SPECIAL SEVENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 57376. June 23, 2000.]
JUAN C. VALENCIA, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF LUIS SAN JUNA represented by PRISCILLA SAN JUAN VENTURA ET AL., respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GOZO-DADOLE, J p:
This is a Petition for Review filed under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to set aside the Decision dated January 26, 2000 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 2624 entitled, "Juan C. Valencia vs. Heirs of Luis San Juan, rep. by Priscilla San Juan Ventura, Sps. Felix de Leon and Clara Santos-de Leon and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Fe L. Jacinto" and "Clara S. de Leon and Felix de Leon vs. Juan C. Valencia".
The antecedent facts:
On October 25, 1981, Leocadio Santos, father of Clara Santos-de Leon, obtained a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) No. 075393 over the landholding in question.
On July 9, 1984, said Leocadio Santos executed a "Sinumpaang Salaysay" surrendering his CLT and abandoned the landholding consisting of an area of 1.9250 hectares located at Sitio Pulo, Barangay San. Roque, Paombong, Bulacan, formerly owned by the late Luis San Juan. The surrender and abandonment was common knowledge in the neighborhood in said sitio and barangay, and among officers and members of the Samahang Nayon thereat.
On June 13, 1988, Leocadio Santos and Clara S. de Leon executed a Joint Affidavit wherein Leocadio Santos transferred his rights over the land to her daughter, Clara S. de Leon, but long after said Leocadio surrendered his CLT and abandoned the premises in 1984, and at a time when the DAR Deferment Order dated October 31, 1990 reserved the property in question and exempted from land reform for a period of 10 years, from June 15, 1988 to June 15, 1998.
On August 8, 1988, on the strength of her father's (Leocadio Santos) CLT, Emancipation Patent (EP) No. 004747 and title were issued to Clara S. de Leon.
On July 15, 1991, or more than seven (7) years after her father, Leocadio Santos, surrendered his CLT, Clara s. de Leon executed an affidavit of loss to the effect that she "lost" her father's CLT.
In the meantime, after Leocadio Santos surrendered his CLT on July 9, 1984, the original owner, Luis San Juan, extended to petitioner Juan C. Valencia on March 15, 1987 a lease of the premises for a period of five (5) years at P10,000.00 per year or a total of P50,000.00, renewable for another period of five (5) years at P12,000.00 per year.
However, despite Leocadio's surrender of his CLT and abandonment of the premises, the DAR Deferment Order, and the DAR Regional Office's 2nd Indorsement dated September 17, 1991 denying the transfer action from Leocadio Santos to Clara S. de Leon, said Clara S. de Leon was able to secure her EP on August 8, 1988, or three years before said transfer action was denied and rejected by DAR regional office.
When Clara. S. de Leon attempted to eject the petitioner from the fishpond in question, on April 21, 1992 petitioner filed a Complaint a against Spouses Felix de Leon and Clara Santos de Leon, Heirs of Luis San Juan and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Fe L. Jacinto, with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Region III, Malolos, Bulacan, for Interpretation of Contract, Annulment and Cancellation of Order/Award/Decision for Issuance of Emancipation Patent No. 004747, with Prayer for Ex-Paste Temporary Restraining Order and to be Declared Rightful Potential Beneficiary. The complaint was docketed as DARAB Case No. 376-Bulacan-92.
