Republic of the Philippines

Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND AGRARIAN REFORM
MAFAR Provincial Office – Bldg., 1, BGC Compound, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Lamitan City, 7302
Province of Basilan

MEDIATION REPORT
July 25, 2022

I. FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

The complainant Ms. Myrna S. Ubay sought legal assistance before the Legal Division against
Mr. Pelegrino Ubay. Both parties are agrarian reform beneficiaries of agricultural land under
Transfer Certificate Titles Nos. T-1759 and T-1789 located at Sitio Bulingan, Brgy. Balobo,
Lamitan City, Basilan Province. The parties are legally married with one legitimate daughter
namely, Lenie S. Ubay but they are separated de facto. They have been estranged with each other
for more than 25 years and both have different relationship outside their marriage.

Since the time they got estranged with each other, Mr. Peligrino Ubay cultivated the farmlots and
planted coconut and rubber trees. However, Mr. Ubay never gave the conjugal shares of the farm
proceeds to Mrs. Myrna Ubay hence the complaint. Ms. Myrna further alleges that a portion of
the landholding was sold to a certain Meldy Gregorio (Neneng), wife of Melchor Gregorio,
nephew of Pelegrino Ubay however they defended that the nephew was given permission to
construct a house within the lot.
S

II. MEDIATIONDDDEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEDDDDD
DD PROCEEDINGS
SsZSDDDDDDD
The case was called aaSSssZzzaSzasSSAAaAaA three times on September 15, 2021, October
21, 2021, and February 14, 2022, and with the efforts of the mediating officer, the parties were
able to come up with a settlement agreement, however the respondent Mr. Peligrino Ubay
refuses to conform to the written agreement.

III. ISSUES

1. Whether or not the conveyance of a portion of lot made and entered by Pelegrino and his
nephew is valid.
2. Whether or not Myrna Ubay is entitled to the share of the subject lot.
3. Whether or not the “common-law wife’ is entitled to the share of the subject lot.

IV. LEGAL BASES

 Republic of the Philippines
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND AGRARIAN REFORM
MAFAR Provincial Office – Bldg., 1, BGC Compound, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Lamitan City, 7302
Province of Basilan
1. Whether or not the conveyance of a portion of lot made and entered by Pelegrino and his
nephew is valid.

i. LEGAL BASES

Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
specifically under section 27, provides that:

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 the
LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That
the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the
government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land
shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay
where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.

If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred
or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other
beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself.
Failing compliance herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice
of the availability of the land in the manner specified in the immediately preceding paragraph.
In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump
sum for the amounts the latter has already paid, together with the value of improvements he has
made on the land.

ii. APPLICATION

In the instant case, Ms. Ubay says that there are witnesses who can attest that his husband,
Pelegrino, had sold a portion of their landholding without giving her notice to the wife of his
nephew, Mr. Melchor Gregorio. Allegedly Gregorio has already build a house within the lot
however they vehemently deny the allegations and that they were just given permission to
construct the house by Pelegrino out of good heart.

iii. CONCLUSION

Regardless of which, it is a fact that the landholding was registered last June 25, 2013 and
Pelegrino’s act of conveyance of a portion of lot to his nephew contradicts the ten years’
prohibition of RA 6657 to sell, transfer, or convey the lot.

2. Whether or not Myrna Ubay is entitled to the share of the subject lot.

i. LEGAL BASES
 Republic of the Philippines
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND AGRARIAN REFORM
MAFAR Provincial Office – Bldg., 1, BGC Compound, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Lamitan City, 7302
Province of Basilan

Republic Act No. 7192, otherwise known as "An Act Promoting the Integration of Women as
Full and Equal Partners of Men in Development and Nation-building and for Other Purposes”
specifically under Section 4. Land Transactions Requiring Consent of Both Spouses. —
Regardless of whether the EP/CLOA was registered in the name of both spouses or awarded to
only one of them, as long as the award was made during their marriage or cohabitation, the
consent of both spouses shall be required for the validity of the following transactions:

(a) The sale, transfer, or conveyance of lands under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657, where the
consenting spouses are the vendors or transferors;
(b) Application for land use conversion pursuant to R.A. No. 6657, as implemented by A.O.
No. 1, Series of 1999, where the consenting spouses are the applicants;

(c) Contract of mortgage where the awarded land is used as collateral to secure a loan, where
the consenting spouses are the mortgagors; and

(d) All other transactions involving waiver of rights and relinquishment of ownership or
possession over lands awarded to ARBs.

The law provides that men and women shall have equal access to the benefits of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and equal shares in the burden and
responsibility of attaining the goals thereof. The same act under Section 2 also provides that:

(a) The term "legally married spouses" refers to those who were married in accordance with
the Civil Code or the Family Code, as the case may be, while the term "common-law
spouses" refers to a man and a woman cohabiting exclusively with one another without
the benefit of marriage.

