In RE Petition for Disqualification

8/12/2019 In RE Petition for Disqualification

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/in-re-petition-for-disqualification 1/11

IN RE: PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF FARMER BENEFICIARY PAULINO MAYARI OVER THE

PROPERTY COVERED BY TCT NO. T-7738/CLOA NO. 24227, (LANDED ESTATE) WITH AN AREA OF 54,806

SQUARE METERS LOCATED AT BARANGAY LUMANIAG, LIAN, BATANGAS

LEONARDO MAYARI, petitioner-appellee, vs. PAULINO MAYARI, respondent-appellant.

ORDER

For resolution before this Office is an Appeal dated August 8, 2008 filed by respondent-appellant Paulino

Mayari assailing the Order dated June 30, 2008 issued by the Regional Director of the Department of

Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Office IV-Calabarzon, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, ORDER is hereby issued:

1. DISQUALIFYING the respondent, PAULINO MAYARI as farmer beneficiary on the two (2) hectares

tillage covered by his title TCT NO. T-7738/CLOA No. 24227 (Landed Estate) possessed and tilled by the

petitioner;

2. QUALIFYING the petitioner, LEONARDO MAYARI as the farmer beneficiary on the two (2) hectare

portion of landholding covered by the title of the respondent;

3. DIRECTING the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) and the Municipal Agrarian Reform

Officer (MARO to undertake the necessary steps for the cancellation of CLOA and consequently



generation of a new one in favor of herein petitioner but only with respect to two (2) hectares being

cultivated by him.

SO ORDERED."

The facts and antecedents of the case are, as follows:

The subject of this case is a landed estate covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-

7738/Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 24227 issued in favor of respondent-appellant

Paulino Mayari. It has an aggregate area of approximately 54,805 square meters situated in Barangay

Lumaniag, Lian, Batangas.

In his Petition dated July 5, 2007 (Rollo, pp. 9-20), petitioner-appellee Leonardo Mayari alleged that he

has been tilling with his father, herein respondent-appellant, the subject landholding since the 1970's.

However, due to old age, the cultivation of the two (2) hectare portion of the subject land and the

remaining portions thereof was left to him and his other immediate family or farm household members,

respectively. In 1997, due to respondent-appellant's incapacity to till the land, he decided to sell the

same. Such attempt, however, failed due to the objection of petitioner-appellee on the ground that he

will lose his only source of livelihood. Such objection prompted respondent-appellant to file an

ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Lian, Batangas; the latter, however, in its

Order dated April 21, 1998, dismissed the case based on the parties' mutual agreement to withdraw

their respective complaint and counter complaint due to their relationship. Surprisingly, Civil Case No.

190 for ejectment was again re-filed against petitioner-appellee (a.k.a. Rolando Mayari), which resulted

in a decision dated March 12, 2004, where the judge ordered the ejectment of petitioner-appellee,

among others, over the subject landholding. This case was then appealed to the Regional Trial Court

(RTC) which upheld the MTC decision, and all the way up to the Court of Appeals (CA) which summarily

dismissed the same. In order to protect his right over the subject landholding, petitioner-appellee also

filed a case against respondent-appellant, this time with the Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Nasugbu, Batangas, for "Maintenance of Peaceful Possession". The said

Office dismissed the case in its Decision dated June 18, 2007 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due tothe absence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. Not satisfied, petitioner-appellee filed the

instant case for respondent-appellant's disqualification as an Agrarian Reform Beneficiary (ARB) on the

ground that he mortgaged the subject land, which is prohibited within ten (10) years from the issuance

of CLOA, and that said respondent-appellant is already incapacitated to till the land with a prayer that

respondent-appellant be disqualified as a CLOA holder.



On December 3, 2007, the Legal Assistance Division of the DAR Provincial Office (DARPO) in Batangas

issued a Memorandum, recommending the disqualification of respondent-appellant as farmer-

beneficiary over the subject landholding.

On June 30, 2008, the Regional Director of DAR Regional Office IV-Calabarzon issued the assailed Order.

Hence, this Appeal.

