Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of
Appeals.
FACTS:
1. A Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) was issued in favor of Mabalot over a certain
parcel of land.
2. Later, needing money for medical treatment, Mabalot passed on the land to
Estolas for a certain amount of money and rice.
3. According to Mabalot, there was only a verbal mortgage; while according to
Estolas, a sale had taken place. Acting on the transfer, the DAR officials
authorized the survey and issuance of an Emancipation Patent, leading to the
issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in favor of the Estolas.
4. Mabalot later filed a complaint before the Barangay Lupon to redeem the land.
No amicable settlement was reached, the case was referred to the DAR regional
office.
5. Estolas insists that the subject land had been sold to him by Mabalot and
requested the DAR to cancel the CLT in Mabalots name.
PROCEDURAL:
DAR District Office Investigation Report:
Mabalot merely gave the land to Estolas as guarantee for the payment of a loan he
had incurred from the latter; and recommended that the CLT remain in the name of
Mabalot and that the money loan be returned to Estolas.
(Estolas elevated the case to the regional director).
DAR Regional Director Order:
The act of Mabalot in surrendering the subject land in favor of Estolas constituted
abandonment, Mabalots prayer for redemption of the subject land is denied.
(Mabalot appealed to the DAR Central Office)
DAR Central Office Order:
Regional Director Order reversed. Estolas is ordered to return the land to Mabalot.
(Estolas appealed to the Office of the President, his appeal was dismissed. Estolas
appealed to the CA)
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED.
Whether or not tender of payment and judicial consignation of the purchase price
are necessary before a tenant-lessee may avail himself of the right of pre-emption
or of redemption provided in Sections 11 and 12 of the Agricultural Land Reform
Code.
Case for Plaintiff:
The CAR erred in dismissing the action for non-tender of the redemption price, since
the law does not require such tender, and the tenant is not bound to redeem his
land at the price for which it was sold, but only at a reasonable price and
consideration. The SC also ruled in two past cases that previous tender of the
redemption money is not indispensable.
SC RULING with RATIO:
The CAR did not err.
Basbass claim to preference in purchasing the land, in case the said land is to be
sold, or to his right to redeem it in 2 years should the land be sold without his
knowledge, is predicated upon Sections 11 and 12 of the Agricultural Land Reform
Code (Republic Act 3844):
SEC. 11. Lessee's Right of Pre-emption. In case the agricultural lessor
decides to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the
preferential right to buy the same under reasonable terms and conditions x x
x
SEC. 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption. In case the landholding is sold to a
third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall
have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and
consideration: Provided, That the entire landholding sold must be
redeemed: x x x The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised
within two years from the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over
any other right of legal redemption.
There is no showing that the Land Reform Council has proclaimed that the
government machineries and agencies in the region are already operating, as
required by section 4 of Republic Act 3844.
Granting that Sections 11 and 12 are operative, yet this Court has ruled in a past
case that the timely exercise of the right of legal redemption requires either tender
of the price or valid consignation thereof. The redemption price should either be
fully offered in legal tender or else validly consigned in court. Only by such means
can the buyer become certain that the offer to redeem is one made seriously and in
good faith. A buyer can not be expected to entertain an offer of redemption without
attendant evidence that the redemptioner can, and is willing to accomplish the
repurchase immediately. A different rule would leave the buyer open to harassment
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the decision of the CA which granted
Cement Centers Petition for Review and nullified and set aside the decisions of the
Regional Adjudicator and of the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) dismissing the
Complaint for Confirmation of Voluntary Surrender and Damages filed by Cement Center.
FACTS:
1. Petitioners were tenant-farmers cultivating three parcels of agricultural land
owned by Cement Center.
2. Cement Center filed a Complaint for Confirmation of Voluntary Surrender and
Damages against petitioners with the DARAB. It claimed that petitioners entered
into a Compromise Agreement with Cement Center whereby the former, for and
in consideration of P3,000 each, voluntarily surrendered their respective
landholdings. However, despite Cement Centers repeated demands, petitioners
refused to vacate subject landholdings.
3. Petitioners alleged that their consent to the Compromise Agreement was
obtained through fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. They claimed that:
a. Cement Center induced them to sign a Compromise Agreement by
representing that the subject landholdings are no longer viable for
agricultural purposes.
b. Cement Center assured them that they would only apply for the conversion of
the land and that they would have to surrender the land only upon the
approval of said application and that thereafter, they will each be paid a
disturbance compensation.
c. Cement Center promised to hire them to work on the project that was
planned for the converted land. But, should the application for conversion be
denied, petitioners will continue to be tenants and could later become
beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
PROCEDURAL:
Regional Adjudicator Ruling:
Case dismissed. The Compromise Agreement was not enforceable because it
violated the provisions of Administrative Order No. 12, which requires the payment
of disturbance compensation which should not be less than five times the average
of the annual gross value of the harvest on their actual landholdings during the last
five preceding calendar years. The disturbance compensation of P3,000 being
offered by Cement Center to each of the petitioners is grossly inadequate. Cement
Center likewise did not offer homelots to the petitioners as required under the
aforesaid order. Since Cement Centers application for conversion was denied, then
the purpose for the execution of the Compromise Agreement was rendered
nugatory. As a consequence of the denial of the application, the subject