SPECIAL THIRD
DIVISION
SPOUSES
ELIGIO P.
MALLARI AND MARCELINA I. MALLARI,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
106615
January 15, 2004
-versus-
IGNACIO
ARCEGA,
PERCASIO CATACUTAN, BEN GARCIA, ALFREDO DE GUZMAN,MARIETA JACINTO,
CELESTINO MAGAT, VICENTE MALLARI, RAFAEL MANALO,LORENZO MANARANG,
EMILIO DE MESA, JUAN PANGILINAN, TOROBIA SERRANO,CELESTINA TORNO
AND JUANITO VITAL,
Respondents. |
x - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
IGNACIO ARCEGA,
PERCASIO
CATACUTAN, BEN GARCIA, ALFREDO DE GUZMAN,MARIETA JACINTO,
CELESTINO MAGAT, VICENTE MALLARI, RAFAEL MANALO,LORENZO MANARANG,
EMILIO DE MESA, JUAN PANGILINAN, TOROBIA SERRANO,CELESTINA TORNO
AND JUANITO VITAL,
Petitioners,
|
G.R.
No.
108591
January 15, 2004
-versus-
HONORABLE
NORBERTO
C. PONCE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE, BRANCH XLVI,SAN FERNANDO,
PAMPANGA
AND SPOUSES ELIGIO MALLARI AND MARCELINA MALLARI,
Respondents.
|
x - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
SPOUSES
ELIGIO P.
MALLARI AND MARCELINA I. MALLARI,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
109452
January 15, 2004
-versus-
IGNACIO
ARCEGA,
ALFREDO DE GUZMAN, PERCASIO CATACUTAN,RAFAEL MANALO,
EMILIO
DE MESA, JUANITO VITAL, TOROBIA SERRANO,CELESTINO MAGAT,
VICENTE MALLARI, LORENZO MANARANG,MARIETA JACINTO,
BEN GARCIA, CELESTINA TORNO AND JUAN PANGILINAN,
Respondents. |
x - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SPOUSES
ELIGIO P.
MALLARI AND MARCELINA I. MALLARI,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
109978
January 15, 2004
-versus-
IGNACIO
ARCEGA,
PERCASIO CATACUTAN, BEN GARCIA, ALFREDO DE GUZMAN,
MARIETA
JACINTO,
CELESTINO MAGAT, VICENTE MALLARI, RAFAEL MANALO,LORENZO MANARANG,
EMILIO DE MESA, JUAN PANGILINAN, TOROBIA SERRANO,CELESTINA TORNO
AND JUANITO VITAL,
Respondents. |
x - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
SPOUSES
ELIGIO P.
MALLARI AND MARCELINA I. MALLARI,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
139379
January 15, 2004
-versus-
IGNACIO
ARCEGA,
PERCASIO CATACUTAN, BEN GARCIA, ALFREDO DE GUZMAN,MARIETA JACINTO,
CELESTINO MAGAT, VICENTE MALLARI, RAFAEL MANALO,LORENZO MANARANG,
EMILIO DE MESA, JUAN PANGILINAN, TOROBIA SERRANO,
CELESTINA
TORNO
AND JUANITO VITAL,
Respondents. |
x - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
R E S O L U
T I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
At bar is a motion for
reconsideration of our Decision[1]
filed by spouses Eligio and Marcelina Mallari [petitioners in G.R. Nos.
106615, 109452, 109978 & 139379 and respondents in G.R. No. 108591].
The instant consolidated
petitions involve a parcel of agricultural land over which Ignacio
Arcega,
et al. [the 14 tenants who are petitioners in G.R. No. 108591 and
respondents
in G.R. Nos. 106615, 109452, 109978 & 139379] vigorously assert
their
right of redemption. The resolution of the issues raised in all these
petitions
hinges on the determination of the issue in G.R. No. 106615, i.e.,
whether
Arcega, et al. have validly tendered or consigned payment of the
redemption
price for the purpose of exercising their right of redemption under
Section
12, Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, through their presentation of a
document entitled "Certification To Finance Redemption of Estate Under
R.A. No. 3844, As Amended," dated January 15, 1982 issued by Mr.
Basilio
Estanislao, then president of the Land Bank of the Philippines.cralaw:red
A recapitulation of
the essential facts relative to the instant motion for reconsideration
shows that:
Arcega, et al. are agricultural
lessees of landholdings planted to sugarcane, described as Lot 3364 of
the San Fernando Cadastre, located at Maimpis, San Fernando, Pampanga.