Respondent-appellant, in his Appeal Memorandum dated October 23, 2008, alleged that he was not

properly summoned nor notified that a petition for his disqualification was filed against him. In fact, he

was surprised to have received the assailed Order. Further, he asserted that as farmer-beneficiary over

the subject landholding, he never violated any conditions set forth in his CLOA. If ever he cannot

personally till the land due to old age, under the law, he can, however, seek the help of his immediate

farm household members, including petitioner-appellee, to cultivate the land under his direct

supervision and control. If ever petitioner-appellee was allowed to till the two (2) hectare portion of the

subject land, this was merely by his tolerance and due to their relationship as father and son.

He also manifested that the first ejectment case which he filed before the MTC of Lian, Batangas, was

withdrawn by him out of compassion. Nevertheless, the second ejectment civil case filed with the same

court has already been ruled with finality, where petitioner-appellee was ordered to vacate the subject

premises. In fact, the case for "Maintenance of Peaceful Possession" which petitioner-appellee filed

against respondent-appellant was also dismissed for lack jurisdiction.

Petitioner-appellee, in his Opposition dated July 28, 2009, argued that the Decision issued by the MTC of

Nasugbu, Batangas is not binding upon him as he was not involved in the said case. He further argued

that even assuming that he was involved, the regular court is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of

agrarian cases.

The issue to be resolved in this case is where or not respondent-appellant is disqualified to be an

agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) due to the mortgage he executed over the subject land, as well as his

incapacity to personally till the same.

The appeal is meritorious.



Under DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 03, Series of 1990, (Revised Rules and Procedures Governing

Distribution and/or Titling of Lots in Landed Estates Administered by DAR), provides the qualifications of

a beneficiary:

(a) Landless;

(b) Filipino Citizens;

(c) Actual occupant/tiller who is at least 15 years of age or head of the family at the time of the filing

of application; and

(d) Has the willingness, ability and aptitude to cultivate and make the land productive.

The aforecited M.C. also provides the grounds for the cancellation of the award, to wit:

(a) Absence of the awardee from the landed estate for more than six (6) months without doing anyeffort to make the land productive.

(b) Willful transfer of rights and is no longer occupying the lot.

(c) Voluntary renunciation or waiver of rights in writing.

(d) Failure to cultivate the lot for a period of six (6) consecutive months from the date subject lot was

awarded.

(e) Death of awardee if he has no qualified heir.



Based on the aforecited law, this Office finds respondent-appellant to possess all the aforesaid

qualifications of a beneficiary, and did not commit any of the grounds for cancellation provided for by

the said A.O.

Moreover, petitioner-appellee failed to adduce substantial evidence to establish respondent-appellant's

disqualification as ARB over the subject land.

The allegation of abandonment to constitute respondent-appellant's disqualification as ARB is lacking in

this case. Petitioner-appellee points out that respondent-appellant had abandoned the subject

landholding due to his incapacity to till the same. It was, however, held in the case of Teodoro vs.

Macaraeg, 27 SCRA 7, that the word "abandon" in its ordinary sense, means to forsake entirely, to

forsake or renounce utterly. There must be no intention to return. It is pertinent to note that after

having received the assailed Order against him, respondent-appellant lost no time in filing his Notice of

Appeal and Memorandum; such acts militate against petitioner-appellee's claim of abandonment.

The alleged incapacity of respondent-appellant to cultivate the subject landholding will not suffice to

disqualify him. While respondent-appellant, due to old age, was not personally cultivating the land, he

had designated, under his control and supervision, the members of his family, herein petitioner-

appellee, and farm household to cultivate the Iand. Such absence of personal cultivation will not suffice

to prove respondent-appellant's disqualification over the subject land. Verily, a farmer-beneficiary isallowed to cultivate the land by himself or by the immediate members of the family or immediate farm

household (De Guzman vs. Santos, 6 SCRA 796). The only basis made by the petitioner-appellee and the

Regional Director in the assailed Order was the Memorandum (Rollo, pp. 13-17) issued by Legal Officer

Luz D. Landicho, as noted by the OIC-Chief, Legal Division of DAR Batangas, based on the alleged Ocular

Inspection that was conducted by some DARPO and DARMO officials on August 30, 2007, to wit:

"xxx xxx xxx

During the ocular inspection conducted, it was validated that farmer-beneficiary, Paulino is not

personally cultivating the land. He is no longer in possession hereof. He voluntarily surrendered

possession hereof to the petitioner without valid cause." . . . (emphasis supplied)



If such incapacity due to old age will be made as the basis of all farmer-beneficiaries' disqualification to

be a beneficiary, then it can be said that all FBs that are already of age and incapacitated to till the land

shall be subjected to disqualification. It is worthy to note that incapacity due to old age is not among the

grounds for disqualification provided for under M.C. No. 03, Series of 2003.