(b) Both spouses shall be equally involved in the process of identifying and screening
agrarian reform beneficiaries. If one of the spouses is absent, the decision of the present spouse
shall be binding upon both of them. A spouse shall be considered absent if he or she leaves the
conjugal home without intention of returning. A spouse who has left the conjugal home and has
not returned for a continuous period of six (6) months shall be presumed to have left without
intention to return.

(c) There shall be no discrimination on account of sex in the process of selecting

qualified beneficiaries pursuant to Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, as implemented by A.O. No. 10,
Series of 1990.

(d) In order to protect the rights of both spouses to ownership of the land, the
Emancipation Patent/Certificate of Land Ownership Award (EP/CLOA) shall be issued in the
name of both of them. For legally married spouses, the phrase "married to" shall be inserted in
between their names to indicate not merely their civil status but also conjugal ownership of the
 Republic of the Philippines
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND AGRARIAN REFORM
MAFAR Provincial Office – Bldg., 1, BGC Compound, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Lamitan City, 7302
Province of Basilan
awarded land by both spouses. If they are common-law spouses, the EP/CLOA shall be issued in
the name of both spouses, with the conjunctive "and" placed in between their names. This rule
shall also apply in case of collective CLOAs.

ii. APPLICATION

In this case, although the parties have been separated de-facto, it was not put into legal process
thus they are still binded by law as each other’s legitimate spouses. In addition, Myrna’s name
can be visibly seen in the CLOA indicating their conjugal ownership of the awarded land. It is
also stated in Section 4 of the act that the selling, transfer, and conveyance of the lot shall have
the consent from both spouses. In their case, Pelegrino has failed to acquire Myrna’s consent
with regards to conveyance of the lot to their nephew, Melchor Gregorio.

iii. CONCLUSION

Therefore, Ms. Myrna Ubay does have an entitlement over the subject landholdings as a
legitimate co-owner of the awarded land. Moreover, he also neglected Myrna’s right to
participate in the operation made within the land contrary to the provisions in R.A. 7192 which
states that regardless of whether the EP/CLOA was registered in the name of both spouses or
awarded to only one of them, as long as the award was made during their marriage or
cohabitation, the consent of both spouses shall be required for the validity of the transactions
made.

3. Whether or not the “common-law wife’ is entitled to the share of the subject lot.

i. LEGAL BASES

R.A. 7192 of the same section further provides that:

(e) The ownership ceiling for legally married spouses and for common-law spouses
shall be three (3) hectares, unless either spouse has established a vested right to receive land
separately from his or her partner, in which case, each spouse may be entitled to a maximum of
three (3) hectares.

(f) The provisions of the Family Code on the conjugal partnership of gains or
absolute community of property between legally married spouses shall suppletorily apply to land
awarded to the spouses under CARP.

(g) Land awarded to common-law spouses during their cohabitation shall be

suppletorily governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, and by the rules on co-
ownership provided in Articles 484 to 501 of the Civil Code on all matters not covered by
Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.
 Republic of the Philippines
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND AGRARIAN REFORM
MAFAR Provincial Office – Bldg., 1, BGC Compound, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Lamitan City, 7302
Province of Basilan
ii. APPLICATION

In this case, although Mr. Pelegrino Ubay already has a common-law spouse (Evangeline Delos
Reyes) outside his marriage to Myrna Ubay, the conjugal partnership of the property can be only
applied with the legitimate spouse of the beneficiary, as stated in the provisions of the law.

iii. CONCLUSION

Therefore, Ms. Evangeline Delos Reyes, Pelegrino’s common-law spouse, although is assertive
in the decisions with the transactions made with the subject landholding that should have been
the right of the legal wife, is not entitled to the share of the subject of the lot.

V. RECOMMENDATION

WHEREFORE, it is recommended that the complainant has a cause of action to file an

Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) case against the respondents, particularly on the ground on
“conflict of claims in landed estates administered by the DAR and its predecessors” per DAR
Administrative Order No. 03 series of 2017. More so, a quasi-judicial case could also be filed
before the Bangsamoro Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (BARAB) in Cotabato City.

Issued this 27th day of July 2022 in Lamitan City, Basilan Province.

Prepared by: Recommending Approval:

FARHA R. LAMLA ATTY. SERNASH L. HAMID

Legal Assistant II Chief, Legal Division

Approved by:

HANIE MUADZ A. JUNUBAN, MPA,

JD
 Republic of the Philippines
Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND AGRARIAN REFORM
MAFAR Provincial Office – Bldg., 1, BGC Compound, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Lamitan City, 7302
Province of Basilan
Provincial Director