This lot is the subject of these cases.cralaw:red
Lot 3364 was originally
owned by spouses Roberto and Asuncion Wijangco under T.C.T. No. 27507-R
of the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga. They mortgaged the lot and their
other lots to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan.
Eventually,
for their failure to pay their loan, the PNB foreclosed the mortgage.
In
the auction sale that followed, the PNB, being the highest bidder,
acquired
the lots and was issued a Certificate of Sale. Upon failure of the
Wijangcos
to redeem the lots, ownership thereof was transferred to the PNB.
Several
land titles were then issued to it by the Register of Deeds. Among
those
titles is T.C.T. No. 154516-R covering Lot No. 3664.cralaw:red
On July 10, 1980, spouses
Eligio and Marcelina Mallari purchased two lots from the PNB, one of
which
is the subject Lot No. 3664, without any indication that the same is
tenanted.[2]
Pursuant to their agreement, the spouses paid PNB the sum of
P473,000.00,
or 20% of the purchase price of P2,365,000.00, as down-payment, and the
balance to be paid in three equal annual installments.cralaw:red
On July 22, 1981, Arcega,
et al., who are occupying portions of the lot, filed with the Court of
Agrarian Relations, San Fernando, Pampanga, a petition for redemption
against
the Wijangco spouses (as original owners), the PNB (as the
mortgagee-transferee
and vendor) and the Mallari spouses (as the subsequent vendees),
docketed
as Agrarian Case No. 1908. Upon the abolition of the CAR, the case was
automatically absorbed by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, also at
San Fernando, Pampanga. Arcega, et al. alleged in their petition that
in
April, 1981, Eligio Mallari informed them that he purchased Lot No.
3664
from the PNB; that they tried to redeem their respective landholdings
at
P5,000.00 per hectare but spouses Mallari rejected the offer
considering
that the latter bought the lot from the PNB at P18,000.00 per hectare;
and that they were compelled to institute the petition for redemption
pursuant
to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844,[3]
as amended by R.A. 6389,[4]
which provides:
"Sec. 12. Lessee’s right
of redemption. – In case the landholding is sold to a third person
without
the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the
right
to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided,
That
where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be
entitled
to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually
cultivated
by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised
within
one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by
the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian
Reform
upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any
other
right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall be the reasonable
price of the land at the time of the sale.cralaw:red
"Upon the filing of
the corresponding petition or request with the Department or
corresponding
case in court by the agricultural lessee or lessees, the said period of
one hundred and eighty days shall cease to run.cralaw:red
x x x
"The Department of Agrarian
Reform shall initiate, while the Land Bank shall finance, said
redemption
as in the case of pre-emption."
On November 18, 1981,
before the pre-trial of the case, Arcega, et al. filed with the trial
court
a motion praying that the Land Bank be ordered to issue a certification
that it shall finance the redemption of their landholdings. The trial
court,
in its Order dated December 24, 1981, denied their motion and required
them to show cause at the next hearing why their petition should not be
dismissed for their failure to make a tender of payment and/or
consignation
of the redemption price.cralaw:red
Arcega, et al. then
moved for a reconsideration of the December 24, 1981 Order on the
ground
that the requirement of tender of payment and/or consignation is not
necessary
as a Land Bank certification to finance such redemption is sufficient.cralaw:red
On January 20, 1982,
during the hearing of their motion for reconsideration, Arcega, et al.
presented a certification entitled "Certification To Finance Redemption
of Estate Under R.A. No. 3844, As Amended," dated January 15, 1982
issued
by Mr. Basilio Estanislao, then president of the Land Bank of the
Philippines.cralaw:red
In its Order dated January
27, 1982, the trial court dismissed the petition for redemption
because:
(1) Arcega, et al. failed to exercise their right of redemption within
the prescribed 180-day period; and (2) the Land Bank certification they
presented does not constitute a tender of payment and/or consignation
of
the redemption price.cralaw:red
Arcega, et al. interposed
an appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. No.
SP-13807-CAR.
