Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Agrarian Law (Mendoza vs. Mendoza)

    Uploaded by

    Maestro Lazaro

    Copyright:

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

    Agrarian Law (Mendoza vs. Mendoza)

    Uploaded by

    Maestro Lazaro
    10 views6 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    10 views6 pages

    Agrarian Law (Mendoza vs. Mendoza)

    Uploaded by

    Maestro Lazaro

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    JULIO MERCADO, 

    Petitioner, vs. EDMUNDO MERCADO, Respondent.

    G.R. No. 178672               March 19, 2009

    Julio Mercado (petitioner) was a tenant of an agricultural land (the property)


    owned by the grandfather of Edmundo Mercado (respondent). In 1976, JULIO
    was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer 1 (CLT) covering the property pursuant
    to Presidential Decree No. 27. Then 6 years after, in 1982, he was issued an
    Emancipation Patent (EP).2

    On the other hand, on August 1, 1994, EDMUNDO, relying on a Certificate of


    Retention (CR) issued in his name on the strength of his grandfather’s Huling
    Habilin,3 filed a complaint4 against JULIO, for rescission of contract,
    cancellation of the CLT and EP, payment of rentals in arrears, and ejectment,
    before the Provincial Adjudication Board (PARAB), Department of Agrarian
    Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

    EDMUNDO, alleged that JULIO’s CLT and EP were irregularly issued as the
    property is covered by his CR, and that petitioner had not been paying rentals
    on the property since 1979 despite repeated demands.

    In his Answer,6 JULIO, invoking his rights under the EP, contends that
    EDMUNDO’s CR was anomalously issued and, in any event, respondent’s
    claim is barred by the statute of limitations (under Section 38 of Republic Act
    No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389.)

    The PARAB, declaring that JULIO’s EP was legally and validly issued,
    dismissed respondent’s complaint.7

    EDMUNDO filed an appeal. the DARAB, reversed the PARAB’s decision. Also
    finds the petitioner to have deliberately failed to comply with the law and
    ordered the rescission of the leasehold contract between petitioner and
    respondent, disposing as follows:

    1. Declaring the respondent Julio Mercado guilty of deliberate non-


    payment of lease rentals pursuant to Section 3 of Presidential Decree No.
    816 and Section 26 and 36 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended;

    2. Ordering the rescission of the leasehold contract between the plaintiff


    and respondent;

    3. Ordering the ejectment of respondent Julio Mercado and all person or


    persons acting in his behalf to vacate the area in dispute and deliver to
    the same to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff-
    appellant herein;
    4. The concerned official of the DAR is hereby directed to cause the
    cancellation of CLT No. 033197 and CLT No. 033198 from its record
    considering that the land covered by said certificate had been certified as
    retention areas;

    The DARAB decision having become final and executory, a Writ of


    Execution11 was issued.

    The finality of the DARAB decision notwithstanding, JULIO filed a Petition


    for Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction 12 before the Court of
    Appeals which dismissed it, due to, in the main, the finality of the DARAB
    decision.13i

    JULIO thereupon filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari 14 before Supreme


    Court which it denied due to procedural flaws.15

    SECOND PETITION

    Undaunted, JULIO went back to the DARAB. He filed a Petition for Relief from
    Judgment16 of the DARAB decision before the DARAB itself which denied the
    same. JULIO went on to challenge the denial of the petition via Petition for
    Review17 before the Court of Appeals, in which same petition he again sought
    the review of the DARAB decision.

    CA denied petitioner’s petition as well as his Motion for Reconsideration. 21 

    Hence, the present petition22 which faults the Court of Appeals in deciding his
    petition "in a way not in accord[ance with] law or with applicable decisions of
    [this] Court"23 and raises the same arguments he raised before the Court of
    Appeals.24

    ISSUES: based on JULIO MERCADO’S contention before the CA

    1. The assailed decision in DARAB Case was rendered WITHOUT or IN


    EXCESS OF JURISDICTION and is, therefore, NULL and VOID ab initio;
    and,

    2. The Board seriously ERRED and/or GRAVELY ABUSED its discretion


    amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the assailed
    resolutions denying the petition and petitioner’s Motion for
    Reconsideration despite the miserable failure of respondent to produce
    any single authentic document that would prima facie establish his
    ownership of the parcels of land in question to qualify him as a
    "landlord" or "land owner" thereof and despite the clear showing therein
    that the complaint filed by respondent, as well as the appeal he filed
    before the Board a quo, was barred under the Statute of Limitations.
    3. The Board seriously ERRED and/or GRAVELY ABUSED its discretion
    amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it rendered the assailed
    decision in violation of petitioner’s constitutional right to due process of
    law.19 (Emphasis and italics in the original)

    RULING:The petition is bereft of merit.

