G.R. No. 198160 August 31, 2016
Victoria P. Cabral, Petitioner vs. Gregoria Adolfo, Gregorio Lazaro and Heirs of Elias Policarpio, Respondents

FACTS

Petitioner Victoria P. Cabral is the owner of Lot 4 in Meycauayan, Bulacan, covered by OCT No. 0-1670. The lot was placed under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program under P.D. No. 27. On April 25, 1988, Emancipation Patents (EPs) and corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued in favor of the respondents. Cabral filed a petition before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for the cancellation of the EPs and TCTs, arguing that Lot 4 was non-agricultural land outside OLT coverage, the EPs were issued without due notice and hearing, and no Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) were previously issued. The PARAD ruled in favor of Cabral, cancelling the EPs and TCTs and ordering the revival of her OCT, finding that Lot 4 was residential based on a 1983 zoning map and certification, and that a 1973 declaration by a DAR District Officer stated the lot was not covered by OLT. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed the PARAD decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the DARAB, ruling that there was no evidence of an order of conversion or declaration from the DAR Secretary placing Lot 4 outside OLT coverage, and gave credence to a 1983 letter from a DAR Deputy Minister stating the land was covered by OLT and fully tenanted.

ISSUE

Whether grounds exist to warrant the cancellation of the EPs and TCTs issued to the respondents, which hinges on whether the subject landholding is covered by the OLT program under P.D. No. 27.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the decisions of the PARAD and DARAB cancelling the EPs and TCTs. The Court held that only landholdings under established tenancy and primarily devoted to rice or corn farming are brought under the OLT program and issued a CLT. A CLT signifies the government’s determination that the land is covered by P.D. No. 27 and the claimant is its actual tiller-beneficiary; without a CLT, a claimant has no inchoate right of ownership and cannot be issued an EP. The Court accorded great weight to the factual findings of the PARAD and DARAB, which found that Lot 4 was not agricultural and/or tenanted, supported by the 1973 DAR declaration of non-coverage and the absence of issued CLTs. The Court also noted that a zoning reclassification made subsequent to P.D. No. 27 does not create a presumption that the land was agricultural in 1972. The 1983 letter from the DAR Deputy Minister was deemed inconclusive as it did not categorically state that CLTs had been issued, and the Court found the respondents failed to substantiate their claim of being tenant-farmers. The issuance of the EPs without prior CLTs and despite the 1973 declaration of non-coverage violated Cabral’s right to due process and just compensation.