On May 31, 1982, the appellate court rendered a Decision, reversing and
setting aside the trial court’s Order of January 27, 1982. It mainly
ruled
that: (a) Arcega, et al. have timely exercised their right of
redemption
under Section 12, R.A. No. 3844, as amended; and (b) a certification
from
the Land Bank that it will finance the redemption is sufficient tender
of payment and consignation of the redemption price. Thus, the Court of
Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.cralaw:red
Aggrieved, the Mallari
spouses filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court,
docketed
as No. L-61093.[5]
In a Decision dated May 25, 1988, we dismissed the spouses’ petition,
holding
that (1) the right of Arcega, et al. to redeem the property "has not
yet
prescribed because no notice in writing of the sale was ever given by
the
vendee upon (them) as agricultural lessees of the land, as required by
law;"[6]
and (2) "it is not necessary for tenants-redemptioners to make a tender
and/or consignation of the redemption price" since "a certification of
the Land Bank to finance the redemption when presented will suffice."[7]
The trial court then
proceeded with the pre-trial of the case and, after a full-blown
hearing,
rendered a Decision[8]
dated November 8, 1990, dismissing for the second time the petition for
redemption, on the following grounds:
1. The action for redemption
by Arcega, et al. has prescribed;
2. Arcega, et al. "did
not even present any witness from the Land Bank to identify this
document
(the questioned certification) and to attest to its due execution,
genuineness
and authenticity x x x, thereby losing entirely its probative value and
bolstering the fact, as established, that indeed it was an
accommodation
certification only;"[9]
3. The Land Bank did
not join Arcega, et al. as a plaintiff or petitioner in the redemption
case, neither was it impleaded as a co-defendant. Hence, no judgment is
binding and enforceable against the bank since the court has not
acquired
jurisdiction over it;
4. The questioned Land
Bank certification dated January 15, 1982 is void ab initio since it is
conditional and is not in accordance with the law and Land Bank
Circular
Letter No. 3 dated February 25, 1980 and, therefore, the same cannot be
considered as equivalent to tender of payment and consignation of the
redemption
price;
5. The Land Bank itself,
in its letter dated October 16, 1989 (Exhibit "35"), stated that it
will
not enforce the January 15, 1982 certification because it is not the
certification
required by law and Land Bank Circular No. 3 dated February 25, 1980.
Also,
the Land Bank, in another letter dated October 23, 1981 signed by Mr.
Danilo
R. Cueto, Manager, PIO (Exhibit "22"), stated that the bank is not
acquiring/financing
sugar lands, thus: "(1) The Land Bank of the Philippines is not
acquiring
sugar lands. Rather, it is the financing arm of the government in the
implementation
of the agrarian reform program in pursuance of PD 27. At present,
Operation
Land Transfer (OLT) covers only rice and corn lands; (2) As to its
legal
justification, the existing law on agrarian reform OLT does not cover
sugar
lands;"[10]
and
6. Arcega, et al. failed
to establish by competent and satisfactory evidence the reasonable
amount
of the redemption price of their landholdings. Their "witness, Rafael
Manalo
admitted in open court that he and his co-plaintiffs could afford to
pay
only P5,000.00 per hectare which is definitely way below the price per
hectare at which PNB sold the lot to the defendants-spouses in 1980 at
the price of P18,000.00 per hectare. On this score alone, plaintiff’s
petition
must necessarily fail."[11]
Arcega, et al. again
appealed from the trial court’s Decision to the Court of Appeals,
docketed
as CA-G.R. SP CAR 25209. In its Decision dated June 9, 1992, the
appellate
court reversed the trial court’s Decision, holding that the issue of
whether
the Land Bank certification is equivalent to a valid tender of payment
and/or consignation of the redemption price was already passed upon by
this Court in No. L-61093; and that what the trial court should have
done
was to resolve the question on the reasonable amount of the redemption
price, nothing more.cralaw:red
Expectedly, spouses
Mallari elevated the matter to this Court via the present petition for
review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 106615. Pending our
resolution
of this case, four other petitions were filed with this Court involving
the trial court’s various Orders issued in the same agrarian case and a
DARAB’s Decision concerning the same disputed landholding:
In G.R. No. 108591,
Arcega, et al. assail the validity of the trial court’s Orders dated
November
3, 1992, November 12, 1992, December 2, 1992 and January 14, 1993 which
recognize spouses Mallari's right to demand payment of back rentals
from
Arcega, et al. for the agricultural crop year 1991-1992. In effect, the
said Orders held that they failed to exercise their right of redemption.cralaw:red
In G.R. No. 109452,
