Bandioan, Laila Joy B. Lastimoza, Johanne Rose V. Lumilan, Angel Layca D. SAMUEL ESTRBLL!, "AL#T! $. ABA%AT!, JR., R!&'E D. A'ULAR, TA"A&A D. A'ULAR, ARTEM! '. DE JUA&, ESTA&SLA! DELA "RU(, SR., ED'AR DUE&AS, MAR! ERBAL, RE%&ALD! ". ESE&"A, EMMA '!&( '!&(A' A'A, A, RU RUBE BE& & A. B!J B!J!, !, SAMU SAMUEL EL JAMA JAMA&D &DRE RE,, )LA )LAR R!& !& V. LA&T(A, A&SELM! L!$E(, TERESTA &A"!&, ")ARE E. &AST!R, &ELS &ELS!& !& L. &U &ULL LLAS AS,, "ARL "ARLT T! ! S. !LA !LA,, A&A A&A $AT $AT*! *!,, R!BE R!BERT RT! ! T. $AT*!, A&T!&! $. R!")A, +ER&A&D! ". RU+&!, $ATER&! $. SA&, "LAUD! S. SA%S!&, and J!EMARE VB!, vs.
DE$ARTME&T !+ A'RARA& RE+!RM and )A"E&DA MARA, &"., '.R. &o. -/01, June 23, 433/
+A"TS5 The petitioners, with the exception of two, are the recipients of Emancipation Patents (EPs) over parcels of land located at Barangay Angas, Sta. osefa, Ag!san del S!r. S!r. The two two other other petit petition ioners ers,, Emma Emma "on#a "on#aga ga and and Ana Pati$o Pati$o,, are are the s!rviv s!rviving ing spo!ses of deceased recipients of EPs over parcels of land also located at Barangay Angas, Sta. osefa, osefa, Ag!san del S!r. S!r. The parcels of land were formerly part of a forested area which have %een den!de den!ded d as a res!lt res!lt of the the loggin logging g operat operation ionss of respon responden dentt &acien &acienda da 'aria 'aria,, nc. nc. (&'). (&'). Petiti Petitione oners rs,, togeth together er with with other other person persons, s, occ!pi occ!pied ed and and tille tilled d these these areas areas %elieving that the same were p!%lic lands. &' never dist!r%ed petitioners and the other occ!pants in their peacef!l c!ltivation thereof. &' ac!ired s!ch forested area from the *ep!%lic of the Philippines thro!gh Sales Patent +o. -/ in 012- %y virt!e of which it was iss!ed iss!ed 34T +o. P5/67750--0. P5/67750--0. 3n 0 3cto% 3cto%er er 017, 017, Presid President ential ial 8ecre 8ecreee +o. +o. 7 was iss!e iss!ed d manda mandatin ting g that that tenanted rice and corn lands %e %ro!ght !nder 3peration 9and Transfer and awarded to farmer5%eneficiaries. &', &', thro!g thro!gh h a certa certain in oa!i oa!in n 4olmen 4olmenare ares, s, re!es re!ested ted that that 27./6 hectares of its landholdings %e placed !nder the coverage of 3peration 9and Transf Transfer er.. *eceiv *eceiving ing compen compensa satio tion n theref therefor, or, &' &' allow allowed ed petiti petitione oners rs and and other other occ!pants to c!ltivate the landholdings so that the same may %e covered !nder said law. n 017/, the 8epartment of Agrarian *eform cond!cted a parcellary mapping of the entire landholdings of 27./6 hectares covered %y 34T +o. P5/67750--0. n 0172 and 017-, the 8A* approved the Parcellary 'ap S:etching (P'S) and the Amended P'S coveri covering ng the the entire entire landh landhold olding ings. s. &', &', thro!g thro!gh h its repre represen sentat tative ives, s, active actively ly participated in all relevant proceedings, incl!ding the determination of the Average "ross Prod!ction per hectare at the Barangay 4ommittee on 9and Prod!ction, and was a signat signatory ory of an !ndate !ndated d 9andow 9andowner ner and Tenant Tenant Prod!c Prod!ctio tion n Agreem Agreement ent (9TPA) (9TPA),, covering the 27./6 hectares. The 9TPA was s!%mitted to the 9and Ban: of the Philippines (9BP) in 0177.
