IN RE: PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF FARMER BENEFICIARY PAULINO MAYARI

OVER THE PROPERTY COVERED BY TCT NO. T-7738/CLOA NO. 24227, (LANDED
ESTATE) WITH AN AREA OF 54,806 SQUARE METERS LOCATED AT BARANGAY
LUMANIAG, LIAN, BATANGAS

LEONARDO MAYARI, petitioner-appellee, vs. PAULINO MAYARI, respondent-appellant.

ORDER

For resolution before this Office is an Appeal dated August 8, 2008 filed by
respondent-appellant Paulino Mayari assailing the Order dated June 30, 2008 issued
by the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional
Office IV-Calabarzon, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, ORDER is hereby issued:

1.
DISQUALIFYING the respondent, PAULINO MAYARI as farmer beneficiary on
the two (2) hectares tillage covered by his title TCT NO. T-7738/CLOA No. 24227
(Landed Estate) possessed and tilled by the petitioner;

2.
QUALIFYING the petitioner, LEONARDO MAYARI as the farmer beneficiary on
the two (2) hectare portion of landholding covered by the title of the respondent;

3.
DIRECTING the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) and the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO to undertake the necessary steps for the
cancellation of CLOA and consequently generation of a new one in favor of herein
petitioner but only with respect to two (2) hectares being cultivated by him.

SO ORDERED."

The facts and antecedents of the case are, as follows:

The subject of this case is a landed estate covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-7738/Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 24227 issued in
favor of respondent-appellant Paulino Mayari. It has an aggregate area of
approximately 54,805 square meters situated in Barangay Lumaniag, Lian,
Batangas.

In his Petition dated July 5, 2007 (Rollo, pp. 9-20), petitioner-appellee Leonardo
Mayari alleged that he has been tilling with his father, herein respondent-appellant,
the subject landholding since the 1970's. However, due to old age, the cultivation of
the two (2) hectare portion of the subject land and the remaining portions thereof
was left to him and his other immediate family or farm household members,
respectively. In 1997, due to respondent-appellant's incapacity to till the land, he
decided to sell the same. Such attempt, however, failed due to the objection of
petitioner-appellee on the ground that he will lose his only source of livelihood. Such
objection prompted respondent-appellant to file an ejectment case before the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Lian, Batangas; the latter, however, in its Order dated
April 21, 1998, dismissed the case based on the parties' mutual agreement to
withdraw their respective complaint and counter complaint due to their relationship.
Surprisingly, Civil Case No. 190 for ejectment was again re-filed against petitionerappellee (a.k.a. Rolando Mayari), which resulted in a decision dated March 12, 2004,
where the judge ordered the ejectment of petitioner-appellee, among others, over
the subject landholding. This case was then appealed to the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) which upheld the MTC decision, and all the way up to the Court of Appeals
(CA) which summarily dismissed the same. In order to protect his right over the
subject landholding, petitioner-appellee also filed a case against respondentappellant, this time with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) in Nasugbu, Batangas, for "Maintenance of Peaceful Possession". The said
Office dismissed the case in its Decision dated June 18, 2007 on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction due to the absence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. Not

satisfied, petitioner-appellee filed the instant case for respondent-appellant's

disqualification as an Agrarian Reform Beneficiary (ARB) on the ground that he
mortgaged the subject land, which is prohibited within ten (10) years from the
issuance of CLOA, and that said respondent-appellant is already incapacitated to till
the land with a prayer that respondent-appellant be disqualified as a CLOA holder.

On December 3, 2007, the Legal Assistance Division of the DAR Provincial Office
(DARPO) in Batangas issued a Memorandum, recommending the disqualification of
respondent-appellant as farmer-beneficiary over the subject landholding.

On June 30, 2008, the Regional Director of DAR Regional Office IV-Calabarzon issued
the assailed Order.

Hence, this Appeal.

Respondent-appellant, in his Appeal Memorandum dated October 23, 2008, alleged

that he was not properly summoned nor notified that a petition for his
disqualification was filed against him. In fact, he was surprised to have received the
assailed Order. Further, he asserted that as farmer-beneficiary over the subject
landholding, he never violated any conditions set forth in his CLOA. If ever he
cannot personally till the land due to old age, under the law, he can, however, seek
the help of his immediate farm household members, including petitioner-appellee,
to cultivate the land under his direct supervision and control. If ever petitionerappellee was allowed to till the two (2) hectare portion of the subject land, this was
merely by his tolerance and due to their relationship as father and son.