Specifically, the complaint alleged, among others, that Juan Valencia (petitioner herein) is the bona-fide agricultural lessee or tenant farmer of a piece of land (fishpond) situated at Pulo, San Roque, Paombong, Bulacan, since March 16, 1887, up to the present, on the strength of a lease contract called "Kasunduan ng Buwisan sa Palaisdaan" between him and the late Luis San Juan, whereby he was given the right to farm said fishpond for five (5) years from and after March 16, 1987 up to March 16, 1992, at the agreed rental of P10,000.00 per year, or a total of P50,000.00 which he paid in advance to Luis San Juan, with said Juan Valencia given another five (5) years option effective April 1, 1992 up to and until. April 1, 1997 at the rate of P12,000.00 per year or P60,000.00 for the next five (5) years; that in anticipation of the implied termination upon the expiration of the 5-year, period, petitioner wrote a letter to Priscilla San Juan Ventura manifesting his interest in continuing with the next 5-year option, enclosing a P12,000.00 check representing rental for the first year, but Priscilla Ventura refused to renew the "Kasunduan" and to accept the downpayment of P12,000.00, for the reason that the property had been subjected to the Land Reform Program of the government and had been awarded to Clara Santos de Leon; that he informed Priscilla Ventura that said Clara de Leon was never an actual tenant, tiller possessor, agricultural lessee; that despite this fact, Clara S. de Leon was able to obtain her EP 004747 dated August 8, 1988 at the time when he was the actual agricultural lessee of the property; that he wrote the MARO; that he made three proposals in his letters dated April 3, 1992, but before said proposals could be resolved, he was informed that the MARO and the Spouses de Leon, accompanied by fifty (50) people belonging to the local farmers' organization threatened to forcibly take possession of the premises; that the controversy is whether he can be allowed to renew his lease of the premises for the next five years; that since the case involves the interpretation of the contract which is an agrarian dispute, it falls within the original jurisdiction of the DARAB; that his right and claim as a potential beneficiary of the premises accrued on March 16, 1987, the date of the "Kasunduan"; that despite the recommendation for denial of the transfer action from Leocadio Santos to his daughter Clara S. de Leon, an EP was still issued in her name; that even if the CLT covers the premises in question, Leocadio Santos had culpably sold or abandoned the landholding and forfeited all his rights under PD 27, so that he and his heirs are disqualified to become beneficiary under Sec. 22 of RA 6657. He prayed for issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction because on or before April 30, 1992, respondents threatened to oust him forcibly from the premises and in order to prevent bloodshed.
The respondents spouses Felix de Leon and Clara S. de Leon answered the complaint, traversing the material allegations thereof. As affirmative defenses, they alleged that the "Kasunduan" was void ab initio, such that petitioner has no right over the land in question; that at the time of the execution of the "Kasunduan," the land, being covered by Operation Land Transfer, is owned by the government, and it is only the government which can legally lease the land to anybody including petitioner, that Clara S. de Leon can claim her right by way of succession from her deceased father, Leocadio Santos; that assuming the "Kasunduan" is valid, the land would revert to Leocadio Santos or his heirs as embodied in the "Kasunduan," so that petitioner is estopped from claiming rights as beneficiary under the CARP; that when Leocadio Santos was sick, her daughter, Clara S. de Leon, was seen working on the disputed land; that the lower Board has no jurisdiction over the cause of action against her.
On February 3, 1993, the spouses Felix de Leon and Clara Santos de Leon filed a Complaint against Juan C. Valencia for Quieting of Title, Security of Tenure, Recovery of Possession and/or Maintenance of Peaceful Possession with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. They alleged, among others, that since 1934, Leocadio Santos had been cultivating the land as a tenant of Luis San Juan, the latter not denying their tenancy relationship, as in fact, Luis San Juan thru his daughter Priscilla issued a certification to this effect dated August 17, 1990; that as farmer-beneficiary of PD 27 and successor-in-interest of her father, she was issued OCT No. EP-063 (EP No. 004747) and entered in the Registry of Deeds of Guiguinto, Bulacan on November 4, 1991; that as the grantee of the land in question, Clara S. de Leon's title and ownership of the land is conclusive; that Juan C. Valencia should be ordered to surrender the land in question to Clara S. de Leon. The complaint was docketed as DARAB Case No. 461 Bulacan-92.
Juan C. Valencia, petitioner herein, filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the grounds that there is a splitting of a single case of action giving rise to multiplicity of suits; that the lower Board lacks jurisdiction over the nature and cause of action which are purely legal questions, which only courts of law can decide with finality.
On January 24, 1994, the DARAB Region III, Malolos, Bulacan, rendered a Decision in the consolidated cases in favor of respondents/complainants, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered is favor of the respondents/complainants as against complainant/respondent Juan C. Valencia:
1. Ordering the complainant/respondent Juan C. Valencia to respect Sps. Clara de Leon and Felix de Leon's peaceful possession, occupation and cultivation of the landholding as owner-cultivators; and
2. Upholding the validity of the Emancipation Patent issued in favor of Clara S. de Leon.
SO ORDERED."
On March 1, 1994, the petitioner herein filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision, anchored on the following grounds:
"1. The questioned decision is not is consonance nor in conformity with the law and the evidence, hence, contrary to law;
2. Said decision is fraught with so many inconsistencies, contradictions and non sequitur conclusions, which infringed and encroached upon purely judicial functions and prerogatives; and
3. The questioned decision, with due and utmost respect, was issued, rendered and promulgated with evident bad faith and lack of jurisdiction, or with grave and manifest abuse of judgment and discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, because the PARAD freely, voluntarily and deliberately ignored, with eyes closed, the handwriting on the wall."
