Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 259 views

    24 Abella V San Juan

    Uploaded by

    Juslyn Jennifer So
    1) PD 27 prohibits the transfer of lands covered under the Comprehensive Land Reform Program to anyone other than heirs or the government. 2) The agreement between Francisca San Juan and Dr. Abella to exchange lands violated this prohibition in PD 27 and was therefore void, as the land could not be transferred to a non-qualified person. 3) As the agreement was void, ownership of the land remained with Francisca San Juan's heirs, even though she had not yet fully paid for the land, since the prohibition in PD 27 extends to the rights and interests of farmers in lands covered by the decree.

    Copyright:

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

    24 Abella V San Juan

    Uploaded by

    Juslyn Jennifer So
    259 views2 pages
    1) PD 27 prohibits the transfer of lands covered under the Comprehensive Land Reform Program to anyone other than heirs or the government. 2) The agreement between Francisca San Juan and Dr. Abella to exchange lands violated this prohibition in PD 27 and was therefore void, as the land could not be transferred to a non-qualified person. 3) As the agreement was void, ownership of the land remained with Francisca San Juan's heirs, even though she had not yet fully paid for the land, since the prohibition in PD 27 extends to the rights and interests of farmers in lands covered by the decree.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    24 Abella v San Juan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) PD 27 prohibits the transfer of lands covered under the Comprehensive Land Reform Program to anyone other than heirs or the government. 2) The agreement between Francisca San Juan and Dr. Abella to exchange lands violated this prohibition in PD 27 and was therefore void, as the land could not be transferred to a non-qualified person. 3) As the agreement was void, ownership of the land remained with Francisca San Juan's heirs, even though she had not yet fully paid for the land, since the prohibition in PD 27 extends to the rights and interests of farmers in lands covered by the decree.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    259 views2 pages

    24 Abella V San Juan

    Uploaded by

    Juslyn Jennifer So
    1) PD 27 prohibits the transfer of lands covered under the Comprehensive Land Reform Program to anyone other than heirs or the government. 2) The agreement between Francisca San Juan and Dr. Abella to exchange lands violated this prohibition in PD 27 and was therefore void, as the land could not be transferred to a non-qualified person. 3) As the agreement was void, ownership of the land remained with Francisca San Juan's heirs, even though she had not yet fully paid for the land, since the prohibition in PD 27 extends to the rights and interests of farmers in lands covered by the decree.

    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 2

    LAND, TITLES & DEEDS Agreement is Void for Contravening PD 27

    PD 27  PD 27 provides for only two exceptions


    to the prohibition on transfer, namely,
    Abella v San Juan (1) transfer by hereditary succession
    G.R. No. 182629 Feb 24, 2016 and (2) transfer to the Government
     Thus, PD 27 is clear that after full
    FACTS: payment and title to the land is
    acquired, the land shall not be
     Francisca San Juan was a tenant of the transferred except to the heirs of the
    Balatas Property owned by the Abellas beneficiary or the Government.
    covered by CLT No. 843(159301)  If the amortizations for the land have
     Benigna, daughter of Francisca, sought not yet been paid, then there can be no
    permission from, and was allowed by transfer to anybody since the lot is still
    Mrs. Abella, wife of Dr. Abella, to owned by the Government.
    construct a small house on the Balatas  Sales or transfers of lands made in
    property. violation of PD 27 and EO 228 in favor
    o Thus, on different occasions, of persons other than the Government
    Benigna and her children by other legal means or to the farmer's
    constructed their residential houses successor by hereditary succession are
    on the property.  null and void. 
     Later, when Mrs. Abella requested o The prohibition even extends to
    Benigna and her children to vacate the the surrender of the land to the
    property, they refused, claiming former landowner.
    ownership.  In this regard, the DAR is duty-bound to
     This prompted Mrs. Abella to file an take appropriate measures to annul the
    action for unlawful detainer which was illegal transfers and recover the land
    granted by the MTC unlawfully conveyed to non-qualified
     Heirs of Francisca filed a complaint for persons for disposition to qualified
    quieting of title and declaration of beneficiaries.
    ownership and possession of real  In this case, the intended exchange of
    property with prayer for a TRO, properties by the parties as expressed
    preliminary injunction and damages in the Agreement and in the Deed of
    against the Abellas   Donation entailed transfer of all the
    O The Complaint prayed for a rights and interests of Francisca over
    decision declaring respondents as the Balatas propetiy to Dr. Abella.
    absolute and lawful owners of the o It is the kind of transfer
    Balatas property  contemplated by and
     The Abellas alleged that Dr. Abella and prohibited by law.
    Francisca executed the Agreement for  Thus, petitioners' argument that the
    the exchange of lots because the Balatas Agreement was merely a relocation
    property was reclassified as a high agreement, or one for the exchange or
    density commercial, residential and swapping of properties between Dr.
    urban area and hence no longer suitable Abella and Francisca, and not a transfer
    for agriculture.  Since the Balatas or conveyance under PD 27, has no
    property was exchanged with the merit.
    Cararayan property on January 28, o A relocation, exchange or swap
    1981, Francisca ceased to be its owner of a property is a transfer of
    long before she died on November 19, property
    1996. Thus, respondent heirs could not
    have inherited the Balatas property The Prohibition under PD 27 applies even
     Respondent Heirs countered that the if the farmer-beneficiary has not yet
    reclassification by the City Government acquired full title
    of Naga did not convert the use of the
    land from agricultural to residential or  Title refers not only to that issued upon
    commercial. The authority to convert compliance by the tenant-farmer of the
    the land use of a property is vested by said conditions but also includes those
    law in the DAR. They further argued rights and interests that the tenant-
    that the Agreement is null and void as it farmer immediately acquired upon the
    contravened the prohibition on transfer promulgation of the law.
    under PD 27. Thus, the approval by the o To rule otherwise would make
    DAR was of no moment. a tenant-farmer falling in the
    category of those who have not
    RELEVANT RULING: yet been issued a formal title to
    the land they till-easy prey to
    those who would like to tempt
    them with cash in exchange for
    inchoate title over the same.
     Following this, absolute title over lands
    covered by Presidential Decree No. 27
    would end up in the name of persons
    who were not the actual tillers when
    the law was promulgated
     The prohibition extends to the rights
    and interests of the farmer in the land
    even while he is still paying the
    amortizations on it
     PD 27 provides that "in case of default,
    the amortization due shall be paid by
    the farmers' cooperative in which the
    defaulting tenant-farmer is a member,
    with the cooperative having a right of
    recourse against him
     Thus, since the Agreement is void, the
    respondents, as heirs of Francisca, have
    the right to the Balatas property.

    You might also like