He also manifested that the first ejectment case which he filed before the MTC of
Lian, Batangas, was withdrawn by him out of compassion. Nevertheless, the second
ejectment civil case filed with the same court has already been ruled with finality,
where petitioner-appellee was ordered to vacate the subject premises. In fact, the
case for "Maintenance of Peaceful Possession" which petitioner-appellee filed
against respondent-appellant was also dismissed for lack jurisdiction.

Petitioner-appellee, in his Opposition dated July 28, 2009, argued that the Decision
issued by the MTC of Nasugbu, Batangas is not binding upon him as he was not
involved in the said case. He further argued that even assuming that he was

involved, the regular court is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of agrarian

cases.

The issue to be resolved in this case is where or not respondent-appellant is

disqualified to be an agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) due to the mortgage he
executed over the subject land, as well as his incapacity to personally till the same.

The appeal is meritorious.

Under DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 03, Series of 1990, (Revised Rules and
Procedures Governing Distribution and/or Titling of Lots in Landed Estates
Administered by DAR), provides the qualifications of a beneficiary:

(a)

Landless;

(b)

Filipino Citizens;

(c)
Actual occupant/tiller who is at least 15 years of age or head of the family at
the time of the filing of application; and

(d)
Has the willingness, ability and aptitude to cultivate and make the land
productive.

The aforecited M.C. also provides the grounds for the cancellation of the award, to
wit:

(a)
Absence of the awardee from the landed estate for more than six (6) months
without doing any effort to make the land productive.

(b)

Willful transfer of rights and is no longer occupying the lot.

(c)

Voluntary renunciation or waiver of rights in writing.

(d)
Failure to cultivate the lot for a period of six (6) consecutive months from the
date subject lot was awarded.

(e)

Death of awardee if he has no qualified heir.

Based on the aforecited law, this Office finds respondent-appellant to possess all the
aforesaid qualifications of a beneficiary, and did not commit any of the grounds for
cancellation provided for by the said A.O.

Moreover, petitioner-appellee failed to adduce substantial evidence to establish

respondent-appellant's disqualification as ARB over the subject land.

The allegation of abandonment to constitute respondent-appellant's disqualification

as ARB is lacking in this case. Petitioner-appellee points out that respondentappellant had abandoned the subject landholding due to his incapacity to till the
same. It was, however, held in the case of Teodoro vs. Macaraeg, 27 SCRA 7, that
the word "abandon" in its ordinary sense, means to forsake entirely, to forsake or
renounce utterly. There must be no intention to return. It is pertinent to note that
after having received the assailed Order against him, respondent-appellant lost no
time in filing his Notice of Appeal and Memorandum; such acts militate against
petitioner-appellee's claim of abandonment.

The alleged incapacity of respondent-appellant to cultivate the subject landholding

will not suffice to disqualify him. While respondent-appellant, due to old age, was
not personally cultivating the land, he had designated, under his control and
supervision, the members of his family, herein petitioner-appellee, and farm
household to cultivate the Iand. Such absence of personal cultivation will not suffice
to prove respondent-appellant's disqualification over the subject land. Verily, a
farmer-beneficiary is allowed to cultivate the land by himself or by the immediate
members of the family or immediate farm household (De Guzman vs. Santos, 6
SCRA 796). The only basis made by the petitioner-appellee and the Regional
Director in the assailed Order was the Memorandum (Rollo, pp. 13-17) issued by

Legal Officer Luz D. Landicho, as noted by the OIC-Chief, Legal Division of DAR
Batangas, based on the alleged Ocular Inspection that was conducted by some
DARPO and DARMO officials on August 30, 2007, to wit:

"xxx

xxx

xxx

During the ocular inspection conducted, it was validated that farmer-beneficiary,

Paulino is not personally cultivating the land. He is no longer in possession hereof.
He voluntarily surrendered possession hereof to the petitioner without valid
cause." . . . (emphasis supplied)

If such incapacity due to old age will be made as the basis of all farmerbeneficiaries' disqualification to be a beneficiary, then it can be said that all FBs that
are already of age and incapacitated to till the land shall be subjected to
disqualification. It is worthy to note that incapacity due to old age is not among the
grounds for disqualification provided for under M.C. No. 03, Series of 2003.

