Presentacion is the eldest daughter of the late Ireneo, an Operation Land Transfer beneficiary of agricultural land in Iloilo.
Mariano, in turn, is the husband of Presentacion’s younger sister, Vicenta.
After the death of Vicenta, Presentacion sought to recover possession of the said agricultural land from Mariano. Thus, on 16 March 2001, Presentacion filed a case against Mariano for ejectment from the said land. Presentacion asserts that Mariano illegally possessed the said agricultural land and deprived her of possession of the same. Presentacion thus prayed that Mariano be ordered to vacate the agricultural land.
Mariano admitted his refusal to turn over the land. However, he denied that his possession was illegal. According to Mariano, his possession of the land was by virtue of being a tenant on the land because he had continuously worked thereon for more than 30 years and had fully paid its amortization with the Land Bank of the Philippines. Mariano added that Presentacion had neither cultivated nor possessed the land nor paid a single centavo for its amortization.
With the death of Ireneo (the beneficiary) to whom should the agricultural land be transferred?
Presentacion has the right to possess the subject agricultural land since she is its qualified sole owner-cultivator. Mariano has to vacate the same.
Presidential Decree No. 27 provides:
Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reforms and other existing laws and regulations.1Emphasis supplied.
In the present case, the subject agricultural land had been granted to the late Ireneo, the original farmer-beneficiary, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27. Applying the provisions of the said law, the transferability of said land upon Ireneo’s death could be through hereditary succession in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27 and relevant regulations.
The Department of Agrarian Reform2Formerly the Ministry of Agrarian Reform promulgated Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978, or the Rules and Regulations in Case of Death of a Tenant-Beneficiary. This Memorandum Circular implemented the limitation on transferability set forth in Presidential Decree No. 27 for the purpose of carrying out the Government’s declared policy of establishing “owner-cultivatorship x x x as the basis of agricultural development of the country.”
The pertinent provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 19 state:
1. Succession to the farmholding covered by [OLT], shall be governed by the pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code of the Philippines subject to the following limitations:
x x x
b. The ownership and cultivation of the farmholding shall ultimately be consolidated in one heir who possesses the following qualifications:
(1) being a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmers’ cooperative;
(2) capable of personally cultivating the farmholding; and
(3) willing to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a tenant-beneficiary.
2. For the purpose of determining who among the heirs shall be the sole owner-cultivator, the following rules shall apply:
x x x
b. Where there are several heirs, and in the absence of extra-judicial settlement or waiver of rights in favor of one heir who shall be the sole owner and cultivator, the heirs shall within one month from death of the tenant-beneficiary be free to choose from among themselves one who shall have sole ownership and cultivation of the land, subject to Paragraph 1(b) and (c) hereof: Provided, however, That the surviving spouse shall be given first preference; otherwise, in the absence or due to the permanent incapacity of the surviving spouse, priority shall be determined among the heirs according to age.
c. In case of disagreement or failure of the heirs to determine who shall be the owner-cultivator within the period prescribed herein, the priority rule under the proviso of Paragraph 2(b) hereof shall apply.3Emphasis supplied.
In the present case, Mariano did not dispute that Presentacion was the oldest surviving heir of Ireneo at the time of the latter’s death. Also, Mariano did not assail that Presentation possessed the qualifications necessary to succeed Ireneo as new owner-cultivator under Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978. Thus, in the absence of any extra-judicial settlement assigning in Vicenta’s (Mariano’s wife) favor the priority right to become sole owner and cultivator of the disputed lots, Mariano’s claim of possession was left with no leg to stand on.
Further reading:
- Golez v. Abais, G.R. No. 191376, January 8, 2020.
