Lawyerly

GR No. 136466

2009-11-25

HEIRS OF AURELIO REYES v. ERNESTO D. GARILAO

PERALTA, J.

Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD No. 27),[25] issued on October 21, 1972 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, proclaimed the entire country as a "land reform area" and decreed the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil, transferring to them the ownership of the land they till. To achieve its purpose, the decree laid down a system for the purchase by tenant-farmers, long recognized as the backbone of the economy, of the lands they were tilling. Owners of rice and corn lands that exceeded the minimum retention area were bound to sell their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and subject to conditions.[26]

GR No. 165494

2009-03-20

LEVARDO v. TOMAS B. YATCO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Moreover, assuming arguendo that CLTs were actually issued to petitioners, a CLT does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein. At most, the CLT merely evidences the government's recognition of the grantee as partly qualified to await the statutory mechanism for the acquisition of ownership of the land titled by him as provided in P.D. No. 27. Neither is this recognition permanent or irrevocable.[34] Herein petitioners cannot escape the fact that the lands in dispute do not fall under the coverage of P.D. No. 27; and thus, any supposed or alleged CLTs issued in their names are without bases.

GR No. 171961

2008-11-28

FERDINAND A. DELA CRUZ v. AMELIA G. QUIAZON

NACHURA, J.

However, contrary to petitioners' posture, the issuance of a CLT does not vest full ownership in the holder.[29] The issuance of the CLT does not sever the tenancy relationship between the landowner and the tenant-farmer. A certificate of land transfer merely evinces that the grantee thereof is qualified to avail himself of the statutory mechanism for the acquisition of ownership of the land tilled by him as provided under P.D. No. 27. It is not a muniment of title that vests in the farmer/grantee absolute ownership of his tillage. [30] It is only after compliance with the conditions which entitle a farmer/grantee to an emancipation patent that he acquires the vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding--a right which then would have become fixed and established, and no longer open to doubt or controversy.[31]

GR No. 168533

2008-02-04

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO

CARPIO, J.

base of the country's economy.[29] To address these concerns, PD 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of the tenant farmer as of 21 October 1972 and declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of the portion of the land that he tills. Subsequently, EO 228 declared full land ownership to all qualified farmer beneficiaries as of 21 October 1972 and gave the formula for land valuation.

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Presidential Decree No. 27, or more popularly known as the Emancipation Decree, was signed into law in view of the fact that the old concept of land ownership by a few has spawned valid and legitimate grievances that gave rise to violent conflict and tension. The law points out that reformation must start with the emancipation of the tiller from the bondage of the soil.[28] It recognized the importance of encouraging a more productive agricultural base of the nation's economy. In order to achieve this objective, the decree laid down a scheme for the purchase by small farmers of the lands they were tilling. Landowners of agricultural lands which were devoted primarily to rice and corn production and exceeded the minimum retention area were thus compelled to sell, through the intercession of the government, their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and conditions.[29]

GR NO. 143362

2006-06-27

CYNTHIA V. OMADLE v. SPS. WILFREDO AND ROGELIA B. CASUNO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

An emancipation patent, while it presupposes that the grantee thereof shall have already complied with all the requirements prescribed under P.D. No. 27, serves as a basis for the issuance of a TCT. It is the issuance of this emancipation patent that conclusively entitles the farmer/grantee of the rights of absolute ownership. In Pagtalunan v. TamayoI,[4] we held: It is the emancipation patent which constitutes conclusive authority or the issuance of an Original Certificate of Transfer, or a Transfer Certificate of Title, in the name of the grantee x x x.

GR NO. 154286

2006-02-28

MAGDALENA CORUÑA v. SATURNINO CINAMIN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Sec. 2. After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of title under Presidential Decree No. 27, an Emancipation Patent and/or Grant shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform on the basis of a duly approved survey plan. Petitioners likewise rely on our following pronouncement in the case of Pagtalunan v. Tamayo:[27]

GR NO. 162580

2006-01-27

ELMAR O. PEREZ v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Legal interest, which entitles a person to intervene, must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.[17] Such interest must be actual, direct and material, and not simply contingent and expectant.[18]

GR NO. 147081

2005-12-09

PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK v. FRANCISCO GARCIA

CORONA, J.

