Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Section 24 - Award To Beneficiaries Pedro Mago Vs Juana Barbin

    Uploaded by

    Ninya Saquilabon
    The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing a petition for annulment and affirming a Department of Agrarian Reform order. Specifically: 1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of two lots that were distributed to tenants but later distributed to others by the local mayor. 2) The DAR Secretary cancelled the certificates of land transfer issued to the mayor's beneficiaries and later awarded one of the lots to the petitioner. 3) The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's challenge, finding the DAR Secretary had authority to resolve the dispute, and affirmed the cancellation order. 4) The Supreme Court agreed, noting that full payment of amortization is required before a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Section 24 - Award To Beneficiaries Pedro Mago Vs Juana Barbin

    Uploaded by

    Ninya Saquilabon
    50 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing a petition for annulment and affirming a Department of Agrarian Reform order. Specifically: 1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of two lots that were distributed to tenants but later distributed to others by the local mayor. 2) The DAR Secretary cancelled the certificates of land transfer issued to the mayor's beneficiaries and later awarded one of the lots to the petitioner. 3) The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's challenge, finding the DAR Secretary had authority to resolve the dispute, and affirmed the cancellation order. 4) The Supreme Court agreed, noting that full payment of amortization is required before a

    Original Title

    AGRARIAN LAW.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing a petition for annulment and affirming a Department of Agrarian Reform order. Specifically: 1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of two lots that were distributed to tenants but later distributed to others by the local mayor. 2) The DAR Secretary cancelled the certificates of land transfer issued to the mayor's beneficiaries and later awarded one of the lots to the petitioner. 3) The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's challenge, finding the DAR Secretary had authority to resolve the dispute, and affirmed the cancellation order. 4) The Supreme Court agreed, noting that full payment of amortization is required before a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views4 pages

    Section 24 - Award To Beneficiaries Pedro Mago Vs Juana Barbin

    Uploaded by

    Ninya Saquilabon
    The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing a petition for annulment and affirming a Department of Agrarian Reform order. Specifically: 1) The case involved a dispute over ownership of two lots that were distributed to tenants but later distributed to others by the local mayor. 2) The DAR Secretary cancelled the certificates of land transfer issued to the mayor's beneficiaries and later awarded one of the lots to the petitioner. 3) The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's challenge, finding the DAR Secretary had authority to resolve the dispute, and affirmed the cancellation order. 4) The Supreme Court agreed, noting that full payment of amortization is required before a

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    AGRARIAN LAW - August 9, 2017

    Section 24 - AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES

    PEDRO MAGO VS JUANA BARBIN

    BRIEFED BY: Ninya Saquilabon

    CARPIO, J:

    Facts:

    Respondent Juana Barbin filed with PARAD of


    Camarines Norte an ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF
    EMANCIPATION OF PATENTS, disqualification of Petitioners averred that prior to the issuance, they
    tenant beneficiary, repossession and damages. already delivered their lease rentals to the respondent, the
    subject landholding ceased to be covered by any
    Respondent alleged that she is the owner in fee leasehold contract.
    simple of an irrigated Riceland located in Barangay PARAD denied the petition of the respondent on
    Guinacutan, Camarines Norte and that Petitioners Mago the ground that she owns other agricultural lands.
    were tenants of the subject holding. Respondent appealed to DARAB.
    DARAB reversed and set aside and new judgment is
    Furthermore, respondent alleged that petitioners entered
    violated the terms of their leasehold contracts when they o DARAB found that petitioners defaulted in their
    failed to pay lease rentals for more than 2 years, which is a obligation to pay their amortization for three consecutive
    ground for their dispossession of landholding. years from the execution of deeds.
    Subject landholding was placed under Operation Petitioners filed an MR, which DARAB denied for
    Land Transfer program pursuant to PD 27. lack of merit.
    Respondents title was cancelled and subject Petitioners appealed to CA, which was also denied
    landholding was transferred to the petitioners who were and affirmed DARAB decision.
    issued emancipation patents by the DAR. Hence, this petition.
    In this case, petitioners entered into an agreement
    with respondent for a direct payment scheme embodied
    in the Deeds of Transfer. However, petitioners failed to
    pay the amortizations to respondent landowner in
    accordance with their agreed direct payment scheme.
    In the first place, the Emancipation Patents and the
    Transfer Certificates of Title should not have been issued
    to petitioners without full payment of the just
    Petitioners Argument compensation.
    Emancipation Patents and Transfer Certificates of
    title issued to them which were already registered with DAR will issue the Emancipation Patents only after
    RD have already become indefeasible and can no longer the tenant-farmers have fully complied with the
    be cancelled. requirements for a grant of title under PD 27. Although
    PD 27 states that the tenant-farmers are already deemed
    Issue: owners of the land they till, it is understood that full
    Whether or not CA erred in affirming decision of CA? payment of the just compensation has to be made first
    before title is transferred to them. Thus, Section 6 of EO
    Held: 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired under PD
    No. Petition is without merit. 27 may be transferred only after the agrarian reform
    beneficiary has fully paid the amortizations.
    This Court has already ruled that the mere issuance
    of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of
    the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and
    scrutiny. Emancipation patents issued to agrarian reform
    beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations
    of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. In fact, DAR
    Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994, which was
    issued in March 1994, enumerates the grounds for
    cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents or
    Certificates of Landownership Award:
    6. Default in the obligation to pay an aggregate of
    three (3) consecutive amortizations in case of voluntary
    land transfer/direct payment scheme, except in cases of
    fortuitous events and force majeure;
    Labagnoy and Cruz filed a Petition for Relief from
    Judgment for lack of due process but was denied by
    Secretary Estrella. They also appealed to the Office of the
    President (OP) which was also denied.