spouses Mallari challenge the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated March
10,
1993 affirming the Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication
Board, Region III, suspending the proceedings in DARAB Case Nos. 144-P
'89 to 160-P '89 (for dissolution of Arcega, et al.’s tenancy
relationship
and their payment of annual rentals corresponding to six agricultural
crop
years 1983-1984 to 1988-1989) until such time that the petition for
redemption
shall have been finally resolved by this Court in G.R. No. 106615.cralaw:red
In G.R. No. 109978,
spouses Mallari impugn the April 30, 1993 Decision of the Court of
Appeals
reversing and setting aside the trial court’s Order dated February 5,
1992
requiring Arcega, et al. to render an accounting on the sugarcane
produced
from their landholdings for the crop year 1991-1992; and the Order
dated
May 14, 1992 directing them to deliver to spouses Mallari their shares
corresponding to the agricultural crop year 1991-1992. Both Orders are
based on the trial court’s finding that Arcega, et al. did not exercise
their right of redemption.cralaw:red
In G.R. No. 139379,
spouses Mallari question the validity of the Court of Appeals’ Decision
dated July 9, 1999 setting aside the trial court’s Order of November 4,
1994 requiring Arcega, et al. to pay the spouses back rentals for the
agricultural
years 1982-1983 to 1989-1990.cralaw:red
As we have stated at
the outset, the resolution of these four other petitions hinges on the
determination of the issue in G.R. No. 106615, i. e., whether Arcega,
et
al. have validly tendered or consigned the redemption price for the
purpose
of exercising their right of redemption under Section 12, Republic Act
No. 3844, as amended, through their presentation of a "Certification To
Finance Redemption of Estate Under R.A. No. 3844, As Amended," dated
January
15, 1982 issued by Mr. Basilio Estanislao, then president of the Land
Bank
of the Philippines.cralaw:red
Going back to the Mallari
spouses’ petition in G.R. No. 106615, on March 20, 2002, we rendered a
Decision affirming the June 9, 1992 Decision of the Court of Appeals.
We
reiterated our ruling in No. L-61093 that since the Land Bank has
issued
a certification that it will finance the redemption, it is not
necessary
for Arcega, et al. to tender payment and/or consign the redemption
price.
The dispositive portion of our Decision reads:
"WHEREFORE:
1. The petitions
of
spouses Mallari in G.R. Nos. 106615, 109452, 109978 and 139379 are
DENIED
and the assailed Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP CAR
No.
25209, CA-G.R. SP CAR No. 30085, CA-G.R. SP CAR No. 30887 and CA-G.R.
SP
CAR No. 36100 are AFFIRMED;
2. The petition of
Arcega,
et al. in G.R. No. 108591 is GRANTED and the appealed RTC Orders dated
November 3, 1992, November 12, 1992, December 2, 1992 and January 14,
1993
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE;
3. The RTC is
ORDERED
to implead the LBP in Agrarian Case No. 1908;
4. Agrarian Case
No.
1908 is REMANDED to the RTC, Branch 46, San Fernando, Pampanga for
further
proceedings with dispatch; and
5. The RTC is
further
ORDERED to submit to this Court a progress report of the status of
Agrarian
Case No. 1908 every 3 months until this Court’s Decision is fully
implemented.
"SO ORDERED."
Spouses Mallari now
seek
a reconsideration of our Decision.
Basically, spouses Mallari
contend that the questioned Land Bank certification, as held by the
trial
court in its November 8, 1990 Decision, is void ab initio for being
merely
conditional in character and not in accordance with the pertinent law
and
Land Bank Circular No. 3 dated February 25, 1980. Moreover, the Land
Bank,
in its letter dated October 16, 1989, signed by Augusto M. Aquino,
addressed
to Eligio Mallari, which the latter presented as Exhibit "35" during
the
trial of the agrarian case, states that the subject certification
cannot
be enforced against the bank, thus:
"x x x the certification
(in question) cannot be enforced against Land Bank, whether or not it
is
a party to the pending case for redemption.
"The implementing rules
and regulations outlined under LBP Circular Letter No. 3 speak of a
certification
from the Bank as to availability of funds, certifying that a certain
amount
in cash or/and bond had already been set aside for the purpose, whereas
Annex ‘A’ (the questioned certification presented by Arcega, et al.) of
your letter is a mere conditional commitment on the part of the Bank to
finance the redemption, which means that said financing must be in
accordance
with law and existing policies."[12]
Spouses Mallari maintain
that the above-quoted letter effectively cancelled the questioned
certification.
Thus, Arcega, et al. have not properly tendered or consigned the
redemption
price and, therefore, cannot exercise their right of redemption.cralaw:red
In their comment, Arcega,
et al. countered by simply stating that the matter raised in the
instant
motion was already passed upon by this Court in No. L-61093 holding
that
the Land Bank certification "will suffice."