    1. On the issue of jurisdiction.

    The DARAB decision in DARAB had long become final and executory, hence,
    immutable and unalterable. It may thus no longer be modified in any respect,
    even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or
    law.25

    JULIO insists that the decision is void for having been rendered without
    jurisdiction, there having been no more tenancy relationship between him and
    respondent after the issuance to him of the EP.

    Since jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in


    the complaint. Those allegations show the existence of the following elements of
    a tenancy relationship between the parties.

    [[[1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2)
    that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there
    is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the
    relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal
    cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the
    harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
    lessee.29]]]

    Furthermore, Jurisdiction over a case does not thus disappear the moment a
    certificate of title is issued, for the issuance of such certificate is not a mode of
    transfer of property but merely an evidence of such transfer. 32

    And finally, IN ANY EVENT, petitioner may not question the jurisdiction of the
    DARAB and its adjudicative arm at this late juncture of the proceedings, he
    having actively participated in the proceedings below. 33

    2. On the 2nd issue, the issue of denial of petitioner Julio’s MR

    Relief from judgment is available only against the decision of an adjudicator, to


    be filed before the adjudicator, when the party seeking it has no other adequate
    remedy available to him in the ordinary course of law. In the case at bar,
    petitioner sought relief from the decision of the DARAB, not that of the
    adjudicator, before the DARAB.34 This leaves it unnecessary to pass upon the
    other glaring flaws attendant to petitioner’s Petition for Relief from Judgment.
    3. And lastly, on the issue of violation of due process

    As for petitioner’s plaint of having been deprived of due process, thus:

    this Court subscribes to the principles of liberality in the availment of due


    process, in the interest of justice, the same should be extended to those who
    are vigilant in the protection of one’s rights.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals


    dated March 21, 2007 is AFFIRMED. Double costs against petitioner. SO
    ORDERED

    THE TENANT EMANCIPATION LAW (PD 27)

    Stages of Land Transfer

    1. Issuance of Certificate of Land Title to the farmer-beneficiary; and

    2. Issuance of Emancipation Patent

    Significance of the Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT)

    A CLT is a document that the government issues to a tenant-farmer of an


    agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn production placed under
    the coverage of the government’s Operation Land Transfer program under PD
    27. It serves as the tenant farmer’s (grantee of the certificate) proof of inchoate
    right over the land covered thereby.

    As a preliminary step, therefore, the issuance of a CLT merely evinces


    that the grantee thereof is qualified to avail of the statutory mechanism for the
    acquisition of ownership of the land tilled by him, as provided under PD 27.
    The CLT is not a muniment of title that vests in the tenant-farmer absolute
    ownership in the landholding.

    Significance of an Emancipation Patent (EP)

    Obtaining an EP presupposes that the grantee or beneficiary has,


    following the issuance of a CLT, already complied with all the preconditions
    required under PD27, and that the landowner has been fully compensated for
    his property. And upon the issuance of title, the grantee becomes the owner of
    the landholding and he thereby ceases to be a mere tenant or lessee. His right
    of ownership, once vested, becomes fixed and established and is no longer open
    to doubt or controversy. The grantee becomes the owner of the subject property
    upon the issuance of the emancipation patents and, as such, enjoys the right
    to posses the same – a right that is an attribute of absolute ownership.
    Jurisdiction over Cancellation of EPs

    All cases involving the cancellation of registered EPs are within the
    exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Secretary of DAR.

    The Tenant-Farmer Will Pay the Land Bank

    The farmer-beneficiary or his heirs will pay the Land Bank the total costs
    of the land plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum for 20 years in 20 equal
    annual amortizations. The EP will be issued to the farmer-beneficiary after full
    payment of the amortizations. Section 6 of EO 228 provides that:

    “SECTION 6. The total costs of the land including interest


    at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum with a two percent
    (2%) interest rebate for amortizations paid on time, shall be paid
    by the farmer-beneficiary or his heirs to the Land Bank over a
    period up to twenty (20) years in twenty (20) equal annual
    amortizations. Lands already valued and financed by the Land
    Bank are likewise extended a 20-year period of payment of
    twenty (20) equal annual amortizations. However, the farmer-
    beneficiary if he so elects, may pay in full before the twentieth
    year or may request the Land Bank to structure a repayment
    period of less than twenty (20) years if the amount to be
    financed and the corresponding annual obligations are well
    within the farmer's capacity to meet. Ownership of lands
    acquired by the farmer-beneficiary may be transferred after full
    payment of amortizations.
    i

    You might also like