Siacor v. Gigantana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Fernando Siacor was a farmer-beneficiary under P.D. No. 27, issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) No. 0-050555 on July 20, 1983, for a parcel of land (Lot No. 00202) in Sillon, Bantayan, Cebu, formerly part of the estate of Manuel Rubio. On June 6, 1986, Nilo Rubio and Adelia Rubio Espina sold their shares, including the portion awarded to petitioner, to respondent spouses Rafael and Corazon Gigantana. The deed of sale described the property as Cadastral Lot No. 4610 in Sillon, Bantayan, Cebu, with an area of 7.5715 hectares. However, a tax declaration in the name of Rafael Gigantana (Tax Declaration No. 14090-A) indicated the property was in Kangkaibe, Bantayan, Cebu, with an area of 6.6816 hectares. On February 11, 1992, Rafael Gigantana, with Delfin Gigantana, ejected petitioner, and on February 13, 1992, Delfin Gigantana, with Raul Capuras, plowed the land. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint before the DARAB Adjudicator seeking annulment of the deed of sale, damages, and injunction. Respondent Adelia Rubio Espina denied petitioner was a tenant. Respondent spouses Gigantana denied the allegations and claimed lack of cause of action and waiver of rights. The Adjudicator dismissed petitioner's complaint on April 21, 1994. The DARAB reversed this decision on January 11, 2000, nullifying the deed of sale insofar as it affected the CLT area and directing reallocation. The Court of Appeals set aside the DARAB decision and reinstated the Adjudicator's dismissal on March 15, 2001. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, contending the Court of Appeals erred in finding the complaint premature for lack of BARC certification, in finding the land awarded to him the same as the land sold to respondents, and in upholding the waiver of tenancy rights.
Issue(s)
Whether the absence of a BARC certification is a fatal defect to petitioner's cause of action. Whether the land sold to respondents under the Deed of Sale is the same parcel of land awarded to petitioner under CLT No. 0-050555. Whether the waiver of tenancy rights executed by petitioner is valid and refers to the land awarded to him.
Ruling
The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of BARC certification: The absence of a certification from the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) is not fatal to petitioner's cause, as Rule III, §1(c) of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure expressly provides that such lack cannot be a ground for dismissal. Furthermore, any objection based on the lack of BARC certification was waived by the respondents for their failure to raise it in their answer. The principal respondents participated in the proceedings without raising this defense, thereby submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator. The question of non-compliance was not raised during the parties' conference or in their position papers, indicating a waiver of this procedural requirement. On the identity of the land sold: The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the land covered by the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of respondent spouses is the same parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 14090-A. The Deed of Absolute Sale clearly indicates the land is in Sillon, Bantayan, Cebu, the same location as petitioner's awarded land (Lot No. 00202). In contrast, Tax Declaration No. 14090-A, which respondents claimed to be the property sold, refers to a land in Kangkaibe, Bantayan, Cebu. The discrepancy in location and area between the Deed of Sale and the Tax Declaration, coupled with the fact that petitioner's awarded land is in Sillon, strongly supports the DARAB's finding that the sale included the lot previously awarded to petitioner. Therefore, the sale must be annulled as it affects the area covered by petitioner's CLT. On the validity of the waiver of tenancy rights: The waiver of tenancy rights executed by petitioner on August 8, 1986, is of no force and effect because it referred to Lot 4610 located in Kangkaibe, Bantayan, Cebu, and not to Lot No. 00202 located in Sillon, Bantayan, Cebu, which was awarded to him under P.D. No. 27. Even if it had referred to the correct lot, such a waiver would be contrary to law and public policy. Under P.D. No. 27, a farmer-beneficiary is deemed owner of the land and can only transfer it to the government or by hereditary succession. The sale by Nilo Rubio and Adelia Rubio Espina to the Gigantana spouses is null and void for violating P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228, which declare tenant-tillers as full owners. The action for declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe, thus, the Court of Appeals erred in applying the principle of prescription and laches.
Main Doctrine
A sale of land awarded to a farmer-beneficiary under P.D. No. 27, without compliance with agrarian laws and regulations, is null and void. A waiver of tenancy rights, if contrary to law and public policy, is likewise of no force and effect. The action for declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.