The essential questions
raised in spouses Mallari’s instant motion is (1) whether the subject
Land
Bank "Certification to Finance Redemption of Estate Under R.A. No.
3844,
As Amended," dated January 15, 1982, is void ab initio for being
conditional
and contrary to law and Land Bank Circular Letter No. 3, dated February
25, 1980, as held by the trial court; and (2) whether the said
certification
may still be enforced despite its cancellation by the Land Bank.cralaw:red
The motion is impressed
with merit.cralaw:red
The first issue certainly
involves a scrutiny of the intrinsic or inherent validity of the Land
Bank
certification. The resolution of this issue is crucial because if the
certification
is indeed void, then respondents Arcega, et al. can no longer exercise
their right of redemption under Section 12 of R.A. 3844, as amended,
quoted
earlier.cralaw:red
Contrary to the claim
of Arcega, et al., this Court in its Decision in No. L-61093 (penned by
the late Chief Justice Pedro L. Yap) did not pass upon the matter being
raised by spouses Mallari in their instant motion for reconsideration,
i.e., whether the Land Bank certification is void ab initio, or has
become
ineffective when it was cancelled by the Land Bank. It must be stressed
that pursuant to that same Decision, the trial court conducted hearing
in Agrarian Case No. 1908. After a full-blown hearing, the trial court
rendered its Decision on November 8, 1990 dismissing the petition for
redemption
of Arcega, et al. on the grounds that, among others, the questioned
Land
Bank certification to finance redemption is void ab initio for being
conditional
in nature and not in accordance with Land Bank Circular No. 3 of
February
25, 1980. We reiterate that the correctness of this particular ruling
by
the trial court was not passed upon by this Court in its Decision in
No.
L-61093. What it resolved is that "A certification of the Land Bank to
finance the redemption when presented will suffice,"[13]
not whether it is valid. Surely, these two phrases connote different
meanings.cralaw:red
It is significant to
stress further that after this Court rendered its May 25, 1988 Decision
in No. L-61093, the Land Bank declared in its letter of October 16,
1989
to Eligio Mallari (Exhibit "35") that the questioned certification
cannot
be enforced due to its serious legal defects.cralaw:red
We shall now make a
definite ruling on the validity of the Land Bank certification in
question.cralaw:red
The law governing redemption
cases by agricultural lessees is R.A. 3844, as amended, Section 12
(last
paragraph) of which mandates:
"Sec. 12. Lessee’s right
of redemption. – x x x.cralaw:red
"The Department of Agrarian
Reform shall initiate, while the Land Bank shall finance, said
redemption
as in the case of pre-emption."
Pursuant to the above
provision, Land Bank Circular Letter No. 3, dated February 25, 1980,
entitled
"Rules and Regulations on the Financing by Land Bank of Acquisition of
Land-holdings by Agricultural Lessees Through Pre-emption or Redemption
under R.A. 3844, as amended," was issued. The pertinent provisions of
the
said Circular state:
x x x
"2. All proposals for
Land Bank financing of land acquisition through pre-emption or
redemption
must carry the favorable endorsement of the Minister of Agrarian Reform.cralaw:red
x x x
"5. Upon direction of
the Court of Agrarian Relations, or upon recommendation of the Minister
of Agrarian Relations, the Land Bank may issue appropriate
certification
as to the availability of funds in lieu of cash and bond deposits to
finance
the acquisition of landholding subject of pre-emption or redemption.
The
certification shall be patterned after the attached form which is made
an integral part of these rules and regulations:
‘CERTIFICATION
AS TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS
‘Pursuant
to
Section
11/12 of RA No. 3844, as amended by RA No. 6389, I hereby certify that
the Land Bank has today, ________, 19__, set aside the amount of P
_________,
of which 10% is in cash and 90% in Land Bank bonds as compensation for
the landholding of ________________ situated at __________________ and
covered by OCT/TCT No. ___________ of the Registry of Deeds of
______________,
which is the subject of pre-emption/redemption, to be made payable to
said
_____________________ in accordance with Section 80 of RA No. 3844, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 251, subject to the rules and
regulations
of the Land Bank on pre-emption/redemption cases.cralaw:red
‘This
certification
is being issued pursuant to a letter-request dated ________, 19__, of
the
Minister of Agrarian Reform to the Land Bank of the Philippines.