On April 28, 1994, the Provincial Adjudicator, DARAB Region III, Malolos, Bulacan, issued a Resolution denying petitioner's verified motion for reconsideration.
Not satisfied with the aforementioned decision and resolution, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal.
On September 12, 1994, the petitioner filed his Memorandum of Appeal with the Department of Agrarian Reform Board (DARAB), Diliman, Quezon City, dated September 5, 1994 assigning the following errors:
"1. The Bulacan PARAD erred in finding for the respondent/appellee and in not deciding the case in favor of petitioner-appellant;
2. Said PARAD also erred in rendering a decision that is illegal, contrary to law as a result of a gross, cross-eyed misappreciation of the facts, thereby violating the very law for which the DAR has been created to enforce and implement; and
3. The PARAD further erred in not disqualifying respondent/appellee as a farmer beneficiary."
The respondents also filed their Memorandum claiming that: (1) Juan C. Valencia cannot validly enforce the "Kasunduan" for another period of five (5) years after its expiration because the land is already covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT); and (2) OCT No. EP 063-C issued on August 8, 1988 was not tainted with fraud or irregularity as to warrant its cancellation.
On January 26, 2000, the DARAB, Diliman, Quezon City rendered a Decision affirming the assailed decision of DARAB, Region III, Malolos, Bulacan, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of merit and the questioned decision affirmed in toto.
Further ordering the appellant Juan C. Valencia to vacate immediately the land in question and turn the possession thereof to appellees Clara S. de, Leon and Felix de Leon."
Aggrieved by the Decision promulgated on January 26, 2000 issued by the adjudication board, hence the filing of this petition for review assigning the following errors supposedly committed by the Honorable Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), to wit:
"I
THE HONORABLE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) COMMITTED GRAVE ERRORS OF FACT OR OF LAW AND GROSSLY MISAPPRECIATED THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER IS NOT A BONAFIDE TENANT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT LEOCADIO SANTOS, THE FATHER OF RESPONDENT CLARA SANTOS-DE LEON, HAD SURRENDERED HIS CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER AND ABANDONED THE PREMISES IN QUESTION, AND THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE "KASUNDUAN NG BUWISAN SA PALAISDAAN" EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER, LUIS SAN JUAN, AND PETITIONER JUAN C. VALENCIA, THE LATTER WAS GIVEN THE OPTION TO RENEW HIS LEASE OVER THE PREMISES IN QUESTION FOR ANOTHER FIVE (5) YEARS.
II
THE HONORABLE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) COMMITTED GRAVE ERRORS OF FACT OR OF LAW IN NOT UPHOLDING AS VALID THE AFOREMENTIONED "KASUNDUAN" EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER, LUIS SAN JUAN, IN FAVOR OF JUAN C. VALENCIA, PETITIONER HEREIN.
III
THE HONORABLE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) COMMITTED GRAVE ERRORS OF FACT OR OF LAW IN NOT DECLARING IN VALID THE EMANCIPATION PATENT AND CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT CLARA SANTOS-DE LEON, THE SAME HAVING BEEN PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, AND OTHER IRREGULARITIES ATTENDANT TO ITS ISSUANCE.
IV
THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE HONORABLE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE." (p. 20, Rollo)
This petition is without merit.
Petitioner respectively submits that contrary to the conclusions of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), he is a bonafide and de jure tenant of the landholding in question. This is so because of the undisputed and stubborn fact that Leocadio Santos from whom Clara S. de Leon had derived her alleged tenancy rights over the landholding — had executed an affidavit surrendering his Certification of Land Transfer (CLT) and abandoned the premises in question and because of that, Leocadio Santos and/or his daughter as his heir are disqualified from becoming farmer beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (Sec. 22, RA 6657) and the land was reverted to its former owner Luis San Juan who has executed in his favor the "Kasunduan ng Buwisan sa Palaisdaan" wherein he became a lessee of the premises in question for five (5) years from March 16, 1987 to March 16, 1992 at the agreed rental of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos per year or a total of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos which he has paid in advance to Luis San Juan with a 5-year option effective April 1, 1992 up to April 1, 1997 at the rate of Twelve Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos per year or Sixty Thousand (P60,000.00) Pesos for the next 5 years. In fact, in anticipation of the implied termination upon the expiration of the original 5-year period, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent Priscilla San Juan Ventura manifesting his interest in continuing with the next 5-year option, enclosing a P12, 000.00 check representing rental for the first year, but Priscilla Ventura refused to renew the "Kasunduan" and to accept the downpayment of P12,000.00, on the flimsy grounds that the property had been subjected to the Land Reform Program of the government and had been awarded to Clara Santos de Leon. Petitioner then informed Priscilla Ventura that said Clara de Leon was never an actual tenant, tiller possessor, agricultural lessee but despite this fact, Clara S. de Leon was able to obtain her EP 004747 dated August. 8, 1988 at the time when he was the actual agricultural lessee of the property.