1) whether or not Garcia was an agricultural lessee of the predecessors of PDB under Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27); 2) whether or not the transfer of the subject land to PDB was valid and 3) whether Garcia can redeem the land under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 (RA 3844), as amended by RA 6389. The land subject of this case is covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT) pursuant to PD 27[8] which laid down a system for the purchase by small farmers of the lands they tilled. Landowners of agricultural lands which were devoted primarily to rice and corn and exceeded the minimum retention area were compelled to sell their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and conditions through the intercession of the government. A qualified tenant farmer was then issued a CLT.[9]

GR No. 148277

2004-06-29

NICANOR MARTILLANO v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In disputing petitioner's arguments, private respondent Po Cham heavily relies on this Court's pronouncements in Pagtalunan v. Tamayo[13] where it was categorically stated that "the mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein." Compliance with certain pre-conditions, such as payment of his lease rentals or amortization payments when they fall due for a period of two (2) years to the landowner, is necessary in order that the grantee can claim the right of absolute ownership over them. Prescinding therefrom, private respondent contends that the ownership of the disputed landholdings by petitioner is still contestable and subject to revocation where there is no showing that he has complied with the prescribed pre-conditions for the grant of absolute ownership.

GR No. 139561

2003-06-10

SPS. FEDERICO ATUEL AND SARAH ATUEL AND SPS. GEORGE GALDIANO AND ELIADA GALDIANO v. SPS. BERNABE VALDEZ AND CONCHITA VALDEZ

CARPIO, J.

The Court of Appeals also ruled that the DARAB correctly relied on Pagtalunan v. Tamayo[15] where this Court held that upon issuance of an emancipation patent, a holder acquires a vested right of absolute ownership in the land.