Finally, with respect to the alleged mortgage made by respondent-appellant over

the subject landholding, this Office notes that petitioner failed to adduce substantial
evidence to show that there was in fact a mortgage that was made. As defined,
substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion" (Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relation, 69
Phil. 635). Nothing in the records of the case would show that respondent-appellant
had mortgaged the subject land to any person so as to disqualify him as an ARB.
"The intention of the FB, in the absence of a positive act cannot, and should not be
presumed, much less determined by implication alone." (Ludo and Luym
Development Corporation vs. Banito, 471 SCRA 391).

In sum, finding respondent-appellant not guilty of any of the violations enumerated

under DAR AO No. 03, Series of 1990, he should, therefore, be maintained in the
peaceful possession of the subject landholding.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Order is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE
and a NEW ORDER is hereby issued MAINTAINING respondent-appellant, Paulino
Mayari, as the rightful beneficiary of the subject landholding.

SO ORDERED.

Diliman, Quezon City, June 13, 2011.

Pertinent to your query are the following provisions of law, rules and regulations:
A.

Section 27, R.A. No. 6657

"SECTION 27.
Transferability of Awarded Lands.
Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold,
transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession,
or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified
beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years." (emphasis supplied)

B.
Item II.1.d of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 (Rules and
Procedures Governing Land Transactions):
"1.

The following transactions are valid:

xxx
d.

xxx

xxx

Those executed by beneficiaries covering lands acquired under

any agrarian reform law in favor of the government, DAR, LBP or
other qualified beneficiaries certified by DAR." (emphasis
supplied)

C.
DAR Administrative Order No. 08, series of 1995 (Rules and Procedures
Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to agrarian Reform Beneficiaries

(ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 as Amended by Executive Order

No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657], specifically, Item II.1, 2 and 3 thereof:
"1.

2.

3.

Lands awarded to ARBs pursuant to either P.D. No. 27

or R.A. No. 6657 may be transferred and registered by
the Register of Deedsonly after the issuance of a DAR
clearance.
It shall be understood that although the transfer of
awarded land is allowed, the productivity of the subject
land be maintained and anychange in the nature of its
use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the
DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27, as
amended by E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 may be
allowed, provided the following shall be observed:
a.
that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b.
that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner
ceiling provided by law; and
c.

D.

that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall

be imposed." (emphasis supplied)

Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals [222 SCRA 173 (1993)]
"Resolution No. 129, series of 1988, was promulgated
pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, Local Government
Code, . . . Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the
least that local government units must first secure the approval
of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands
from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute
the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no
provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which
expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local
government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian
Reform.

At the outset, it bears noting that the issuance of a DAR clearance involving the
disposition or transfer of agricultural lands coverable under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) merely signifies that the transaction is not in

circumvention of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and may

therefore be registered. It is not synonymous with a DAR Conversion
Order/Clearance which is issued only after determination on the merits of a duly
filed application for conversion the effect of which is to change the current
physical use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use.
Pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 in relation
to Item II.1.d ofDAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989, it is clear that the
government (which includes LGUs) falls under the exceptions and should not be
interpreted in the light of those falling under the 10-year prohibitory period.
However, under the aforequoted provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 08,
Series of 1995, the transfer contemplated is that which will maintain the use of
the land for agricultural production or purposes where the buyer should not
exceed the aggregate landownership ceiling of five (5) hectares. This is to
preclude possible violation and/or circumvention of agrarian laws, rules and
regulations.
Thus, since the transfer of awarded lands to the government may be allowed
provided the productivity of the land be maintained, and, considering that the
transfer of said lands appears to be through a private transaction and not through
expropriation, DAR land transfer clearance may be issued but only up to the
maximum/aggregate 5-hectare landownership ceiling pursuant to Sections 6 and
73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 and the abovequoted provisions of DAR Administrative
Order No. 08, Series of 1995.
The ruling in Camarines Sur may not be applicable in the instant case since it
appears that the subject land was not expropriated by the LGU but was acquired
through a private transaction. Only agricultural lands expropriated by local
government units (LGUs) pursuant to the power of eminent domain may no
longer be the subject of DAR conversion clearance prior to change in use. Thus,
an application for conversion and DAR conversion clearance shall still be
required if said agricultural lands shall be converted into residential or housing.
On the other hand, should the subject lands be expropriated by the LGU rather
than privately acquired, DAR conversion clearance may no longer be required
pursuant to the said ruling inCamarines Sur.

