. This explains the subsequent issuance of an emancipation patent in favor of Virgilio Reyes, being the existing leasehold tenant-cultivator over the land. These pieces of evidence were not rebutted by petitioner except to say that respondents are mere farmhelpers occasionally hired to work in the land. If indeed respondents are mere farmhelpers, then petitioner need only dismiss them.
Petitioner's invocation of the rule on estoppel and the law on prescription does not in any way strengthen this appeal. The circumstances under which the sale to him was made was manifestly irregular because he was buying a land which was not yet titled in the name of the vendors. In ordinary practice, when one enters into a contract of sale, a vendee is not shown proof that a land is untenanted but rather a certificate of title that the vendor can validly sell the land. Petitioner vendee should have investigated of the real status of the land.
Besides, such declarations from the tenants must be received with caution considering the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Borromeo-Herrera v. Borromeo, (152 SCRA 171) to wit:
"The intention to waive a right or advantage must be shown clearly and convincingly, and when the only proof of intention rests in what a party does, his act should be so manifestly consistent with, and indicative of an intent to voluntarily relinquish the particular right or advantage the no other reasonable explanation of his conduct is possible." (Borromeo v. Borromeo 152 SCRA 181)
The acts of respondents in insisting to be recognized a tenants admits of no other interpretation than that they have no intention of relinquishing their rights as tenants.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED and the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Montenegro and Valdez, Jr. JJ., concur.