JULIAN S. LEBRUDO and REYNALDO L. LEBRUDO, petitioner, vs. REMEDIOS LOYOLA, respondent
G.R. No. 181370 | March 9, 2011
FACTS:
Respondent Remedios Loyola owns a 240 sq. m. parcel of land in Milagrosa, Carmona, Cavite, which was awarded by DAR under RA 6657.
On June 27, 1995, petitioner Julian S. Lebrudo filed with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator an action for the cancellation of the TCT/CLOA in the name of Loyola and the issuance of another for the ½ portion of the lot in Lebrudo’s favor.
The PARAD dismissed the case on the ground that the case was filed prematurely. On March 11,1996 Lebrudo re-filed the same action.
He alleged that he was approached by Loyola sometime in 1989 to redeem the lot, which was mortgaged by Loyola’s mother to Trinidad Barresto. After Lebrudo redeemed the lot, Loyola again sought Lebrudo’s help in obtaining title to the lot in her name by shouldering all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from her mother. In exchange, Loyola promised to give Lebrudo the ½ portion of the lot. Thereafter, TCT/CLOA No. 998 was issued in favor of Loyola. Loyal then allegedly executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay, waiving and transferring her right over the ½ portion of the lot in favor of Lebrudo. To reiterate her commitment, Loyola allegedly executed 2 more Sinumpaang Salaysay, committing herself to remove her house constructed on the corresponding ½ portion to be allotted to Lebrudo.
Thereafter, Lebrudo asked Loyola to comply with her promise. However, she refused.
Despite steps taken to amicably settle the issue, there was no amicable settlement. Thus, Lebrudo filed an action against Loyola.
In her Answer, Loyola maintained that Lebrudo was the one who approached her and offered to redeem the lot and the release of the CLOA. Loyola denied promising ½ portion of the lot as payment. Loyola explained that the lot was her only property and it was already occupied by her children and their families. Loyola also denied the genuineness and due execution of the 2 sinumpaang salaysay.
ISSUE:
Whether Lebrudo is entitled to the ½ portion of the lot covered by RA 6657 on the basis of the waiver and transfer of rights embodied the Sinumpaang Salaysay allegedly executed by Loyola in his favor.
RULING:
A Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by DAR, and constraints the restrictions and conditions provided for in RA 6657 and other applicable laws.
It is clear from the provision that lands awarded to beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program may not be sold, transferred or conveyed for a period of 10 years except: (1) through hereditary succession; (2) to the government; (3) to the Land Bank of the Philippines; or (4) to other qualified beneficiaries. During the prohibitory 10-year period, any sale, transfer or conveyance of land reform right is void, except as allowed by law, in order to prevent a circumvention of agrarian reform laws.
In the present case, Lebrudo insists that he is entitled to ½ portion of the lot awarded to Loyola under the CARP as payment for shouldering all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from Loyola’s mother to Loyola’s name. Lebrudo used the 2 Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola alloting to him ½ portion of the lot as basis for his claim.
Lebrudo’s assertion must fail. The law expressly prohibits any sale, transfer or conveyance by farmer-beneficiaries of their land reform right within 10 years from the grant by the DAR. The law provides for 4 exceptions and Lebrudo does not fall under any of the exceptions. In Maylem v. Ellano, the Court held that the waiver of rights and interests over landholding awarded by government is invalid for being violative of agrarian reform laws. Clearly, the waiver and transfer of right to the lot as embodied in the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola is void for falling under the 10-year prohibitory period specified in RA 6657
Comments
Post a Comment