Finally, with respect to the alleged mortgage made by respondent-appellant over the subject

landholding, this Office notes that petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to show that there

was in fact a mortgage that was made. As defined, substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial

Relation, 69 Phil. 635). Nothing in the records of the case would show that respondent-appellant had

mortgaged the subject land to any person so as to disqualify him as an ARB. "The intention of the FB, in

the absence of a positive act cannot, and should not be presumed, much less determined by implication

alone." (Ludo and Luym Development Corporation vs. Banito, 471 SCRA 391).

In sum, finding respondent-appellant not guilty of any of the violations enumerated under DAR AO No.

03, Series of 1990, he should, therefore, be maintained in the peaceful possession of the subject

landholding.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Order is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and a NEW ORDER is

hereby issued MAINTAINING respondent-appellant, Paulino Mayari, as the rightful beneficiary of the

subject landholding.

SO ORDERED.

Diliman, Quezon City, June 13, 2011.



Pertinent to your query are the following provisions of law, rules and regulations:

A. Section 27, R.A. No. 6657

"SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. —

Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold,

transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession,or to the government , or to the LBP, or to other qualified

beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years." (emphasis supplied)

B. Item II.1.d of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 (Rules andProcedures Governing Land Transactions):

"1. The following transactions are valid:

xxx xxx xxx

d. Those executed by beneficiaries covering lands acquired under

any agrarian reform law in favor of the government , DAR, LBP or

other qualified beneficiaries certified by DAR." (emphasis

supplied)

C. DAR Administrative Order No. 08, series of 1995 (Rules and ProceduresGoverning the Transferability of Lands Awarded to agrarian Reform Beneficiaries(ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 as Amended by Executive OrderNo. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657], specifically, Item II.1, 2 and 3 thereof:

"1. Lands awarded to ARBs pursuant to either P.D. No. 27or R.A. No. 6657 may be transferred and registered by

the Register of Deedsonly after the issuance of a DAR

clearance.

2. It shall be understood that although the transfer of

awarded land is allowed, the productivity of the subject

land be maintained and anychange in the nature of its

use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the

DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.

xxx xxx xxx

3. Transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27, asamended by E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 may be

allowed, provided the following shall be observed:

a. that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;

b. that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner

ceiling provided by law; and

http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/7014













c. that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall

be imposed." (emphasis supplied)

D. Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals [222 SCRA 173 (1993)]

"Resolution No. 129, series of 1988, was promulgated

pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, Local Government Code,. . . Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that

local government units must first secure the approval of the

Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from

agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the

necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no

provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which

expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by

local government units to the control of the Department of

Agrarian Reform.

At the outset, it bears noting that the issuance of a DAR clearance involving thedisposition or transfer of agricultural lands coverable under the ComprehensiveAgrarian Reform Program (CARP) merely signifies that the transaction is not incircumvention of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and maytherefore be registered. It is not synonymous with a DAR ConversionOrder/Clearance which is issued only after determination on the merits of a dulyfiled application for conversion the effect of which is to change the currentphysical use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use.

Pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 in relationto Item II.1.d ofDAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989, it is clear that the

government (which includes LGUs) falls under the exceptions and should not beinterpreted in the light of those falling under the 10-year prohibitory period.However, under the aforequoted provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 08,Series of 1995, the transfer contemplated is that which will maintain the use ofthe land for agricultural production or purposes where the buyer should notexceed the aggregate landownership ceiling of five (5) hectares. This is topreclude possible violation and/or circumvention of agrarian laws, rules andregulations.

Thus, since the transfer of awarded lands to the government may be allowed

provided the productivity of the land be maintained, and, considering that thetransfer of said lands appears to be through a private transaction and not throughexpropriation, DAR land transfer clearance may be issued but only up to themaximum/aggregate 5-hectare landownership ceiling pursuant to Sections 6 and73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 and the abovequoted provisions of DAR AdministrativeOrder No. 08, Series of 1995.






























