TENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 44528. August 3, 1998.]
MARIA LEAH D. DE LEON, represented by her father, MARCELINO M. DE LEON, petitioner, vs. JUANITA B. DULAY, and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REGINO, J p:
This is a petition for review filed by petitioner seeking to set aside the Decision dated November 18, 1996, in DARAB Case Nos. 3585-3586 entitled, "Maria Leah D. De Leon, represented by her father Marcelino M. De Leon vs. Juanita B. Dulay, for recovery of possession and cancellation of Emancipation Patent Nos. 66593 & 66594 affirming the Decision dated January 10, 1995, issued by the Provincial Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Region III. The subject properties are located at Lennec, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, denominated as Lots 2 and 3, Psd-03-021115 (OLT) being a portion of Lot 71, Psd-03-024053, covering an area of two thousand seven hundred nine (2,709) square meters, more or less, and twenty eight point one hundred forty seven (28.147) square meters.
The petition must be resolved adversely to the Petitioner. The grounds relied upon by the Public Respondent are justified by the findings of facts on record which are hereunder reproduced in full:
"Petitioner-Appellant Maria Leah D. De Leon is a minor, having been born in 1980, who is represented in this case by her father, Marcelino M. de Leon.
"The prior tenant on subject landholdings was Alberta Dulay, common-law wife of Petitioner-Appellant Marcelino M. De Leon and mother of Petitioner-Appellant Maria Leah D. De Leon. Herein Respondent-Appellee, Juanita B. Dulay, is the sister of Alberta Dulay.
"Sometime in 1983, Alberta Dulay, who was already a recipient of Certificate of Land Transfer covering subject properties, ceded the possession and cultivation of subject landholdings in favor of her sister, Juanita B. Dulay, and left the country to work in England. The Deed of Waiver was prepared and witnessed by officials of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Gloria Lumang and Erlinda Alano. Unfortunately, Alberta Dulay did not stay long in England, and in fact, only for less than a year, as she got sick which adversely affected her mental faculty; while Juanita Dulay continued to be in possession and cultivation of the subject landholding to which she was issued the questioned Emancipation Patents pursuant to the Operation Land Transfer program conducted by DAR in accordance with Presidential Decree no. 27.
"Petitioner-Appellant, having learned of the issuance of the Emancipation Patents to Respondent-Appellee, initiated the instant cases for the purpose of taking the possession and cultivation of subject properties, claiming that being the immediate heir and successor of the prior tenant, she is entitled to succeed to the tenurial right of her mother." (Rollo, Pages 16-17)
"Petitioner raised the following issues before the Court: "1/ Whether or not the DARAB committed grave abuse or errors of fact and/or law; 2/ Who has a better right to the properties in question; 3/ Whether or not petitioner has better rights over the same properties than the respondent; 4/ Whether or not there is clear evidence that the original patentee (ALBERTA DULAY) had abandoned her subject properties and/or freely and voluntarily waived them in favor of respondent;" (Rollo, Page 12).
The pivotal issue posed by petitioner is whether or not subject properties were validly waived and transferred by the original patentee, Alberta Dulay, to her sister, private respondent Juanita B. Dulay. We are of the opinion that there was a valid waiver and transfer of property.
Petitioner's principal contention is that the Emancipation Patents were obtained fraudalently and with deceit and bad faith on the part of private respondent. She challenged the validity of the Deed of Waiver which was made the basis for the issuance of the aforesaid emancipation patents by alleging that the same was the result of private respondent's "act of bad faith with deceit and fraud." (Rollo, Page 13)
Nowhere do the records indicate that signature of Alberta Dulay on the Deed of Waiver was obtained through fraud. Mere uncorroborated and expectedly self-serving allegations of petitioner are not evidence of fraud. (Inciong, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 578, 586) It was not even shown that she was present when the document was executed. As against the strength of the signature of two witnesses who are officials of the Department of Agrarian Reform, the presumption that the Deed of Waiver was voluntarily executed should be applied.
Under the law on contracts, vitiated consent does not make the contract unenforceable but merely voidable. (De Jesus vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 175 SCRA 559, 568) Petitioner can thus, only challenge the validity of the Deed of Waiver by instituting a direct proceeding to contest the same or through a counterclaim for that purpose. (Rone vs. Claro, G.R. No. L-4472, May 8, 1952). Her failure to avail of either of the aforementioned courses of action allowed the Deed of Waiver to produce legal effects, one of which is to lend validity to the subsequent issuance of the emancipation patents.
The acts of Alberta Dulay further support the conclusion that she knowingly and voluntarily executed the Deed of Waiver. As found by the Provincial Adjudicator, the document was executed before she left for abroad. (Rollo, Page 29). Hence, Alberta Dulay had every intention to transfer her rights because she knew that she would not be able to comply with the requirement of personal cultivation of the properties. Instead of forfeiting her rights in favor of the government, she preferred to allow her own kin to succeed to the properties. Petitioner was then still too young to personally cultivate the properties herself.
Petitioner contended that Alberta Dulay's abandonment of her rights over the properties could not be presumed because she was allegedly prevented from taking up her tenancy rights with private respondent on account of her contracting a sickness that impaired and infirmed her mental faculties. We believe that abandonment occurred much earlier. When Alberta Dulay left for England to seek a more gainful employment, she was constrained to abandon her rights over the subject properties because she knew that she would be gone for a long period of time. The same conclusion was reached by the Provincial Adjudicator when he stated, thus:
". . . There is no dispute about Alberta Dulay, mother of petitioner of being a CLT holder covering the landholdings in question (Exhibit "A") and being in possession thereof prior to 1983, but when she executed a waiver of rights in respect to the landholdings in question in favor of the respondent when she left the Philippines to seek greener pasture somewhere in England, she is deemed to have abandoned the same." (Rollo, p. 30)
The Certificate of Land Title issued to Alberta Dulay did not automatically entitle her to the issuance of the emancipation patents. Presidential Decree No. 27 required further compliance with the following requirements:
"a. He must have fully paid for the land. Although he is given 15 years to pay, he may pay in full on or before the end of the 15-year period;
"b. He must be a member of a Samahang Nayon or a duly recognized and authorized cooperative; and
"c. He must be actually cultivating the land himself with the help of the immediate members of his family or with the use of hired agricultural laborers." (Philippine Law on Agrarian Reforms by Cornelio Besinga, 1981 edition, pp. 71-72)
When Alberta Dulay decided to go abroad, it became impossible for her to comply with the requisite of cultivation by applicant herself. Moreso when she became incapacitated by reason of her mental illness. On the other hand, evidence is undisputed that respondent not only cultivated the property but also paid the amortizations due thereon. (Rollo, Page 30) Hence, private respondent has a better right to the possession and cultivation of the subject properties.
We find no evidence that petitioner was deprived of a proper hearing to prove her causes of action. In her Petition, she admitted that a trial on the merits was actually conducted by the Provincial Adjudicator of Nueva Ecija Region III (DAR). (Rollo, Page 3) After a careful examination of the decisions rendered by the Provincial Adjudicator and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, the Court is convinced that both are supported by substantial evidence.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the Decision dated November 18, 1996 appealed from is AFFIRMED. No cost.
SO ORDERED.
Abad Santos, Jr. and Vasquez, Jr., JJ., concur.