dar gov ph documents 8969

8/11/2019 Dar Gov Ph Documents 8969

1/33

pdfcrowd comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

G.R. No. 135297

THIRD DIVISION[G.R. No. 135297. June 8, 2000.]

GAVINO CORPUZ , petitioner , vs . SpousesGERONIMO GROSPE a nd HILARIA GROSPE ,re spondents .

Law Firm of Lapea & Asso. for petitioner.

Jaime P. Batalla for respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner Gavino Corpuz was a farmer-beneficiary under the Operation Land Transfer Program of the Department of Agrarian Reform. He

Home

Preface

CARL (R.A. 6657, asa mended) and RelatedLaws

History and Evolution of Major Agrarian ReformLaws

Is suances

Philippine Constitution

Laws, Statutes andPresidential Issuances

Supreme Court Decisionsand Issuances

Court of Appeals Decisions
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/4http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/3http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/3http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/3http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/2http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/2http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/2http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/1http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/http://pdfcrowd.com/http://pdfcrowd.com/redirect/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lis.dar.gov.ph%2fdocuments%2f8969&id=ma-140920092423-324f87f4http://pdfcrowd.com/customize/http://pdfcrowd.com/html-to-pdf-api/?ref=pdfhttp://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/1http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/2http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/3http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/4http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/13http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/30http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/35http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/39http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/40


2/33

pdfcrowd comopen in browse r PRO version Are you a developer? Try o ut the HTML to PDF API

was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer over twoparcels of agricultural land. In order to pay for thehospitalization of his wife, he mortgaged the subjectland in favor of Virginia de Leon. When the contractexpired, he again mortgaged it to respondent HilariaGrospe for a period of four years. The partiesexecuted a contract, which allowed the respondentsto cultivate the land during the duration of themortgage or until December 05, 1990. In 1991,petitioner instituted an action for the recovery of possession of the land before the Department of

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

Respondents, however, claimed in their answer thatinstead of paying his loan the petitioner executed a"Waiver of Rights" over the landholding in their favor on June 29, 1989. Petitioner denied the allegationand claimed that his and his children's signature onthe waiver were forgeries. The Provincial AgrarianReform Adjudicator (PARAD) ruled that petitioner

abandoned and surrendered the landholding to thelocal Samahang Nayon, which passed resolutionsrecommending the relocation of the lots to therespondent spouses. The DARAB affirmed PARAD'sdecision. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration aswell as the appeal to the Court of Appeals wasdenied. The appellate court ruled that petitioner had

Regulations

Issuances from Other Government Agencies

Handbooks andPublications

Articles and Journals

Forms and Templates

Lecture Materials

Login
http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/40http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/40http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/40http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/40http://pdfcrowd.com/http://pdfcrowd.com/redirect/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lis.dar.gov.ph%2fdocuments%2f8969&id=ma-140920092423-324f87f4http://pdfcrowd.com/customize/http://pdfcrowd.com/html-to-pdf-api/?ref=pdfhttp://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/40http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/41http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/42http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/43http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/44http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/browse/45http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/admin/users


3/33

pdfcrowd comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

abandoned the landholding and forfeited his right asa beneficiary in accordance with Section 9 of RA1199 and Section 28 of RA 6389, which allowed atenant to voluntarily sever his tenancy status byvoluntary surrender. Furthermore, petitioner failed toprove the alleged forgery of his and his sons'signatures. Hence, this recourse.

According to the Supreme Court, the presence or the absence of forgery was an issue of fact that wasconvincingly settled by the DARAB and the Court of

Appeals. The Court also found that petitioner's

intention to surrender the landholding was clear andunequivocal. The land was surrendered to thegovernment, not transferred to another privateperson. It was the government, through DAR, whichawarded the landholding to the private respondentswho were declared as qualified beneficiaries under the agrarian laws. The Supreme Court denied the

petition and the assailed decision was affirmed.SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUALFINDINGS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY ANDTHE COURT OF APPEALS; ACCORDED RESPECTON APPEAL; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. As a
http://pdfcrowd.com/http://pdfcrowd.com/redirect/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lis.dar.gov.ph%2fdocuments%2f8969&id=ma-140920092423-324f87f4http://pdfcrowd.com/customize/http://pdfcrowd.com/html-to-pdf-api/?ref=pdf


4/33

pdfcro d comopen in bro ser PRO ersion Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

rule, if the factual findings of the Court of Appealscoincide with those of the DARAB anadministrative body which has acquired expertise onthe matter such findings are accorded respectand will not be disturbed on appeal. The presence or the absence of forgery was an issue of fact that wasconvincingly settled by the agrarian and the appellatetribunals. Petitioner utterly failed to convince theCourt that the appellate court had misapprehendedthe facts. Quite the contrary, its findings were well-supported by the evidence.

