G.R. No. 202799 , March 27, 2019
VIVENCIO DALIT, PETITIONER, v. SPOUSES ROLANDO E. BALAGTAS, SR. AND CARMELITA G. BALAGTAS, ROLANDO G. BALAGTAS, JR., CLARINA G. BALAGTAS, CARLOTA G. BALAGTAS, CARMELA G. BALAGTAS, SOFRONIO SARIENTE AND METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Vivencio Dalit filed an amended petition for maintenance of possession before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in 2005. He claimed to have been instituted as a tenant-farmer by the Balagtas family in 1997 over a 123,744-square meter parcel of land in Cabanatuan City. He alleged he had been tilling the land and sharing the harvest with Rolando Balagtas, Sr. or his agent, Sofronio Sariente. The Balagtas family had mortgaged the land to Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC), which foreclosed and consolidated title under its name. The Balagtas family then demanded Dalit vacate the property. Respondents Rolando Balagtas, Sr. denied instituting Dalit as a tenant, claiming Dalit was merely a heavy equipment operator during a construction project on the land. MBTC asserted the Balagtas family had no right to institute a tenant as the title was no longer in their name.
The Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) declared Dalit a tenant and maintained him in possession. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) reversed this, finding no tenancy relationship due to the absence of consent and sharing, and ordered Dalit’s ejectment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DARAB decision.
During the pendency of the case, significant events occurred: (1) The Balagtas family secured a final judgment in 2007 nullifying the foreclosure and reinstating their title, with a notice of lis pendens previously annotated on MBTC’s title; (2) In 2008, the land was placed under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage; (3) MBTC’s title was cancelled, and a title was issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines (RP) in September 2011, carrying over the lis pendens annotation; (4) The RP title was cancelled, and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) were issued to identified agrarian reform beneficiaries on October 20, 2011, including to Dalit (TCT No. T-2165), with the lis pendens also carried over; (5) The Balagtas family’s protest against the CARP coverage was denied by the DAR Regional Office in a final Order dated August 8, 2012.

ISSUE

The primary issue, in light of supervening events, is whether petitioner Vivencio Dalit should be maintained in possession of the land subject of the agrarian dispute.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion clarifies that Dalit must be maintained in possession of the subject lot as a consequence of his CLOA title. The rights and responsibilities of an agrarian reform beneficiary commence from the receipt of the registered CLOA and actual physical possession. Under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6657 , as amended, identified beneficiaries have usufructuary rights over the awarded land pending the CLOA award once the government takes possession. Therefore, Dalit’s possession must be respected until his CLOA title is cancelled for valid reasons in a proper proceeding.
The opinion further clarifies that the issue of whether Dalit was a de jure tenant prior to the CLOA issuance is not rendered moot by the CLOA. While the CLOA now governs his right to possession, the tenancy issue retains relevance because a CLOA can be cancelled on grounds such as material misrepresentation of the beneficiary’s qualifications, even after the one-year period for challenging its indefeasibility. However, in this instance, the primacy of the issued CLOA must be upheld.
Finally, the opinion states that a prior decision in a case between the Balagtas family and MBTC (which nullified the foreclosure and restored the Balagtas title) is irrelevant to Dalit’s rights. Dalit was not a party to that case, and the decision did not cancel derivative titles like Dalit’s CLOA. The annotation of lis pendens on Dalit’s title does not automatically cancel it. Unless Dalit’s CLOA is specifically cancelled in an action where he is an indispensable party, his right to possession under that title must be respected.