Petitioner further contends that the execution of the joint affidavit between Leocadio Santos and his daughter Clara Santos de Leon on June 13, 1988 has not transferred any right over the landholding because Leocadio Santos has no right to transfer having already abandoned the landholding nor was the execution of the Affidavit of Loss of the Certificate of Land Transfer on July 15, 1991 has helped Clara S. de Leon because the same has never come into her possession simply because her father has surrendered it more than seven (7) years earlier and abandoned the premises.
However, these contentions of the herein petitioner are erroneous considering that if in case Leocadio Santos really had executed a document designated as Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he signified his intention to surrender his Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) and in fact abandoned the premises in question, this document is null and void for having violated or having been executed against the policy of PD No.27.
Thus, in the case of Torres vs. Ventura, 187 SCRA 104, the Supreme Court ruled:
"The law is clear and leaves no room for doubt. Upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21, 1972, petitioner was DEEMED OWNER of the land in question. As of that date, he was declared emancipated from the bondage of the soil. As such, he gained the rights to possess, cultivate, and enjoy the landholding for himself. Those rights over that particular property were granted by the government to him and to no other. To insure his continued possession and enjoyment of the property, he could not, under the law, make any valid form of transfer except to the government or by hereditary succession, to his successors."
In fact, relative to this prohibition under PD 27, the Ministry of Agrarian Reform issued Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 1979, April 23, 1979, which states:
"Despite the above prohibition, however, there are reports that many farmer-beneficiaries of PD 27 have transferred the ownership, rights, and/or possession of their farms/homelots to other persons or have surrendered the same to their former landowners. All these transactions/surrenders are violative of PD 27 and therefore, null and void."
Aside from that, the land in question which was already covered by a Certificate of Land Transfer No. 075313 of Leocadio Santos cannot be a subject anymore of a contract of lease of kasunduan as ruled by the Supreme Court in the same case of Torres vs. Ventura (supra), citing the case of Gloria de Oliver vs. Sisenando Cruz, et al., CA-G.R. No. SP 11691-CAR, June 22, 1981, which states:
"The rights and interests covered by the Certificate of Land Transfer are beyond the commerce of man. They are not negotiable except when it is used by the beneficiary as a collateral for a loan with the rural bank for an agricultural production."
Furthermore, as ruled by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in its Decision promulgated on January 26, 2000 particularly found on page 11 beginning the second paragraph until page 12, second paragraph, which states:
"At any rate, we find that appellant Valencia is not a bona-fide tenant of the land in question as the term is defined by RA 3844 as amended. Thus, the essential elements of a tenancy relationship are: 1) The parties are the tenant and the landowner; 2) The subject is agricultural land; 3) There is consent; 4) The purpose is agricultural production; 5) There is personal cultivation; and 6) There is sharing of harvests. All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereon, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. This is because unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing laws (Caballes vs. DAR, 168 SCRA 247, 5 December 1988).
Viewed within the context of the ruling, the records are bereft of any evidence of sharing. On the contrary, the appellees (de Leon) correctly argued that the Kasundua is not an agricultural leasehold contract, but a civil law lease. We therefore agree with the appellees that there is no sharing of harvests (an essential element of tenancy) and the landowner has no responsibility whatsoever for the problems of production. Instead, there is a fixed consideration regardless of the volume of harvests. In the second paragraph of the agreement, it is provided that the sum of P50,000.00 should first be paid before appellant will take over the land, which he admitted having paid in advance (par. 5, Petition DCN No. 376). this fact is corroborated by his own relatives and witnesses thru their Pinag-samang Sinumpaang Salaysay found on p. 451, rollo. Paragraph 2 (b) even stipulates for a possible increase in consideration for the next five (5) years. It even provide that at the expiration of the 5 years contract in 1992, Leocadio Santos, his heirs shall be reinstated to the land in question.