2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION;

AGRARIAN REFORM LAW; SALE OR TRANSFEROF RIGHTS OVER PROPERTY COVERED BY ACERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER, GENERALLYVOID; EXCEPTION; RATIONALE. The Courtalready ruled that the sale or transfer of rights over aproperty covered by a Certificate of Land Transfer isvoid except when the alienation is made in favor of the government or through hereditary succession.This ruling is intended to prevent a reversion to theold feudal system in which the landownersreacquired vast tracts of land, thus negating thegovernment's program of freeing the tenant from thebondage of the soil. In Torres v . Ventura , (187


5/33

df di b PRO i Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

SCRA 96, 104-105, July 2, 1990, per Gancayco, J. )the Court clearly held: ". . . As such [the farmer-beneficiary] gained the rights to possess, cultivateand enjoy the landholding for himself. Those rightsover that particular property were granted by thegovernment to him and to no other. To insure hiscontinued possession and enjoyment of the property,he could not, under the law, make any valid form of transfer except to the government or by hereditarysuccession, to his successors. . . . [T]he thenMinistry of Agrarian Reform issued the followingMemorandum Circular [No. 7, Series of 1979, April

23, 1979]: 'Despite the above prohibition, however,there are reports that many farmer-beneficiaries of PD 27 have transferred the ownership, rights, and/or possession of their farms/homelots to other personsor have surrendered the same to their former landowners. All these transactions/surrenders areviolative of PD 27 and therefore, null and void.'"

3. ID.; ID.; ABANDONMENT; DEFINED ANDCONSTRUED. Abandonment (AdministrativeOrder No. 2, issued March 7, 1994) requires (a) aclear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property; and (b) anexternal act by which that intention is expressed or


6/33

df di b PRO i Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

carried into effect. The intention to abandon impliesa departure, with the avowed intent of never returning, resuming or claiming the right and theinterest that have been abandoned.

4. ID.; ID.; AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD

RELATION; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, AS AMODE OF EXTINGUISHMENT THEREOF;CONSTRUED; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. PD27 provides that title to land acquired pursuant to theland reform program shall not be transferable exceptthrough hereditary succession or to the government,in accordance with the provisions of existing laws

and regulations. Section 8 of RA 3844 also providesthat "[t]he agricultural leasehold relation . . . shall beextinguished by: . . . (2) [v]oluntary surrender of thelandholding by the agricultural lessee, . . . ." In thiscase, petitioner's intention to surrender thelandholding was clear and unequivocal. He signedhis concurrence to the Samahang NayonResolutions surrendering his possession of thelandholding. The Samahan then recommended to theteam leader of the DAR District that the privaterespondent be designated farmer-beneficiary of saidlandholding. To repeat, the land was surrendered tothe government, not transferred to another private


7/33

df di b PRO i Are o a de eloper? Tr o t the HTML to PDF API

person. It was the government, through the DAR,which awarded the landholding to the privaterespondents who were declared as qualifiedbeneficiaries under the agrarian laws. Voluntarysurrender, as a mode of extinguishment of tenancyrelations, does not require court approval as long asit is convincingly and sufficiently proved bycompetent evidence. Petitioner's voluntary surrender to the Samahang Nayon qualifies as a surrender or transfer to the government because such actionforms part of the mechanism for the disposition andthe reallocation of farmholdings of tenant-farmers

who refuse to become beneficiaries of PD 27. Under Memorandum Circular No. 8-80 of the then Ministryof Agrarian Reform, the Samahan shall, upon noticefrom the agrarian reform team leader, recommendother tenant-farmers who shall be substituted to allrights and obligations of the abandoning or surrendering tenant-farmer. Besides, these

cooperatives are established to provide a strongsocial and economic organization to ensure that thetenant-farmers will enjoy on a lasting basis thebenefits of agrarian reform.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN , J p:


8/33

df di b PRO i A d l ? T t th HTML t PDF API

The sale, transfer or conveyance of land reformrights are, as a rule, void in order to prevent acircumvention of agrarian reform laws. However, inthe present case, the voluntary surrender or waiver of these rights in favor of the Samahang Nayon is

valid because such action is deemed legallypermissible conveyance in favor of the government.

