GR 86044; (July, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86044 . July 2, 1990.
VICTORINO TORRES, petitioner, vs. LEON VENTURA, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Victorino Torres was the leasehold tenant of a 4,000-square-meter parcel of land in Isabela. Upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 in 1972, he was automatically deemed the owner of the land he tilled. In 1978, urgently needing money, Torres entered into a “selda” agreement with respondent Leon Ventura, transferring his rights over the landholding in consideration of a P5,000.00 loan. As part of this transaction, Torres signed an “Affidavit of Waiver” relinquishing his rights to Ventura. Torres alleged the agreement was a mortgage, with a promise that possession would be returned upon loan repayment. In 1980 and 1985, Torres offered to repay, but Ventura refused and refused to vacate. Torres filed a complaint for recovery of possession. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Torres, declaring the waiver null and void and ordering Ventura to return possession. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the “selda” agreement and “Affidavit of Waiver” executed by Torres, transferring his rights over a landholding covered by P.D. No. 27, are valid and effective.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision, ruling in favor of petitioner Torres. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental policy of agrarian reform. P.D. No. 27 expressly prohibits any form of transfer of lands covered by its operation except to the government or by hereditary succession. The agreement between Torres and Ventura, regardless of its characterization as a sale, waiver, or mortgage, constituted a prohibited transfer. Consequently, the contract is void ab initio (void from the beginning). The Court emphasized that agrarian laws must be liberally construed in favor of the farmer-beneficiary. The pari delicto doctrine (where both parties are at fault) cannot be invoked to bar recovery by the farmer, as doing so would contravene the State’s avowed policy to protect the tiller. Since the contract is void, it produces no legal effect. The parties must be restored to their original positions prior to its execution, entitling Torres to recover possession of the landholding. The burden of proving the farmer does not deserve the government grant lies with anyone contesting his rights, a burden Ventura failed to discharge.