For the foregoing provisions of the agreement, the Supreme Court similarly ruled that the written agreement is in the nature of a civil law lessee, not of agricultural tenancy (Magno-Adamos vs. Bagasao, GR No. 63671, promulgated on 28 June 1988). Clearly then, appellant's possession of the property is not one of an agricultural tenant, but in the concept of a civil law contract (Kasunduan). thus, "between the owner-lessor and the civil law lessee, there is no question that their relationship their rights and obligations by virtue of that relationship — are governed by the Civil Code and not by Agricultural Tenancy Act (Sanchez vs. CA, 129 SCRA 717, 22 June 1984).
In sum, we find that appellant Juan C. Valencia has not established by clear and convincingly evidence his status as a de jute tenant and he is not covered by Land Reform Program of the Government under existing laws" (Caballes vs. DAR, supra). Hence, "PD 27 cannot apply to appellant Juan C. Valencia which apply on to bonafide tenant-farmers" (Gonzales vs. Alvarez, 182 SCRA 15, February 7, 1990). Stated differently, he has no legal right or cause of action against appellees de Leon, the latter being protected by EP No. A-004747 and duty entered in the Registry of Deeds as OCT No. EP-063-C. As a matter of fact, Clara S. de Leon is the registered owner under the Torrens System of the questioned landholding. Undeniably, a Torrens Title is a conclusive of ownership of the land referred to herein (Sec, 49, OCT 496); therefore a strong presumption exists that Torrens Titles were regularly issued and that they are valid (Salao v. Salao, 70 SCRA 65 [1976]).
to which this Court agrees considering that factual findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise in their fields are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court (Fortich vs. Corona, 289 SCRA 678).
Anent the second assigned error, petitioner claims that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has committed a grave error in not upholding the kasunduan executed between the original owner in his favor for the reason that there was no voluntary surrender or abandonment by Leocadio Santos nor a waiver.
This argument is again erroneous because how can the kasunduan be valid when actually there was no valid surrender or abandonment of the landholding nor could there be a valid waiver since this actuation of Leocadio Santos is prohibited by PD 27 and as such, considered as null and void.
However, even for the sake of argument that the said Kasunduan is valid, although not conceding that this is so, yet the same on the basis of the evidence on hand, is considered as civil law lease agreement which is governed by the Civil code and not by the Agricultural Tenancy Act. Hence, as such, petitioner cannot and can never be considered as tenant under PD 27.
Relative to assigned error No. 3, petitioner contends that the emancipation patent and the Certificate of Title issued to Clara Santos de Leon should have been declared by the DARAB as not valid and have no force and effect because they were issued through fraud, deceit, gross misrepresentation and irregularities in the administrative proceedings when the award of the land was being deliberated.
Again, this contention is without merit.
As already shown, the supposed voluntary surrender and the abandonment by Leocadio Santos of the landholding was considered void since this is prohibited and cannot be allowed by the law and so, when Leocadio Santos transferred his right over the landholding to his daughter, Clara Santos de Leon, the latter actually have stepped into the shoes of her father so, the title and the patent to the landholdings will be issued in her favor.
Moreover, as found by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the supposed fraud, misrepresentation and irregularities in the issuance of the emancipation patent and title in favor of Clara Santos de Leon were not substantiated by concrete evidence by herein petitioner.
Thus, as ruled by the DARAB as found on page 12, paragraph 2, last sentence of the Decision promulgated on January 26, 2000, it states:
"Accordingly, the allegation of fraud or misrepresentation in the issuance of the Torrens Title must be proved by strong, clear and convincingly evidence, not by innuendoes, implication or deductions. This is because the "purpose of Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality (Ching vs. CA, 181 SCRA 9)"
Finally, on the assigned error No. 4, the petitioner's contention that the findings of fact and conclusions of the DARAB are not supported with substantial evidence is likewise without merit considering that on the contrary, the DARAB's findings and conclusions were supported by sufficient and legal basis for the issuance of the emancipation patent and the Certificate of Title in favor of Clara Santos de Leon such as the Deed of Transfer executed by and between Priscilla San Juan Ventura for her father Luis San Juan and Clara de Leon under PD 27 and the joint affidavit of Leocadio Santos and Clara Santos de Leon whereby the former has transferred his rights to the latter over the disputed landholding covered by Certificate of Land Title No. 075353 and other evidences.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision dated January 26, 2000 rendered by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 2624 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Guerrero and * Villaramar Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Vice J. Aquino who is on leave.