After the surrender or waiver of said land reformrights, the Department of Agrarian Reform, whichtook control of the property, validly awarded it toprivate respondents. llcd

The Case

Before the Court is a Petition for Review onCertiorari of the May 14, 1998 Decision and the

August 19, 1998 Resolution in CA-GR SP No.47176, in which the Court of Appeals (CA)dismissed the petitioner's appeal and deniedreconsideration respectively. dctai

The decretal portion of the assailed Decisionreads:

"IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THEFOREGOING, the Petition is denied duecourse and is hereby dismissed. The

1

2

3

4


9/33

df di b PRO i A d l ? T t th HTML t PDF API

Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.With costs against the Petitioner."

The Facts

Petitioner Gavino Corpuz was a farmer-

beneficiary under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT)Program of the Department of Agrarian Reform(DAR). Pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27,he was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT)over two parcels of agricultural land (Lot Nos. 3017and 012) with a total area of 3.3 hectares situated inSalungat, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. The lots wereformerly owned by a certain Florentino Chioco andregistered under Title No. 126638.

To pay for his wife's hospitalization, petitioner mortgaged the subject land on January 20, 1982, infavor of Virginia de Leon. When the contract periodexpired, he again mortgaged it to Respondent HilariaGrospe, wife of Geronimo Grospe, for a period of four years (December 5, 1986 to December 5,1990) to guarantee a loan of P32,500. The partiesexecuted a contract denominated as " Kasunduan SaPagpapahiram Ng Lupang Sakahan ," which allowedthe respondents to use or cultivate the land during

5


10/33

df di b O i A d l ? T h HTML PDF API

the duration of the mortgage. LibLex

Before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Cabanatuan City(Region III), petitioner instituted against therespondents an action for recover of possession. Inhis Complaint, he alleged that they had entered thedisputed land by force and intimidation on January10 and 11, 1991, and destroyed the palay that hehad planted on the land.

Respondents, in their Answer, claimed that the"Kasunduan " between them and petitioner allowedthe former to take over the possession and cultivationof the property until the latter paid his loan. Insteadof paying his loan, petitioner allegedly executed onJune 29, 1989, a "Waiver of Rights" over thelandholding in favor of respondents in considerationof P54,394.

Petitioner denied waiving his rights and interest over the landholding and alleged that his and his children'ssignatures appearing on the Waiver were forgeries.

Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)Ernesto P. Tabara ruled that petitioner abandonedand surrendered the landholding to the Samahang

6

7


11/33

df db A d l ? T h HTML PDF API

Nayon of Malaya, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, whichhad passed Resolution Nos. 16 and 27recommending the reallocation of the said lots to therespondent spouses, who were the "most qualifiedfarmer[s]-beneficiaries."

The Department of Agrarian Reform AdjudicationBoard (DARAB), in a Decision promulgated onOctober 8, 1997 in DARAB Case No. 1251, affirmedthe provincial adjudicator's Decision. Petitioner'sMotion for Reconsideration was denied in theResolution dated February 26, 1998. As earlier stated, petitioner's appeal was denied by the Court of

Appeals.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The appellate court ruled that petitioner hadabandoned the landholding and forfeited his right asa beneficiary. It rejected his contention that all deedsrelinquishing possession of the landholding by abeneficiary were unenforceable. Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) 1199 and Section 28 of RA 6389allow a tenant to voluntarily sever his tenancy statusby voluntary surrender. The waiver by petitioner of his rights and his conformity to the Samahang Nayon Resolutions reallocating the landholding to the

8

9

10

11


12/33d l h

respondents are immutable evidence of hisabandonment and voluntarily surrender of his rightsas beneficiary under the land reform laws.

Furthermore, petitioner failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence the alleged forgery of hisand his sons' signatures.

Hence, this recourse.

Issues

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner alleges in hisMemorandum that the appellate court committed

these reversible errors:"I

. . . [I]n relying on the findings of fact of theDARAB and PARAD as conclusive whenthe judgment is based on amisapprehension of facts and the inferencetaken is manifestly mistaken.

"II. . . [I]n disregarding and/or ignoring theclaim of petitioner that the alleged waiver documents are all forgeries.

12

13


13/33Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

"III. . . [I]n ruling that petitioner had forfeited hisright to become a beneficiary under PD No.27.

"IV

. . . [I]n failing to rule on the legality and/or validity of the waiver/transfer action."