The ruling in Camarines Sur may not be applicable in the instant case since itappears that the subject land was not expropriated by the LGU but was acquiredthrough a private transaction. Only agricultural lands expropriated by localgovernment units (LGUs) pursuant to the power of eminent domain may nolonger be the subject of DAR conversion clearance prior to change in use. Thus,

an application for conversion and DAR conversion clearance shall still berequired if said agricultural lands shall be converted into residential or housing.

On the other hand, should the subject lands be expropriated by the LGU ratherthan privately acquired, DAR conversion clearance may no longer be requiredpursuant to the said ruling inCamarines Sur .

Finally, it must be stressed that the rights and interests of CLOA or EP awardeesand other farmworkers who may be displaced/affected in the process, if any,should in all cases be protected/safeguarded pursuant to existing laws, rules andregulations. Moreover, they should still be entitled as ARBs/awardees in other

landholdings, if qualified.

Sometime in March 1999, appellants Andres Tagsip and TimoteoMiano filed an Emancipation Patent Transfer Action over the landholdingsparticularly designated as Lot No. 2-28 BSD-07-07-009237 (OLT) coveredunder Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2972, Emancipation Patent No. A-012207, registered in the name of Andres Tagsip, situated at Cabog, Clarin,

Bohol containing an area of .0634 hectares and Lot No. 2-29 BSD-07-07-009237 (OLT) covered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3757Emancipation Patent No. A-012163, registered in the name of Timoteo Miano,situated at Barangay Cabog, Clarin, Bohol, containing an area of .0734hectares.

The Investigation Report dated 22 February 2000 submitted byMunicipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Ma. Belen A. Fernis contained thefollowing facts, to wit:

1. The subject lands are the awarded homelots to farmer-beneficiaries Andres Tagsip and Timoteo Miano where their

former houses were erected;

2. That Emancipation Patents were issued on 15 December1986;

3. The farmer beneficiaries have fully paid their obligationson amortization through Land Bank of the Philippines;










4. The subject lands are not irrigable lands and not coveredby irrigation project with firm funding commitment;

5. The subject lands are not encumbered to any person norto any entity after full payment of the amortization; and

6. The subject lands are now being prepared as a site ofIglesia ni Cristo's Church establishment.

With the abovementioned findings, MARO Ma. Belen A. Fernisrecommended the approval of the Emancipation Patent Transfer Action.Likewise, OIC Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer II Johnson A. Sinco in his1st Indorsement dated 27 February 2002 adopted the said recommendation.

On 19 July 2002, DAR Region VII Director Rodolfo T. Inson issued anOrder denying the instant Emancipation Patent Transfer Action, withoutprejudice of herein petitioner to file for exemption or conversion involving the

subject landholding.

A Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 August 2002 was filed by hereinappellants, but the same was denied in the Regional Director's Order dated02 October 2002.

Hence, this Appeal.

This Office finds the appeal meritorious.

The Certification dated 01 April 1998 issued by MARO Ma. BelenFernis and verified by Para-Legal Officer Bienvenido Leones disclosed thatsubject landholdings issued in the name of appellants Andres Tagsip and

Timoteo Miano are found to be homelots. Administrative Order No. 1, Series of1992 defines "homelot" as a parcel of land, which is intended for farmresidence, hence, not necessary to be maintained for its agriculturalproductivity.

More so, Administrative Order No. 08 Series of 1995, provides:

"Presidential Decree No. 27 provides that title to lands acquired

pursuant thereto or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall

not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the

Government. However, Section 6 of Executive Order No. 228 provides

that ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries may betransferred after full payment of amortization. (emphasis supplied)

Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657, on the other hand, provides that

lands acquired by the beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold,

transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession or to the

government, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), or other qualified

beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years."



From the foregoing, it is clear that the Deed of Absolute Sale coveringthe two (2) parcels of registered homelots, executed on 11 August 1988 byappellants Andres Tagsip and Timoteo Miano is valid. The sale was made on11 August 1998 or twelve (12) years after said homelots were awarded toherein farmer-beneficiaries (December 15, 1986) and after they had fully paid

their amortization through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTEDfor being impressed with merit.

Documents

In RE Petition for Disqualification