G.R. No. 171961 November 28, 2008
FERDINAND A. DELA CRUZ and RENATO A. DELA CRUZ, petitioners, vs. AMELIA G. QUIAZON, respondent.

FACTS

Estela Dizon-Garcia, mother of respondent Amelia G. Quiazon, was the registered owner of a parcel of land in Capas, Tarlac, brought under Operation Land Transfer under P.D. No. 27. On June 8, 1981, Feliciano dela Cruz, a tenant-farmer, was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) over a 3.7200-hectare portion. On March 9, 1992, the heirs of Estela Dizon-Garcia executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Admission and Partition, adjudicating the subject property solely to respondent. On May 15, 1993, respondent filed a Complaint with the DAR Provincial Adjudication Board against petitioner Ferdinand dela Cruz, alleging a leasehold contract and his failure to deliver rentals since 1991, praying for his ejectment. Petitioners, in their Answer, contended that the CLT issuance made them owners, obligated only to pay amortizations to the Land Bank. Respondent amended the complaint to implead Feliciano and Renato dela Cruz, arguing that Feliciano and Ferdinand’s migration to the U.S.A. constituted abandonment, and that Renato was a usurper. Petitioners amended their Answer, stating Feliciano was temporarily abroad and Renato’s cultivation was in aid of their father. On November 8, 1993, petitioners began paying amortizations to the Land Bank. On December 21, 1993, the Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the complaint, finding no abandonment as Renato, a family member, was in possession. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 8, 1994, and the Adjudicator directed the issuance of an Emancipation Patent if amortizations were fully paid. Respondent appealed (DARAB Case No. 3335). Meanwhile, respondent and her siblings filed an Application for Retention with the DAR Regional Office on June 1, 1994, which was granted on February 8, 1996. On July 7, 1999, the DARAB dismissed respondent’s appeal, and this decision became final. On October 19, 1999, respondent filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, claiming she only learned of the July 7, 1999 Decision upon arriving from the U.S.A. on September 10, 1999, and that her counsel had died in 1994. On February 7, 2001, the DARAB granted the petition, set aside its July 7, 1999 Decision, declared the tenancy relationship dissolved, canceled the CLT, and ordered petitioners to vacate, primarily based on the DAR retention order and a finding of abandonment. The DARAB denied petitioners’ motions for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DARAB. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the DARAB’s grant of the Petition for Relief from Judgment.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the DARAB’s ruling that petitioners had an obligation to pay lease rentals and were guilty of abandonment.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the DARAB’s ruling that respondent had a right to retain the subject property by virtue of the decision in the DAR retention case.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious.
1. On the Petition for Relief from Judgment: The Court held that while respondent had the legal personality to file it, the petition was filed out of time. A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within sixty (60) days from knowledge of the judgment and within six (6) months from its entry. The DARAB’s July 7, 1999 Decision became final on July 22, 1999. Respondent filed her petition on October 19, 1999, which was beyond the six-month period from the finality of the judgment. Her claim of learning of the judgment only on September 10, 1999, even if true, did not excuse the late filing as the six-month period had already lapsed. The DARAB thus acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the belated petition.
2. On Abandonment and Obligation to Pay Rentals: The Court ruled that petitioners did not abandon the landholding. Abandonment requires a clear and absolute intention to renounce ownership, which was not present. Feliciano’s temporary stay abroad and the cultivation by his son Renato, a member of his immediate family, did not constitute abandonment under agrarian laws. The obligation to pay lease rentals ceased upon the issuance of the CLT, which transferred ownership to the farmer-beneficiary, who then only had the obligation to pay amortizations to the Land Bank. Petitioners had in fact commenced amortization payments.
3. On the Right of Retention: The Court held that the DARAB erred in relying on the DAR Regional Director’s Order granting the application for retention. The issue of retention was not properly litigated in the main case for ejectment. More importantly, the right of retention is not a magic wand that automatically displaces the rights of a tenant-farmer who has already been issued a CLT. The issuance of the CLT vested in the farmer-beneficiary an actual, vested right to the land, which cannot be defeated by a subsequent retention claim by the landowner. The DARAB’s cancellation of the CLT based solely on the retention order was erroneous. Furthermore, the retention rights of the heirs, who merely succeeded to their mother’s rights, should be limited to five hectares, and the process of allocating retention areas must consider the rights of tenants.
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The DARAB Resolution dated February 7, 2001, which granted the Petition for Relief from Judgment and canceled the CLT, was ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The DARAB Decision dated July 7, 1999, which had become final and executory, dismissing the complaint against petitioners, was REINSTATED.