In short, the focal issues are: (1) Was theappellate court correct in finding that the signaturesof petitioner and his sons on the Waiver were not

forged? (2) Assuming arguendo that the signaturesin the Waiver were genuine, was it null and void for being contrary to agrarian laws? (3) Did thepetitioner abandon his rights as a beneficiary under PD 27? (4) Did he, by voluntary surrender, forfeit hisright as a beneficiary?

The Court's Ruling

The Petition is devoid of merit.

First Issue : Factual Findings

Alleging that an information for estafa throughfalsification was filed against the respondents,petitioner insists that his signature on the Waiver was


14/33Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

forged. LLphilWe are not persuaded. The filing of an informationfor estafa does not by itself prove that therespondents forged his signature. It only means thatthe public prosecutor found probable cause againstthe respondents, but such finding does not constitutebinding evidence of forgery or fraud. We agreewith the well-reasoned CA ruling on this point:

. . . We are not swayed by Petitioner'sincantations that his signature on the'Waiver of Rights' is a forgery. In the first

place, forgery is never presumed. ThePetitioner is mandated to prove forgery withclear and convincing evidence. ThePetitioner failed to do so. Indeed, the'Waiver of Rights' executed by thePetitioner was even with the writtenconformity of his four (4) sons ( at page 11 ,Rollo ). The Petitioner himself signed theResolution of the Board of SamahangNayon of Malaya, Sto. Domingo, NuevaEcija, surrendering his possession of the

14

15


15/33

Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

landholding to the Samahang Nayon, ( idem .supra). Under Memorandum Circular No. 7,dated April 23, 1979 of the Secretary of

Agrarian Reform, transactions involvingtransfer of rights of possession and or

cultivation of agricultural lands are firstinvestigated by a team leader of the DARDistrict who then submits the results of hisinvestigation to the District Officer who, inturn, submits his report to the RegionalDirector who, then, acts on said report. Inthe present recourse, the requisiteinvestigation was conducted and the reportthereon was submitted to and approved bythe Regional Director. Under Section 3(m),Rule 131 of the Rules of Evidence, public

officers are presumed to have performedtheir duties regularly and in accordance withlaw."

As a rule, if the factual findings of the Court of Appeals coincide with those of the DARAB an


16/33

th l d i d t t t f l d th


17/33

pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

the landowners reacquired vast tracts of land, thusnegating the government's program of freeing thetenant from the bondage of the soil. In Torres v .Ventura , the Court clearly held:

". . . As such [the farmer-beneficiary] gainedthe rights to possess, cultivate and enjoythe landholding for himself. Those rightsover that particular property were grantedby the government to him and to no other.To insure his continued possession andenjoyment of the property, he could not,

under the law, make any valid form of transfer except to the government or byhereditary succession, to his successors.". . . [T]he then Ministry of Agrarian Reformissued the following Memorandum Circular [No. 7, Series of 1979, April 23, 1979]:

"'Despite the above prohibition, however,there are reports that many farmer-beneficiaries of PD 27 have transferred theownership, rights, and/or possession of their farms/homelots to other persons or

17

18

h d d th t th i f


18/33


have surrendered the same to their former landowners. All thesetransactions/surrenders are violative of PD27 and therefore, null and void."'

Third Issue : Abandonment Based on the invalidity of the Waiver, petitioner concludes that the PARAD, the DARAB and the CAerroneously ruled on the basis of the said documentthat he had abandoned or voluntarily surrendered hislandholding. Denying that he abandoned the land, hecontends that the transaction was a simple loan toenable him to pay the expenses incurred for hiswife's hospitalization.We agree. Abandonment requires (a) a clear andabsolute intention to renounce a right or claim or todesert a right or property; and (b) an external act bywhich that intention is expressed or carried intoeffect. The intention to abandon implies adeparture, with the avowed intent of never returning,resuming or claiming the right and the interest thathave been abandoned.

The CA ruled that abandonment required (a) thetenant's clear intention to sever the agricultural

19

20

21

tenancy relationship; and (b) his failure to work on


19/33


tenancy relationship; and (b) his failure to work onthe landholding for no valid reason. The CA alsodeemed the following as formidable evidence of hisintent to sever the tenancy relationship: (a) themortgage and (b) his express approval andconformity to the Samahang Nayon Resolution

installing the private respondents as tenants/farmers-beneficiaries of the landholding. We disagree.

