car iiNIVIN INL)L.

Republika ng Pilipinas KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN

Department of Justice Manila

LNIL-L-25J12 - 106G

October 25, 2012

ATTY. ANTHONY N. PARUICIcGA0 Undersecretary for Legal Affairs Department of Agrarian Reform Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City

Dear Undersecretary Parufigao:

This pertains to your request for opinion on whether or not the Department of Agrarian Reform •(DAR) can proceed with the installation of holders of Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) in accordance with law on the land covered by two (2) conflicting titles issued by different government agencies.

You state that the subject landholding known as the ARCAL Estate was originally owned by a certain Conchita Matute-Cunanan covered by Tax Declaration No. 96-007-00203 with an area of 29.1823 hectares and located at Magdug, Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental; that sometime 1979, Antonio Garcia purchased the subject property and caused the development of the land into a coconut plantation operated by ARCAL Development Corporation.

You also state that pursuant to its mandate, DAR commenced proceedings for .and acquisition and distribution (LAD) of the said property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); that on September 19, 1997, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) wrote Antonio Garcia informing him that his land was covered by CARP, which was followed by a Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition personally served on Antonio Garcia.

Moreover, while LAD proceedings were underway, Antonio Garcia executed a Transfer of Rights on October in, 1998 in favor of his lawful heirs, which was the basis for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to issue free patents

430

(FPs) ha favor, of the heirs despite the fact that DENR had prior knowledge of the coverage of the property under CARP; that said FPs were duly registered with the Register of Deeds between November 17 to 29, 1998.

You further aver that the LAD proceedings resulted in the issuance of CLOA No. 0020782i dated December 28, 1998, which CLOA was likewise• registered with the Register of Deeds on December 29, 1998 as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. EPO No. 706.

You finally state that as a result of the irregularity of the issuance of two (2) kinds of titles over the same landholding, DAR has been unable to install its duly identified agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) for the reason that the FP landowners insisted on the primacy and efficacy of their titles over the registered CLOA.

You wish to know whether or not DAR can proceed with the installation of holders of CILOA in accordance with law on the land covered by two (2) conflicting titles issued by different government agencies.

The pertinent provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL) are, as follows:

"Section 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (i) that he is at least fifteen (is) years of age: and (2) that he is actually filling the land or directly managing the farm- Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder, further, That original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. x x x x" (emphasis ours).

431

IINI N../ I NI 1 I 1...,1•

. "Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:

After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the Place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18 and other pertinent provisions hereof.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.

If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of title and other muniments of title.

In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (as) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.

Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of re:ection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in case or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (MT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall

3

4 -3 2

I N1/41. s744" 204L

thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.

f)Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiztion for final determination of just compensation."

"Section 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time DAR makes an award of the land to him, which award shall be completed within one hundred eighty (18o) days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title."

The clear and explicit language of the above-stated provisions leaves no room for doubt. Note that Sections 6, 16 and 24 are couched in mandatory language. The provisions of the CARL will show the procedure by which the subject landholding should be treated. As per your allegation, the necessary notices were sent to Antonio Garcia in compliance with Section 16 above. Further, pursuant to the said provisions, the CLOA was duly registered with the Register of Deeds and annotated on the corresponding certificate of title, which title would evidence the ARBs ownership over the landholding awarded to them.

Basic is the rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning without attempted interpretation (Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 108 SCRA 728, 733). Known as the plain meaning rule, or verbal legis, this rule, which was derived from the maixim index animi sermo est- (speech is the index of intention), rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or will and preclude a different construction (see also, PNB vs. Garcia, 388 SCRA 485) 491). The rationale is because the legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used the words advisedly, and -to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute (Secretary of Justice Opinion No. 15, S. 2011, citing Opinion No. 39, S. 20.10).

4

41.4-7- 433

••••••=.• ••••••••• ••••••• %Or*

Further, it is an elementary rule of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says (San Juan de Dios Hospital Employees Associations-AFW v NLRC, 282 SCRA 316). The clear, unambiguous and unequivocal language of a statute leaves no room for construction but only application (Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, 39 SCRA 269).

As to the claim of the FP landowners on the primacy and efficacy of their FPs over the registered CLOA, we are of the view that the transfer of rights effected by Antonio Garcia despite his full knowledge as per the notices served upon him that the subject landholding is under the coverage and operation of CARP and his action of donating all his rights over the ARCAL Estate in favor of his ten (in) children and grandchildren, the latter allegedly being minors at the time of transfer, would indicate bad faith at his end. •

It has been ruled, he who is first in time is preferred in right (Martinez de Gomez vs. Hugo, 48 PIth. .ziSJ and, land covered by free patent ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property (Iluminada de Guzman v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120004, December 2z 2002).

However, a certificate of title cannot be used as a shield to perpetrate fraud, and the doctrine of indefeasibility of torrens title does not apply to free patent secured through fraud (De Leon v. Abanilla, 124 SCRA 358). Further, valid free patents and certificates of title do not divest the State of its ownership of the land nor operate to change the public character of the land to private (Director of Lands v. Gonzales, 20 SCRA 275).

In the case of Heirs of Eduardo Manlapat vs. CA, et at. (GR. No. 125585, June 8, 2005), the Court has ruled that the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply where fraud attended the issuance of the title, as was conclusively established in this case. The Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud. Registration does not vest title. It is not a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely evidence of such title over a particular property. It does not give the holder any better right than what he actually has, especially if the registration was done in bad faith. The effect is that it is as if no registration was made at all. In fact, the Court has ruled that a decree of registration cuts off or extinguishes a right acquired by a person when such right refers to

0 5

434

•••••• Lc%) NO, 20/4 a lien or encumbrance on the land — not to the right of ownership thereof — which was not annotated on the certificate of title issued thereon.

The foregoing considered, we answer your query in the affirmative.

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

LEkA M. DE LiMA Secretary

'ir‘vot...7071.11'1'ouest- 1111111111111111111111 .{5

6

415