This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Respondents, in their Comment,[37] insist on the correctness of the assailed Resolutions, and that TCT Nos. 21512, 21513, and 21524 issued in their names can no longer be cancelled, nor may the land be returned to petitioners as a result of its being placed under the coverage of PD 27. | |||||
|
2013-04-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It appears that a Kasunduan[10] dated December 10, 1985 and a notarized Deed of Transfer[11] were executed by Lazaro and Porferio. Under said deeds, Porferio, as sole farmer-beneficiary and in consideration for the transfer of the whole of the land in his favor, obliged himself to pay the petitioners 999 cavans of palay in 15 equal yearly amortizations under the government's Direct Payment Scheme pursuant to PD 27. It was agreed that an advance payment of 66 cavans and 28 kilos, representing total lease payments made by Porferio to Lazaro since 1973, shall be deducted from the 999 cavans, thus leaving an annual amortization to be made by Porferio of about 62 cavans or 16 cavans[12] per hectare per year. However, Porferio paid only a total of 121.2 cavans or 480.9 cavans short of the total amortizations due from 1986 to 1995, or 10 years into the deed. Petitioners claimed that notwithstanding written demands[13] and the failure/refusal of Porferio to attend Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) scheduled mediation[14] and pay amortizations on the land to them or to the Land Bank of the Philippines,[15] the Tarlac PARO issued Emancipation Patents (EP Nos. 437306 to 308)[16] not only in favor of Porferio, but also of his children, herein respondents Vivian and Antonio who were not legally instituted farmer tenant-transferees of the land under PD 27. | |||||