Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Case Document

    Uploaded by

    Angie Douglas
    This document is a resolution from an agrarian reform office denying a petition for cancellation of a land title. It summarizes that the petitioner claims ownership of land based on a title she acquired in 1998, but records show the land was identified for agrarian reform in 1960 and titles were issued to farmer beneficiaries, including the respondent. The resolution finds the petitioner's acquisition of the land was invalid under agrarian reform laws since the land was already covered by agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Document

    Uploaded by

    Angie Douglas
    35 views3 pages
    This document is a resolution from an agrarian reform office denying a petition for cancellation of a land title. It summarizes that the petitioner claims ownership of land based on a title she acquired in 1998, but records show the land was identified for agrarian reform in 1960 and titles were issued to farmer beneficiaries, including the respondent. The resolution finds the petitioner's acquisition of the land was invalid under agrarian reform laws since the land was already covered by agrarian reform.

    Original Description:

    agrarian decision

    Original Title

    CASE-DOCUMENT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a resolution from an agrarian reform office denying a petition for cancellation of a land title. It summarizes that the petitioner claims ownership of land based on a title she acquired in 1998, but records show the land was identified for agrarian reform in 1960 and titles were issued to farmer beneficiaries, including the respondent. The resolution finds the petitioner's acquisition of the land was invalid under agrarian reform laws since the land was already covered by agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views3 pages

    Case Document

    Uploaded by

    Angie Douglas
    This document is a resolution from an agrarian reform office denying a petition for cancellation of a land title. It summarizes that the petitioner claims ownership of land based on a title she acquired in 1998, but records show the land was identified for agrarian reform in 1960 and titles were issued to farmer beneficiaries, including the respondent. The resolution finds the petitioner's acquisition of the land was invalid under agrarian reform laws since the land was already covered by agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    IN RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF TCT NO.

    027699-EP NO. A-120492 IN THE NAME OF


    JOSE BALINO

    ELSIE D. BARTOLOME
    Petitioner,

    -versus- CANC CASE NO. 0204-


    0001-2012

    JOSE BALINO,
    REGISTER OF DEEDS ISABELA
    PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM
    OFFICER OF ISABELA
    Respondents.
    -----------------------------------------------x

    RESOLUTION

    NATURE OF THE CASE

    For consideration before this Office is a Petition for Cancellation of Transfer


    Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 027699-EP No. A-120492, covering a parcel of an agricultural land
    particularly described as Lot No. 193-L, Psd-2-026642 registered with the Registry of Deeds under
    the name of Jose Balino., containing an area of Five Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Six (5,836)
    square meters, more or less, and located at Munoz, Roxas, Isabela.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Petitioner averred that she is a registered owner of a parcel land situated at Munoz, Roxas,
    Isabela, containing an area of 4.0000 hectares, more or less, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate
    of Title (TCT) No. T-281523 of Isabela. She also claims that without her knowledge and express
    written consent, her property was brought forth under the Operation Land Transfer program of the
    government. Further, according to the petitioner, the subject property is a small landholding which
    is not a proper subject Operation Land Transfer. Consequently, the generation of Transfer
    Certificate of Title No. 027699 and EP A-120492 over an area of 0.5836 hectare portion of
    petitioner’s property in the name of respondent Jose Balino is illegal.

    A perusal of the petitioner’s title under TCT No. T-281523 would suggest that she only
    acquired the said property in the year 1998. . Apparently, herein petitioner had wondered why the
    land in issue was placed under OLT coverage as he never made any offer to have it subjected under
    agrarian reform program.
    However, the records of the case, including the MARO investigation report, reveals that the
    Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-281523 in the name of the petitioner was derived from
    Transfer Certificate of Title T-22678 which, in turn, originated from Original Certificate of Title
    No. I-4941 under the name of Isauro Requito. Records further revealed that the property covered
    by Original Certificate of Title No. I-4941 have been identified under Presidentia Decree No. 27
    (Operation Land Transfer) and Emancipation Patents have been generated in favor of qualified
    farmer beneficiaries which includes the herein respondent Jose Balino. Eleven (11) years
    thereafter, herein petitioner acquired the land described under TCT No. T-281523 after which,
    began questioning the propriety of the coverage of the same under OLT.
    Investigation Report of MARO Claudio Rivera also disclosed that respondent has been in
    actual and continuous possession and cultivation of his awarded landholding since 1960 up to the
    present. On the other hand, petitioner have never been in actual possession and cultivation of the
    subject property. As a matter of fact, petitioner is not a resident of the place where the property is
    located, instead, petitioner is a green card holder of the United State of America and presently
    residing therein.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the petitioner’s acquisition of the subject property is valid which warrants
    the cancellation of previously issued Emancipation Patent title in the name of the respondent.

    LAW RULES AND REGULATIONS

    R.A 6657-AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM


    PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION,
    PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER
    PURPOSES

    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:
    (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling 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 areas originally retained by them thereunder: provided,
    further, that original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original
    homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue
    to cultivate said homestead.

    XXX
    In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval
    of this Act shall be respected.

    Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or transfer
    of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of the Act shall
    be null and void: provided, however, that those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only
    when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the
    effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of
    Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural
    lands in excess of five (5) hectares. (Emphasis supplied)

    DISCUSSION

    It bears emphasis herewith that the transfer made in favor of herein petitioner over portion
    of Lot. 193, PLS 15 originally in the name of Isauro Requito afterr its coverage under OLT is in
    gross violation of the agrarian reform laws, and its Implementing rules and regulations.

    Relevant herewith is the provision of Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, as amended
    which states in part:

    Any sale, disposition, lease, management contract of transfer of possession of


    private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be
    null and void: Provided, however, that those executed prior to this Act shall be
    valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within the period of three (3)
    months after the effectivity of this Act.

    Consequently, the Department is not bound by the transaction entered into by herein
    petitioners in the acquisition of the land described under TCT No. T-281523 and could not, in a
    way, recognized the personality of herein petitioners in instituting the instant petition. Thus, the
    previous coverage of the subject landholding under agrarian reform program stands valid and
    cannot be undermined by subsequent transfer of the disputed portion in the name of the petitioner
    as such conveyance is proscribed by our laws as illegal transaction.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, ORDER is hereby issued DENYING the instant


    petition for lack of merit.

    __________________________, ___________________________

    You might also like