Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Compilation of Agrarian Law Cases 2020-2021 (Part G)
Compilation of Agrarian Law Cases 2020-2021 (Part G)
Juana Barbin
G.R. No. 173923
Oct. 12, 2009
Summary: Petitioners argue that the Emancipation Patents and Transfer
Certificates of Title issued to them which were already registered with the
Register of Deeds have already become indefeasible and can no longer be
cancelled. The Supreme Court do not adhere to petitioners’ view. The Court has
already ruled that the mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put the
ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny.
Emancipation patents issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may be corrected
and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. In fact, DAR
Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994, which was issued in March 1994,
enumerates the grounds for cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents or
Certificates of Landownership Award.
Facts: Respondent filed with the PARAD of Camarines Norte an action for
Cancellation of Emancipation Patents, Disqualification of Tenant-Beneficiary,
Repossession and Damages. Respondent alleged that she is the owner in fee
simple of an irrigated riceland, and that Petitioners were tenants of the subject
landholding. Respondent further alleged that petitioners violated the terms of
their leasehold contracts when they failed to pay lease rentals for more than
two years, which is a ground for their dispossession of the landholding.
On the other hand, petitioners alleged that the subject landholding was placed
under the Operation Land Transfer program of the government pursuant to PD
27.
Respondent’s title, OCT No. P-4672, was then cancelled and the subject
landholding was transferred to Petitioners who were issued Emancipation
Patents by the DAR. The Transfer Certificates of Title issued to petitioners
emanating from the Emancipation Patents were registered with the Registry of
Deeds on 9 February 1989. Petitioners averred that prior to the issuance of the
Emancipation Patents, they already delivered their lease rentals to respondent.
They further alleged that after the issuance of the Emancipation Patents, the
subject landholding ceased to be covered by any leasehold contract.
PARAD denied the petition for lack of merit. The PARAD found that in her
petition for retention and exemption from the coverage of the Operation Land
Transfer, and cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer, filed before the DAR,
respondent admitted that aside from Riceland, she also owns other agricultural
lands of “coco lands.”
The PARAD further held that pursuant to DAR Memorandum Circular
payment of lease rentals to landowners covered by the Operation Land Transfer
shall terminate on the date the value of the land is established. Thus, the
PARAD held that the proper recourse of respondent is to file a claim for just
compensation.
On appeal, the DARAB reversed and set aside the PARAD Decision ORDERING
the Register of Deeds to cancel the Emancipation Patent of the Petitioners and
DIRECTING the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Vinzons, Camarines
Norte, to reallocate the subject lands to qualified beneficiaries. Petitioners filed
a motion for reconsideration, which the DARAB denied for lack of merit.
Petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the DARAB
Decision and thereafter denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Hence,
this petition
Issue: Whether the Emancipation Patents and Transfer Certificates of Title
issued to the Petitioner which were already registered with the Register of
Deeds have already become indefeasible and can no longer be cancelled even if
they failed to fully pay the landowner.
Ruling: No, the Court has already ruled that the mere issuance of an
emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform
beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation patents issued to
agrarian reform beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of
agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
Analysis: In fact, A DAR Administrative Order enumerates the grounds for
cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents or Certificates of
Landownership Award which state that” Default in the obligation to pay an
aggregate of three (3) consecutive amortizations in case of voluntary land
transfer/direct payment scheme, except in cases of fortuitous events and force
majeure” Indeed, the court scrutinized the evidentiary records but found no
valid reason to depart from the challenged decision and it does not also allow
unjust treatment of landowners by depriving the latter of the just
compensation due.
In this case, petitioners entered into an agreement with respondent for a
direct payment scheme embodied in the Deeds of Transfer. However,
petitioners failed to pay the amortizations to respondent landowner in
accordance with their agreed direct payment scheme.
In the first place, the Emancipation Patents and the Transfer Certificates
of Title should not have been issued to petitioners without full payment of the
just
compensation. Under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 266, the DAR will
issue the Emancipation Patents only after the tenant-farmers have fully
complied with the requirements for a grant of title under PD27. Although PD 27
states that the tenantfarmers are already deemed owners of the land they till, it
is understood that full payment of the just compensation has to be made first
before title is transferred to them. Thus, Section 6 of EO 228 provides that
ownership of lands acquired under PD 27 may be transferred only after the
agrarian reform beneficiary has fully paid the amortizations.
Conclusion: In this case, both the Court of Appeals and the DARAB found that
petitioners have not fully paid the amortizations for the land granted to them.
The PARAD had a similar finding when it recommended that the proper
recourse of respondent is to file a claim for just compensation. Clearly, the
cancellation of the Emancipation Patents issued to petitioners is proper under
the circumstances.
Prohibited activities
- Prohibition against deposits for loss or damage - To
require a domestic worker to make deposits from which
deductions shall be made for the reimbursement of loss or
damage to tools, materials, furniture and equipment in the
household
- Prohibition on debt bondage - To place the domestic worker
under debt bondage, i.e. rendering of service by the
kasambahay as security or payment for a debt where the
length and nature of service is not clearly defined or when the
value of the service is not reasonably applied in the payment
of the debt. - To assign work in commercial, industrial or
agricultural enterprise at a wage rate lower than that provided
for agricultural or non-agricultural workers
- Prohibition on interference in the disposal of wages - To
interfere with the freedom of any domestic worker to dispose
latter’s wages; employer to force, compel or oblige the
domestic worker to purchase merchandise, commodities or
other properties from the employer or from any other person,
or otherwise make use of any store or services of such
employer or any other person
- Prohibition against withholding of wages - To withhold wages
of the domestic worker
- If the domestic worker leaves without any justifiable reason,
any
unpaid salary not exceeding 15 days shall be forfeited
- To deduct any amount from the wages without his written
consent or authorization
- Employing under 15 years of age
Certificate of Employment
- Employer shall issue the domestic worker within 5 days
from request a COE indicating the nature, duration of the
service and work performance
Criminal Acts
1. Employing a domestic worker who is below 15 years old
2. Charging by the original employer any amount from the
household where the service of his domestic worker is
temporarily performed
3. Requiring the domestic worker to make deposits to answer for
losses or damages to tools, materials, furniture and
equipment in the household
4. Placing the domestic worker under debt bondage
5. Interfering with the freedom of the domestic worker to dispose
of his wages
6. Withholding the wages of domestic worker or inducing the
domestic worker to give up any part of his wages
Criminal Sanction
- Administrative penalty of not less than P10,000 but not more
than P40,000.
Paternity Leave Act of 1996 (RA 8187)
Approved on June 11, 1996
Meaning of paternity leave
- Leave credits granted to a married male employee to
allow him to earn compensation for 7 working days
without reporting for work, provided that his spouse
has delivered a child, had a miscarriage, or an
abortion for the purpose of lending support to his
wife during her period of recovery and nursing of the
newborn child
- the benefits granted to a married male employee
allowing him not to report for work for seven (7) days
but continues to earn the compensation therefor, on
the condition that his spouse has delivered a child or
suffered a miscarriage for purposes of enabling him
to effectively lend support to his wife in her period of
recovery and/or in the nursing of the newly-born
child.
Coverage of the law
- Married male employees in the private and public
sectors.
Penal sanctions
- Penalty or fine not exceeding P25,000 or
imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor more than 6
months
- If violation is committed by a juridical entity, the
penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed on the entity’s
responsible officers