    However, during the pendency of the appeal before

    Section 24 - AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES


    PADUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

    AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J:

    FACTS:
    the OP, Cruz executed an Affidavit of Waiver over his
    Private respondents Pepito Dela Cruz, et al were interest and declaring Lot No. 90 open for
    tenants of Lot Nos. 68 and 90 of the Dolores Estate in disposition.
    Anao, Tarlac. DAR Secretary Miriam Defensor Santiago issued an
    Upon the request of Anao Mayor Cruz, Respondent Order awarding Lot No. 90 to herein petitioner Roberto
    et al. agreed to donate said properties to the municipality Padua (Padua) who had been occupying said property
    on the condition that these be used as school sites. and paying the amortization thereon to the Land Bank
    The project did not materialize. Respondent asked of the Philippines (LBP).
    that the properties be returned to them. However, they Dela Cruz filed with the DAR Secretary a Letter
    found out that Mayor Cruz had distributed Lot No. 68 to Petition for Cancellation.
    Flor Labagnoy (Labagnoy) and Lot No. 90 to Edwin Cruz DAR Secretary Garilao granted the Letter-Petition.
    (Cruz) who were each issued a Certificate of Land Upon being informed by MARO Mabborang of the
    Transfer (CLT). implementation of the Garilao Order.
    Petitioner Padua filed with the CA a Petition for
    Upon Petition for Cancellation of CLT filed by Dela Annulment of a Final and Executory Order of the
    Cruz, et al., (DAR) Secretary Condrado Estrella issued an Secretary of Agrarian Reform with Prayer for Temporary
    Order cancelling the CLT issued to Labagnoy and Cruz. Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction.
    CA dismissed the Petition for Annulment for being
    the wrong mode of questioning the Garilao Order. said property remains that of a mere potential farmer-
    o It held that Rule 47 applies only to final judgments beneficiary whose eligibilities DAR may either confirm or
    and orders of Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in civil cases reject. In fact, under Section 2 (d) of Administrative Order
    and not to orders issued by the DAR Secretary. No. 06-00, DAR has authority to issue, recall, or cancel a
    The CA also affirmed the Garilao Order, holding CLT, CBC, EP, or CLOA issued to potential farmer-
    that then DAR Secretary Garilao had authority to resolve beneficiaries but not yet registered with the Register of
    the Letter-Petition as it involved an agrarian dispute. Deeds.
    Petitioner Padua filed a Motion for Reconsideration
    which the CA denied.
    Hence, this petition.

    Issue:

    (1) Whether or not CA committed reversible error in not


    holding that the Department of Agrarian Reform acted
    without jurisdiction?

    Held:

    NO. We find that the CA correctly dismissed the Petition


    for Annulment and affirmed the Garilao Order.

    The statutory mechanism for the acquisition of land


    through agrarian reform requires full payment of
    amortization before a farmer-beneficiary may be issued a
    CLOA or EP, which, in turn, can become the basis for
    issuance in his name of an original or a transfer certificate
    of title.

    As Padua himself admitted that he is still paying


    amortization on Lot No. 90 to LBP, his status in relation to

    You might also like