	GR No. 136466 2009-11-25	HEIRS OF AURELIO REYES v. ERNESTO D. GARILAO PERALTA, J.
Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD No. 27),[25] issued on October 21, 1972 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, proclaimed the entire country as a "land reform area" and decreed the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil, transferring to them the ownership of the land they till. To achieve its purpose, the decree laid down a system for the purchase by tenant-farmers, long recognized as the backbone of the economy, of the lands they were tilling. Owners of rice and corn lands that exceeded the minimum retention area were bound to sell their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and subject to conditions.[26]
	GR No. 165494 2009-03-20	LEVARDO v. TOMAS B. YATCO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, assuming arguendo that CLTs were actually issued to petitioners, a CLT does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein. At most, the CLT merely evidences the government's recognition of the grantee as partly qualified to await the statutory mechanism for the acquisition of ownership of the land titled by him as provided in P.D. No. 27. Neither is this recognition permanent or irrevocable.[34] Herein petitioners cannot escape the fact that the lands in dispute do not fall under the coverage of P.D. No. 27; and thus, any supposed or alleged CLTs issued in their names are without bases.
	GR No. 171961 2008-11-28	FERDINAND A. DELA CRUZ v. AMELIA G. QUIAZON NACHURA, J.
However, contrary to petitioners' posture, the issuance of a CLT does not vest full ownership in the holder.[29] The issuance of the CLT does not sever the tenancy relationship between the landowner and the tenant-farmer. A certificate of land transfer merely evinces that the grantee thereof is qualified to avail himself of the statutory mechanism for the acquisition of ownership of the land tilled by him as provided under P.D. No. 27. It is not a muniment of title that vests in the farmer/grantee absolute ownership of his tillage. [30] It is only after compliance with the conditions which entitle a farmer/grantee to an emancipation patent that he acquires the vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding--a right which then would have become fixed and established, and no longer open to doubt or controversy.[31]
	GR No. 168533 2008-02-04	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO CARPIO, J.
base of the country's economy.[29] To address these concerns, PD 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of the tenant farmer as of 21 October 1972 and declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of the portion of the land that he tills. Subsequently, EO 228 declared full land ownership to all qualified farmer beneficiaries as of 21 October 1972 and gave the formula for land valuation.
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Presidential Decree No. 27, or more popularly known as the Emancipation Decree, was signed into law in view of the fact that the old concept of land ownership by a few has spawned valid and legitimate grievances that gave rise to violent conflict and tension. The law points out that reformation must start with the emancipation of the tiller from the bondage of the soil.[28] It recognized the importance of encouraging a more productive agricultural base of the nation's economy. In order to achieve this objective, the decree laid down a scheme for the purchase by small farmers of the lands they were tilling. Landowners of agricultural lands which were devoted primarily to rice and corn production and exceeded the minimum retention area were thus compelled to sell, through the intercession of the government, their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and conditions.[29]
	GR NO. 143362 2006-06-27	CYNTHIA V. OMADLE v. SPS. WILFREDO AND ROGELIA B. CASUNO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
An emancipation patent, while it presupposes that the grantee thereof shall have already complied with all the requirements prescribed under P.D. No. 27, serves as a basis for the issuance of a TCT. It is the issuance of this emancipation patent that conclusively entitles the farmer/grantee of the rights of absolute ownership. In Pagtalunan v. TamayoI,[4] we held: It is the emancipation patent which constitutes conclusive authority or the issuance of an Original Certificate of Transfer, or a Transfer Certificate of Title, in the name of the grantee x x x.
	GR NO. 154286 2006-02-28	MAGDALENA CORUÑA v. SATURNINO CINAMIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Sec. 2. After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of title under Presidential Decree No. 27, an Emancipation Patent and/or Grant shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform on the basis of a duly approved survey plan. Petitioners likewise rely on our following pronouncement in the case of Pagtalunan v. Tamayo:[27]
	GR NO. 162580 2006-01-27	ELMAR O. PEREZ v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Legal interest, which entitles a person to intervene, must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.[17] Such interest must be actual, direct and material, and not simply contingent and expectant.[18]
	GR NO. 147081 2005-12-09	PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK v. FRANCISCO GARCIA CORONA, J.
1) whether or not Garcia was an agricultural lessee of the predecessors of PDB under Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27); 2) whether or not the transfer of the subject land to PDB was valid and 3) whether Garcia can redeem the land under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 (RA 3844), as amended by RA 6389. The land subject of this case is covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT) pursuant to PD 27[8] which laid down a system for the purchase by small farmers of the lands they tilled. Landowners of agricultural lands which were devoted primarily to rice and corn and exceeded the minimum retention area were compelled to sell their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and conditions through the intercession of the government. A qualified tenant farmer was then issued a CLT.[9]
	GR No. 148277 2004-06-29	NICANOR MARTILLANO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In disputing petitioner's arguments, private respondent Po Cham heavily relies on this Court's pronouncements in Pagtalunan v. Tamayo[13] where it was categorically stated that "the mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described therein." Compliance with certain pre-conditions, such as payment of his lease rentals or amortization payments when they fall due for a period of two (2) years to the landowner, is necessary in order that the grantee can claim the right of absolute ownership over them. Prescinding therefrom, private respondent contends that the ownership of the disputed landholdings by petitioner is still contestable and subject to revocation where there is no showing that he has complied with the prescribed pre-conditions for the grant of absolute ownership.
	GR No. 139561 2003-06-10	SPS. FEDERICO ATUEL AND SARAH ATUEL AND SPS. GEORGE GALDIANO AND ELIADA GALDIANO v. SPS. BERNABE VALDEZ AND CONCHITA VALDEZ CARPIO, J.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that the DARAB correctly relied on Pagtalunan v. Tamayo[15] where this Court held that upon issuance of an emancipation patent, a holder acquires a vested right of absolute ownership in the land.

CELSO PAGTALUNAN v. ALDABA