As earlier shown, the Waiver was void.Furthermore, the mortgage expired after four years.Thus, the private respondents were obligated toreturn possession of the landholding to the petitioner.

At bottom, we see on the part of the petitioner noclear, absolute or irrevocable intent to abandon. Hissurrender of possession did not amount to anabandonment because there was an obligation onthe part of private respondents to return possessionupon full payment of the loan.

Fourth Issue : Voluntary Surrender Contrary to the finding of the appellate court, thepetitioner also denies that he voluntarily surrenderedhis landholding.

His contention is untenable. The nullity of the

22


20/33

government not transferred to another private


21/33


government, not transferred to another privateperson. It was the government, through the DAR,which awarded the landholding to the privaterespondents who were declared as qualifiedbeneficiaries under the agrarian laws. Voluntarysurrender, as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy

relations, does not require court approval as long asit is convincingly and sufficiently proved bycompetent evidence.

Petitioner's voluntary surrender to the Samahang Nayon qualifies as a surrender or transfer to thegovernment because such action forms part of themechanism for the disposition and the reallocation of farmholdings of tenant-farmers who refuse tobecome beneficiaries of PD 27. Under MemorandumCircular No. 8-80 of the then Ministry of AgrarianReform, the Samahan shall, upon notice from theagrarian reform team leader, recommend other tenant-farmers who shall be substituted to all rightsand obligations of the abandoning or surrenderingtenant-farmer. Besides, these cooperatives areestablished to provide a strong social and economicorganization to ensure that the tenant-farmers willenjoy on a lasting basis the benefits of agrarianreform.

23


22/33

between the landlord and the farmer beneficiary The


23/33


between the landlord and the farmer beneficiary. Thecase did not rule out abandonment or voluntarysurrender by the agricultural tenant or lessee in favor of the government.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED

and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED insofar as it dismissed petitioner'sappeal. Costs against petitioner. cdphil

SO ORDERED. Melo, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ .,concur.

Vitug, J ., is abroad, on official business.

Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 31-36. 2. Ibid ., p. 37. 3. Thirteenth Division composed of JJ.Romeo J. Callejo Sr. ( ponente ); AngelinaSandoval Gutierrez (Division Chairman) andMariano M. Umali (member), bothconcurring. 4. CA Decision, p. 6; rollo , p. 36.

5. Ibid ., p. 78.


24/33


5. Ibid ., p. 78. "KASUNDUAN SAPAGPAPAHIRAM NG LUPANG SAKAHAN "PARA SA KAALAMAN NGLAHAT:

"Ako si GAVINO A. CORPUZ,may sapat na taong gulang, biyudo at sakasalukuyan ay nakatira sa Malaya, Sto.Domingo, Nueva Ecija ay tumanggap nghalagang P32,500.00 (Tatlumpu't dalawanglibo at limang daang piso) perang Pilipinongayong ika-5 ng Disyembre 1986 mulakay Gng. HELARIA F. GROSPE. Dahil sapagkatanggap ko ng halagang nabanggitbinibigyan ko si Gng. Helaria F. Grospe,may asawa at may bahay ni Ginoong

GERONIMO R. GROSPE ng lubos nakarapatan para sakahin ang aking lupa nanagtutukoy ng mga sumusunod:

LotNumber

Not available


25/33


LocationSalungat, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija

Existing TitleNot availableLand Area22,000 sq. m.

"Na sa kasunduang ito ay may

karapatan si Gng. Helaria F. Grospe nagamitin o sakahin ang aking lupa sa loob ng

APAT NA TAON mula sa 5 Disyembre1986 hanggang Disyembre 5, 1990 at itoay mapapawalang bisa lamang ayon sabagong kasunduan namin. Pagkatapos ngapat na taon ay ibabalik ko rin ang halagangP32,500.00 (Tatlumpo't dalawang libo atlimang piso) na aking nahiram kay Gng.Helaria F. Grospe. "Na sa kasunduang ito ay

isasagawa ngayon sa [illegible] 1986 sa


26/33


g g y gSto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.

(sgd.) GAVINOCORPUZ(sgd.) HELARIA F. GROSPE(May-ari nglupa)(Nagpahiram ng salapi)SA KAPAHINTULUTAN NG MGA

ANAK SAKSI:

(sgd.) ANACLETOCORPUZ [signatureillegible](sgd.) RAYMUNDOCORPUZ (sgd.)LOVELITO C. ORA(sgd.) JIMMY CORPUZ"

6. The case was docketed as DARABCase No. 1286-NE-91. 7. Rollo , p. 79.


27/33


"KAMI, mga nakalagda saibaba nito, pawang may mga sapat nagulang, Pilipino, at sa kasalukuyan aypawang naninirahan sa Malaya, Sto.