Also in 0177, &' exec!ted a 8eed of Assignment of *ights in favor of petitioners, among other persons, which was registered with the *egister of 8eeds and annotated at the %ac: of 34T +o. P5/67750--0. The annotation in the 34T showed that the entire 27./6 hectares was the s!%;ect of the 8eed of Assignment. n 01, a final s!rvey over the entire area was cond!cted and approved. , 07 petitions see:ing the declaration of erroneo!s coverage !nder Presidential 8ecree +o. 7 of 77.266 hectares of its former landholdings covered %y 34T +o. P5/67750--0. &' claimed that said area was not devoted to either rice or corn, that the area was !ntenanted, and that no compensation was paid therefor. The 07 petitions, which were later consolidated, so!ght for the cancellation of the EPs covering the disp!ted 77.266 hectares which had %een awarded to petitioners. &' did not !estion the coverage of the other 26.//66 hectares !nder Presidential 8ecree +o. 7 despite claiming that the entire landholdings were !ntenanted and not devoted to rice and corn. 3n 7 +ovem%er 011, after petitioners failed to s!%mit a Position Paper, the *A*A8 rendered a 8ecision declaring as void the T4Ts and EPs awarded to petitioners %eca!se the land covered was not devoted to rice and corn, and neither was there any esta%lished tenancy relations %etween &' and petitioners when Presidential 8ecree +o. 7 too: effect on 0 3cto%er 017. The 8ecision was %ased on a - 'arch 011 report s!%mitted %y the &acienda 'aria Action Team. Petitioners? T4Ts and EPs were ordered cancelled. Petitioners filed a 'otion for *econsideration, %!t the same was denied. Petitioners appealed to the 8epartment of Agrarian *eform Ad;!dication Board (8A*AB) which affirmed the *A*A8 8ecision. After the 8A*AB denied petitioners? 'otion for *econsideration, the latter proceeded to the 4o!rt of Appeals with their Petition for *eview on 4ertiorari. The 4o!rt of Appeals denied and dismissed the petition. Petitioners filed a @'otion for *econsideration ith Alternative Prayer with 9eave of 4o!rt for the Admission of Special Power of Attorney (SPA) "ranted to Petitioner Sam!el Estri%illo %y his 4o5Petitioners.@ The 4o!rt of Appeals denied the motion. Petitioners now file this present Petition contending that there had %een compliance with *!le 7, Section 2 of the 0117 *!les of 4ivil Proced!re.
SSUE5 hether the EPs are ordinary titles which %ecome indefeasi%le one year after their registration.
)ELD5 es. the co!rt mentioned the r!ling in the case of %a$e# v. ntermediate Appellate 4o!rt, wherein it provides that certificates of title iss!ed in administrative proceedings are as indefeasi%le as certificates of title iss!ed in ;!dicial proceedingsC t m!st %e emphasi#ed that a certificate of title iss!ed !nder an administrative proceeding p!rs!ant to a homestead patent, as in the instant case, is as indefeasi%le as a
certificate of title iss!ed !nder a ;!dicial registration proceeding, provided the land covered %y said certificate is a disposa%le p!%lic land within the contemplation of the P!%lic 9and 9aw. There is no specific provision in the P!%lic 9and 9aw (4.A. +o. 0=0, as amended) or the 9and *egistration Act (Act =1-), now P.8. 021, fixing the one (0) year period within which the p!%lic land patent is open to review on the gro!nd of act!al fra!d as in Section / of the 9and *egistration Act, now Section / of P.8. 021, and clothing a p!%lic land patent certificate of title with indefeasi%ility. +evertheless, the pertinent prono!ncements in the aforecited cases clearly reveal that Section / of the 9and *egistration Act, now Section / of P.8. 021 was applied %y implication %y this 4o!rt to the patent iss!ed %y the 8irector of 9ands d!ly approved %y the Secretary of +at!ral *eso!rces, !nder the signat!re of the President of the Philippines in accordance with law. The date of iss!ance of the patent, therefore, corresponds to the date of the iss!ance of the decree in ordinary registration cases %eca!se the decree finally awards the land applied for registration to the party entitled to it, and the patent iss!ed %y the 8irector of 9ands e!ally and finally grants, awards, and conveys the land applied for to the applicant. This, to o!r mind, is in consonance with the intent and spirit of the homestead laws, i.e. conservation of a family home, and to enco!rage the settlement, residence and c!ltivation and improvement of the lands of the p!%lic domain. f the title to the land grant in favor of the homesteader wo!ld %e s!%;ected to in!iry, contest and decision after it has %een given %y the "overnment thro!gh the process of proceedings in accordance with the P!%lic 9and 9aw, there wo!ld arise !ncertainty, conf!sion and s!spicion on the government?s system of distri%!ting p!%lic agric!lt!ral lands p!rs!ant to the @9and for the 9andless@ policy of the State. The same conf!sion, !ncertainty and s!spicion on the distri%!tion of government5ac!ired lands to the landless wo!ld arise if the possession of the grantee of an EP wo!ld still %e s!%;ect to contest, ;!st %eca!se his certificate of title was iss!ed in an administrative proceeding. The silence of Presidential 8ecree +o. 7 as to the indefeasi%ility of titles iss!ed p!rs!ant thereto is the same as that in the P!%lic 9and Act where Prof. Antonio +o%le;as commentedC nasm!ch as there is no positive statement of the P!%lic 9and 9aw, regarding the titles granted there!nder, s!ch silence sho!ld %e constr!ed and interpreted in favor of the homesteader who come into the possession of his homestead after complying with the re!irements thereof. Section / of the 9and *egistration 9aw sho!ld %e interpreted to apply %y implication to the patent iss!ed %y the 8irector of 9ands, d!ly approved %y the 'inister of +at!ral *eso!rces, !nder the signat!re of the President of the Philippines, in accordance with law. After complying with the proced!re, therefore, in Section 062 of Presidential 8ecree +o. 021, otherwise :nown as the Property *egistration 8ecree (where the 8A* is re!ired to iss!e the corresponding certificate of title after granting an EP to tenant5 farmers who have complied with Presidential 8ecree +o. 7), the T4Ts iss!ed to petitioners p!rs!ant to their EPs ac!ire the same protection accorded to other T4Ts. @The certificate of title %ecomes indefeasi%le and incontroverti%le !pon the expiration of one year from the date of the iss!ance of the order for the iss!ance of the patent, x x x. 9ands covered %y s!ch title may no longer %e the s!%;ect matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it %e decreed to another person.@
