G.R. No. 181370; March 9, 2011
JULIAN S. LEBRUDO and REYNALDO L. LEBRUDO, Petitioners, vs. REMEDIOS LOYOLA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Remedios Loyola is the owner of a 240-square meter parcel of land in Carmona, Cavite, awarded by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). The lot is covered by Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 20210, issued on 27 December 1990 and registered under TCT/CLOA No. 998 on 14 March 1991.
Petitioner Julian S. Lebrudo (now deceased and represented by his son Reynaldo) filed an action before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for the cancellation of Loyola’s TCT/CLOA and the issuance of a new title for one-half of the lot in his favor. Lebrudo alleged that in 1989, Loyola approached him to redeem the lot, which was mortgaged by her mother. After Lebrudo redeemed it for ₱250.00 and a cavan of palay, Loyola again sought his help to shoulder the expenses for transferring the title to her name, promising in exchange to give him one-half of the lot. Lebrudo claimed Loyola executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 28 December 1989 waiving and transferring her rights over one-half of the lot to him, and two more Salaysay dated 1 December 1992 and 3 December 1992 reiterating her commitment. When Loyola refused to comply, Lebrudo filed the case.
Loyola denied promising any portion of the lot as payment, asserted the lot was her only property occupied by her family, and denied the genuineness of the Salaysay dated 28 December 1989 and 3 December 1992.
The PARAD ruled in favor of Lebrudo, declaring Loyola disqualified as a farmer beneficiary, ordering the cancellation of her title, and directing the issuance of a new title for 120 square meters in Lebrudo’s name. The DARAB reversed this decision, upholding the validity of Loyola’s TCT/CLOA and declaring the Sinumpaang Salaysay null and void. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DARAB decision. Lebrudo elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Julian Lebrudo is entitled to a one-half portion of the land awarded under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program based on the waiver and transfer of rights embodied in the Sinumpaang Salaysay allegedly executed by respondent Remedios Loyola.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for lack of merit. The Court upheld the decisions of the DARAB and the Court of Appeals.
The Court ruled that a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is a document evidencing ownership granted to a beneficiary by the DAR, subject to the restrictions under R.A. No. 6657. Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, explicitly provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under the Act may not be sold, transferred, or conveyed for a period of ten (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. Any sale, transfer, or conveyance of land reform rights within this prohibitory period is void, except as allowed by law, to prevent circumvention of agrarian reform laws.
In this case, Lebrudo’s claim, based on the Sinumpaang Salaysay purportedly waiving and transferring Loyola’s rights over one-half of the lot as payment for titling expenses, is prohibited. The law’s exceptions do not apply to Lebrudo. The Court cited Maylem v. Ellano, which held that a waiver of rights and interests over landholdings awarded by the government is invalid for violating agrarian reform laws. Consequently, the waiver and transfer of rights embodied in the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola is void. Loyola’s TCT/CLOA No. 998 remains valid and effective.