Domingo, Nueva Ecija, mataposmakapanumpa nang naaayon sa batas aynagsasalaysay ng mga sumusunod: "Na, kami ang mgatagapagmana ng lupang sakahin na dati aynakatala sa pangalan ng aming

ina/ama/kapatid na si G/Gng. Gabino A.Corpuz na makikilala [na] Lote Blg. 3017 namay sukat na 2.2830 ektarya humigitkumulang na dating pag-aari ni FlorentinoChioco na matatagpuan sa Malaya, Sto.Domingo, NE, na napapaloob sa Titulo Blg.126638. "Na, bilang tagapagmana nglupang sakahin na nabanggit sa itaas aminginililipat ang lahat ng karapatan atpamomosisyon kay GERONIMO R.

GROSPE.


28/33


"Na, ginawa namin ito upangmaisaayos sa Department of AgrarianReform (DAR) ang paglilipat ng mgakarapatan sa nasabing Lote sa pangala[n] ni

GERONIMO A. GROSPE. "SA KATUNAYAN NG LAHATNG ITO, kami ay lumagda sa kasulatang itongayong ika 02 ng Enero 1990, dito sabayan ng Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.

(sgd.) Raymundo S. Corpuz10152182 Sto.Domingo, N.E. 11/06/89(sgd.) Jimmy S. Corpuz

10152183 Sto.Domingo, N.E. 11/06/89(sgd.) Anacleto S. Corpuz00976119 Sto.Domingo, N.E. 03/20/89

CONFORME:


29/33


(sgd.) GABINO A.CORPUZSedula Blg. 0113264Kinuha sa Sto. Domingo,N.E.noong June 22, 1989

xxx xxx xxx" 8. Rollo , p. 41. 9. The Board was composed of

Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao, chairman;with Undersecretaries Hector D. Solimanand Artemio A. Adasa Jr.; AssistantSecretaries Lorenzo R. Reyes, Augusto P.Quijano, Sergio B. Serrano and Clifford C.Burkley, members.

10. Rollo , p. 52.11. Ibid. , p. 59.12. This case was deemed submittedfor decision upon this Court's receipt of theMemorandum for the Petitioner on June 14,

1999. Respondent's Memorandum was


30/33


received earlier, on May 28, 1999.13. The Petitioner's Memorandum wassigned by Atty. Nicolas P. Lapea Jr. andthe Respondent's Memorandum, by Atty.

Jaime P. Batalla.14. Villanueva v. United Coconut Planters Bank , G.R. No. 138291, March 7,2000, p. 14.15. CA Decision, pp. 3-4; rollo , pp. 33-34.16. Coconut Cooperative Marketing

Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 164SCRA 568, 581, August 19, 1988; Jacintov. Court of Appeals , 87 SCRA 263, 269,December 14, 1978; and Domingo v.Court of Agrarian Relations , 4 SCRA1151, 1156, April 28, 1962.17. See Petitioner's Memorandum, p.12; rollo , p. 106, citing GloriaCubinusayan vda. de Oliver et al. v.Sesinando Cruz et al. , SP-116191-CAR,

June 22, 1981.


31/33


Although Executive Order No. 228,issued on July 17, 1987, allowed thetransfer of ownership of lands acquired byfarmer-beneficiary after full payment of

amortization, there is no allegation in thiscase that the petitioner has fully amortizedhis payment.18. 187 SCRA 96, 104-105. July 2,1990, per Gancayco, J .19. Administrative Order No. 2, issuedMarch 7, 1994, defined abandonment or neglect as a "willful failure of the agrarianreform beneficiary, together with his farmhousehold, to cultivate, till or develop hisland to produce any crop, or to use the land

for any specific economic purposecontinuously for a period of two calendar years."20. Medrana vs. Office of thePresident , 188 SCRA 818, 826, August


32/33

Elliptical Road, Diliman

Quezon City, Philippinessite i s copyrighted by the

Department of Agrarian


33/33


Q y, pp

Tel. No.: (632) 928-7031 to 39

Department of Agrarian

Reform unless otherwise

specified. For the purposes

of this demo, information are

intended to show a

representative example of a

live site. All im ages and

materials are the copyright

of their respective owners .