VICTORIA P. CABRAL, Petitioner, v.

 HEIRS OF FLORENCIO ADOLFO AND HEIRS OF

G.R. No. 191615, August 02, 2017

Facts:

Petitioner claims that she is the registered owner of several parcels of land situated, at Barangay Purok,
Meycauayan, Bulacan, originally covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-1670,
subsequently renumbered as OCT No. 0-220 (M).

On October 21, 1972, the Ministry of Agrarian Reform subjected the said land under the coverage of the
Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program of the government under P.D. No. 27.

In July 1973, petitioner sought to convert her landholdings to non-agricultural purposes. In his 2nd
Endorsement Letter to the DAR Secretary dated October 1, 1973, DAR District Officer Fernando Ortega,
stated that the subject property was not included in the OLT program under, nor has any portion thereof
been transferred to a tenant. Thus, District Officer Ortega recommended the conversion of the same into
residential, commercial, industrial, or other purposes.

On April 25, 1988, Emancipation Patents (EPs) were issued to Gregoria Adolfo, Gregorio Lazaro,
Florencio Adolfo, and Elias Policarpio pursuant to the OLT program covering the subject property.
Corresponding Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCTs) were then issued to respondents Florencio Adolfo
and Elias Policarpio upon registration of their respective EPs with the Register of Deeds.

On January 16, 1990, petitioner filed a petition before the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC)
for the cancellation of the EPs issued. On January 19, 1990, petitioner filed another petition for
cancellation of the said EPs and TCTs before the DAR. The said petition was, however, forwarded to the
DAR Regional Director, who dismissed the case. In a case decided by this Court in 2001 entitled Victoria
P. Cabral v. CA, however, this Court held that the Regional Director had no jurisdiction over the case as it
is the PARAD who has jurisdiction over cases involving cancellation of EPs.

In 1994, petitioner filed an OLT Letter Protest before the DAR Regional Director, questioning the
coverage of her landholdings. The DAR Regional Director denied the said OLT protest, finding that
despite the reclassification of the subject parcels of land, the same will not be a bar in placing the said
lands under the OLT program, considering that petitioner's landholdings exceeded 24 hectares.

On appeal, the then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao, in his Order dated July 12, 1996, affirmed the
DAR Regional Director's Order, declaring that the subject landholdings are covered by the OLT program
as it was only after the landholdings were placed under the OLT program on October 21, 1972 when it
was classified as within the residential zone.

On August 16, 2003, petitioner filed a Petition for Cancellation of Emancipation Patents and Torrens Title
before the Office of the PARAD. Petitioner contended that the issuance of the said EPs and TCTs were
violative of applicable agrarian laws considering that the subject property was already classified as
residential. Petitioner also averred that the said EPs were issued without due process and without payment
of just compensation.
On June 18, 2004, the PARAD rendered a Decision in favor of the petitioner.

Respondents appealed the said decision to the DARAB. In its July 29, 2008 Decision, the DARAB
affirmed PARAD's Decision.

Undaunted, respondents elevated the case to the CA for review.

In its assailed Decision, the CA reversed and set aside the DARAB Decision. The CA found that the
subject land was never converted into a residential land and, therefore, not exempt from the coverage of
the government's OLT program.

G.R. No. 198160

The issue on the coverage of Lot 4 under the OLT program pursuant already been settled by this Court in
its Decision dated August 31, 2016 in the case of Victoria P. Cabral v. Gregoria Adolfo, Gregorio Lazaro,
and Heirs of Elias Policarpio.

The said case involves the same issues, same assailed decisions of the PARAD and DARAB, same
subject property, and same parties.

Essentially, this Court upheld the findings of the PARAD and DARAB, recognizing the zoning
reclassification made on the subject property as evidenced by the Certifications dated February 24, 1983
and August 28, 1989 issued by the zoning administrator. We also considered therein the 2nd Endorsement
Letter of then DAR District Officer Ortega, declaring that petitioner's landholdings were not covered by
the OLT program. The Court also found that no CLTs were issued in favor of the respondents therein,
which bolstered the fact that the subject property was not covered by P.D. No. 27.

Hence, as it was established that Lot 4 was not covered by the OLT program, this Court declared that the
EPs covering the subject lands therein were erroneously issued to the respondents.

Issue

Did the CA err in reversing the PARAD and DARAB's order of cancelling the subject EPs/TCTs? (iisa
lang issue na sinabi sa case pero ang daming diniscuss ng SC)

The subect property (Lot 4) is not covered by the OLT program under P.D. No. 27.

The resolution of the instant controversy is primarily anchored upon the determination of whether the
subject lands are covered by the OLT program under P.D. No. 27.