Finally, it must be stressed that the rights and interests of CLOA or EP awardees
and other farmworkers who may be displaced/affected in the process, if any,
should in all cases be protected/safeguarded pursuant to existing laws, rules and
regulations. Moreover, they should still be entitled as ARBs/awardees in other
landholdings, if qualified.

Sometime in March 1999, appellants Andres Tagsip and Timoteo Miano

filed an Emancipation Patent Transfer Action over the landholdings particularly
designated as Lot No. 2-28 BSD-07-07-009237 (OLT) covered under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 2972, Emancipation Patent No. A-012207, registered in
the name of Andres Tagsip, situated at Cabog, Clarin, Bohol containing an
area of .0634 hectares and Lot No. 2-29 BSD-07-07-009237 (OLT) covered
under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3757 Emancipation Patent No. A012163, registered in the name of Timoteo Miano, situated at Barangay
Cabog, Clarin, Bohol, containing an area of .0734 hectares.
The Investigation Report dated 22 February 2000 submitted by
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Ma. Belen A. Fernis contained the
following facts, to wit:
1.
The subject lands are the awarded homelots to farmerbeneficiaries Andres Tagsip and Timoteo Miano where their
former houses were erected;
2.
That Emancipation Patents were issued on 15 December
1986;
3.
The farmer beneficiaries have fully paid their obligations
on amortization through Land Bank of the Philippines;
4.
The subject lands are not irrigable lands and not covered
by irrigation project with firm funding commitment;
5.
The subject lands are not encumbered to any person nor
to any entity after full payment of the amortization; and

6.
The subject lands are now being prepared as a site of
Iglesia ni Cristo's Church establishment.
With the abovementioned findings, MARO Ma. Belen A. Fernis
recommended the approval of the Emancipation Patent Transfer Action.
Likewise, OIC Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer II Johnson A. Sinco in his
1st Indorsement dated 27 February 2002 adopted the said recommendation.
On 19 July 2002, DAR Region VII Director Rodolfo T. Inson issued an
Order denying the instant Emancipation Patent Transfer Action, without
prejudice of herein petitioner to file for exemption or conversion involving the
subject landholding.
A Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 August 2002 was filed by herein
appellants, but the same was denied in the Regional Director's Order dated
02 October 2002.
Hence, this Appeal.
This Office finds the appeal meritorious.
The Certification dated 01 April 1998 issued by MARO Ma. Belen
Fernis and verified by Para-Legal Officer Bienvenido Leones disclosed that
subject landholdings issued in the name of appellants Andres Tagsip and
Timoteo Miano are found to be homelots.Administrative Order No. 1, Series of
1992 defines "homelot" as a parcel of land, which is intended for farm
residence, hence, not necessary to be maintained for its agricultural
productivity.
More so, Administrative Order No. 08 Series of 1995, provides:
"Presidential Decree No. 27 provides that title to lands acquired
pursuant thereto or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall
not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the
Government. However, Section 6 of Executive Order No. 228 provides
that ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries may be
transferred after full payment of amortization. (emphasis supplied)
Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657, on the other hand, provides that
lands acquired by the beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold,
transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession or to the

government, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), or other qualified

beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years."

From the foregoing, it is clear that the Deed of Absolute Sale covering
the two (2) parcels of registered homelots, executed on 11 August 1988 by
appellants Andres Tagsip and Timoteo Miano is valid. The sale was made on
11 August 1998 or twelve (12) years after said homelots were awarded to
herein farmer-beneficiaries (December 15, 1986) and after they had fully paid
their amortization through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED
for being impressed with merit.