G.R. No. 193747 ; June 5, 2013
JOSELITO C. BORROMEO, Petitioner, vs. JUAN T. MINA, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves a 1.1057-hectare agricultural land in Isabela, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. EP-43526 registered in the name of respondent Juan T. Mina, based on an Emancipation Patent issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) on May 2, 1990. Petitioner Joselito C. Borromeo filed petitions with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) of Isabela in 2003, seeking to exempt his landholding from the coverage of the government’s Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program under Presidential Decree No. 27 and to consequently revoke and cancel respondent’s emancipation patent. Petitioner alleged he purchased the property from its previous owner, Serafin M. Garcia, as evidenced by a deed of sale notarized on February 19, 1982, but failed to transfer the title to his name. He claimed his total agricultural landholdings were only 3.3635 hectares, within the retention limits under agrarian laws, and that the emancipation patent was issued without notice to him. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) found the property was erroneously identified as owned by petitioner’s father, Cipriano Borromeo, when its true owner was Garcia, who sold it to petitioner. The MARO recommended exempting the landholding from OLT coverage. The PARO adopted this recommendation, cancelled respondent’s emancipation patent, and directed petitioner to execute a leasehold contract with respondent. The DAR Regional Director affirmed the exemption but did not order the cancellation of the patent, directing petitioner to institute proper proceedings before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). The DAR Secretary affirmed the Regional Director’s ruling. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the DAR Secretary’s ruling, doubting petitioner’s claim of ownership based on inconsistencies in the alleged deed of sale and declaring the sale null and void for being a prohibited transaction under PD 27. The CA also held that petitioner’s petitions constituted an impermissible collateral attack on respondent’s title under the Property Registration Decree.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the DAR Secretary’s ruling and in declaring the sale between petitioner and Garcia null and void, thereby upholding respondent’s emancipation patent and title over the subject property.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that the sale between petitioner and Garcia was null and void for being a prohibited transaction under Presidential Decree No. 27, which forbids the transfer or alienation of agricultural lands covered by the Operation Land Transfer program after October 21, 1972, except to tenant-beneficiaries. Petitioner was not a tenant-beneficiary. The Court also ruled that petitioner’s attempt to change his theory on appeal—by claiming an oral sale in 1976 instead of relying on the 1982 deed of sale—was not permitted, as it violated the rule that a party cannot change its theory on appeal. Furthermore, the Court found that petitioner’s administrative petitions before the PARO constituted an impermissible collateral attack on respondent’s Torrens title, which is prohibited under Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree. The Court emphasized that the proper remedy for questioning the validity of an emancipation patent is a direct proceeding for its cancellation, not a collateral attack. Consequently, respondent’s title, derived from the emancipation patent, remained valid and indefeasible.