(1) As the Court has determined in G.R. No. 198160, Lot 4 had already been reclassified to non-
agricultural uses and was, therefore, already outside the coverage of the OLT program.

As this Court has often stressed, factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field
of expertise, such as the PARAD and the DARAB, are afforded great weight, nay, finality by the courts,
and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of
the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure,
should not be disturbed. Contrary to the CA's conclusion, the Court finds find no cogent reason to disturb
the said quasi-judicial agency's findings.

(2) The records are bereft of proof that the subject lands are tenanted and devoted primarily to rice or corn
production.

It bears stressing that P.D. No. 27 covers only tenanted rice or corn lands. The requisites for coverage
under the OLT program are the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or com crops; and (2) there
must be a system of share-crop or lease tenancy obtaining therein.

Neither of these requisites is present in this case.

(a) The subject property is not covered by the OLT because of its residential nature.

Again, as found by both the PARAD and the DARAB as early as October 1, 1973, the DAR, through
District Officer Ortega, already declared that the subject landholding is suited for residential, commercial,
industrial, or other urban purposes considering its potential for national development.

(b) As to whether a tenancy relationship exists, petitioner insists that respondents are not her tenants. On
the other hand, the respondents necessarily claim that there is a system of share-crop between them and
the petitioner.

This Court has, time and again, held that occupancy and cultivation of an agricultural land will not ipso
facto make one a de jure tenant. Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove personal
cultivation, sharing of harvest, or consent of the landowner. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed; the
elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done away by conjectures. Thus, as petitioner
denies such tenancy relationship and it is respondents who assert the same, the latter has the burden to
prove their affirmative allegation of tenancy. Again, the respondents failed to discharge such burden as
there is nothing on record that will provide this Court factual basis to determine that indeed a crop-sharing
agreement exists between the parties.

(c) Farmer-beneficiaries cannot be deemed full owners when there is no compliance with the procedure
for the issuance of an EP under P.D. No. 27 and related rules.

Thus, neither do the Court subscribe to Sec. Garilao's reasoning and respondents' argument that since the
reclassication of the property was made after the effectivity of P.D. No. 27, tenant-farmers enjoy a vested
right and should be deemed as "full owners" of the property.

Indeed, under P.D. No. 27, tenant-farmers of rice and corn lands were deemed owners of the land they till
as of October 21, 1972 or the effectivity of the said law. This policy was intended to emancipate the
tenant-farmers from the bondage of the soil. However, the provision declaring tenant farmers as owners
as of October 21, 1972 should not be construed as automatically vesting upon them absolute
ownership over the land they are tilling. Certain requirements must also be complied with before full
ownership is vested upon the tenant-farmers.
Foremost, there was no CLT issued prior to the issuance of the subject EPs.

In recognition of the said inchoate (partial, imperfect) right, a CLT is issued to a tenant farmer to serve as
a provisional title of ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of just
compensation or for as long as the tenant-farmer is an amortizing owner. The CLT proves inchoate
ownership of an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice or corn production.

(e) Likewise, there is no showing that petitioner was notified of the placement of her landholdings under
the OLT program and, more importantly, there was no proof that petitioner was paid just compensation
therefor.

Land acquisition partakes of the nature of expropriation. In fact, jurisprudence states that it is an
extraordinary method of expropriating private property. As such, the law on the matter must be strictly
construed. In expropriation proceedings, as in judicial proceedings, notice is part of the constitutional
right to due process of law. It informs the landowner of the State's intention to acquire private land upon
payment of just compensation and gives him the opportunity to present evidence that his landholding is
not covered or is otherwise excused from the agrarian law.

In this case, the respondents and the DAR failed to adduce evidence to prove actual notice to the
petitioner and payment of just compensation for the taking of the latter's property. In G.R. No.
198160, there is nothing on record that will show that the landholding was brought under the OLT
program, CLTs were issued prior to the issuance of the subject EPs, respondents are full-fledged members
of a duly recognized farmer's cooperative, they finished payment of amortizations, and that petitioner, as
the landowner, was notified and paid just compensation for the taking of her lands before the issuance of
the subject EPs.

The issue on the validity of EPs is not barred by prescription.

Respondents argue that the EPs and subsequent TCTs issued to them, registered with the Register of
Deeds, have already become indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance
thereof and can no longer be cancelled. Respondents point out that their EPs were issued in 1988 and the
instant case was filed only in 2003 or 15 years after such issuance.

This Court has already ruled that the mere issuance of EPs and TCTs does not put the ownership of the
agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. EPs issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may
be corrected and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules, and regulations.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petitiOn is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed
Court of Appeals Decision dated November 23, 2009 and Resolution dated March 15, 2010 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 108518 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.