‘Issued
at
Manila, this
_____ day of ________, 19__.
‘LAND BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES
‘By:
___________________________’"[14]
(underscoring
supplied)
However, the Land Bank
certification dated January 15, 1982 which Arcega, et al. presented is
contrary to the document of financing guaranty prescribed in Land Bank
Circular Letter No. 3 quoted above. We reproduce in full the challenged
certification:
"CERTIFICATION
TO FINANCE REDEMPTION OF ESTATE UNDER R.A. NO. 3844, AS AMENDED
"This
is to
certify
that the Land Bank of the Philippines shall finance the acquisition of
the landholding situated in Barrio Maimpis, San Fernando, Pampanga,
subject
matter of a Redemption Case x x x docketed as CAR Case No. 1908-P ’81,
if found in consonance with the provisions of Section 12, Republic Act
No. 3844, as amended, and with the relevant policies and procedures
laid
down by the Land Bank Board of Directors.
"Corresponding
funds
shall be set aside upon receipt of the order or directive from the
honorable
court and payment therefor shall be effected upon compliance with the
bank’s
guidelines and policies on the matter.
"Issued
at
Manila, this
15th day of January, 1982.
"LAND BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES
"By:
"(sgd.) BASILIO
ESTANISLAO
"President"[15]
(underscoring
supplied)
First and foremost,
paragraph
2 of Land Bank Circular Letter No. 3 has made it a mandatory
requirement
that "all proposals for Land Bank financing of land acquisition through
pre-emption or redemption must carry the favorable endorsement of the
Minister
(now Secretary) of Agrarian Reform." It is likewise required that the
prescribed
form must indicate that the certification has been "issued pursuant to
a letter-request from the (DAR Secretary) to the Land Bank of the
Philippines."
It bears emphasis that
such favorable endorsement from the DAR Secretary is a vital part of
the
redemption process since, under Section 12 of R.A. 3844, as amended, it
is the duty of the DAR to "initiate" pre-emption/redemption
proceedings.
It is the DAR which evaluates proposals/applications for Land Bank
financing.
Thus, it is within the discretion of the DAR Secretary whether or not
to
set aside certain amounts as compensation of the landholdings subject
of
pre-emption or redemption.cralaw:red
It follows that without
such "favorable endorsement" from the DAR Secretary, the Land Bank has
no authority to finance pre-emption or redemption. This is so because
under
the same Section 12 of R.A. 3844, as amended, the Land Bank’s role is
limited
only to financing the redemption/acquisition of the landholding for the
agricultural-lessee.cralaw:red
Here, the Land Bank
certification presented by Arcega, et al., the validity of which is
vigorously
questioned by spouses Mallari, is not supported by any favorable
endorsement
from the DAR Secretary. This plainly violates Section 12 of R.A. 3844,
as amended, and Land Bank Circular Letter No. 3, dated February 25,
1980.
As elucidated earlier, absent such DAR Secretary’s favorable
endorsement,
the Land Bank has no authority to finance the redemption of the
property
for Arcega, et al. Clearly, the disputed Land Bank certification is
void.
On this ground alone, spouses Mallari’s instant motion should be
granted.cralaw:red
Secondly, the questioned
certification itself declares that the Land Bank’s undertaking to
finance
the redemption is conditional. The financing will push through "if
found
in consonance with the provisions of Section 12, Republic Act No. 3844,
as amended, and with the relevant policies and procedures laid down by
the Land Bank Board of Directors." Certainly, this is contrary to the
certification
(reproduced above) prescribed by Land Bank Circular Letter No. 3, dated
February 25, 1980. Moreover, the challenged certification does not set
aside the specific compensation for the redemption of the landholding.
Hence, the Mallari spouses are not assured of the corresponding amount
and its payment by Arcega, et al.cralaw:red
Indeed, under the terms
of the assailed certification, there is no assurance or undertaking at
all from the Land Bank that it will finance the redemption.cralaw:red
Equally compelling in
our consideration of this case is the letter from the Land Bank dated
October
16, 1989 (Exhibit "35") presented by spouses Mallari to the trial court
which categorically states that the challenged certification cannot be
enforced against the Land Bank for being in violation of LBP Circular
Letter
No. 3 on availability of funds and endorsement of the Minister (now
Secretary)
of Agrarian Reform.cralaw:red
Considering that the
disputed Land Bank certification is void, it follows that Ignacio
Arcega,
et al. have failed to tender payment of the redemption price or its due
consignation in court. Such tender or consignation is an indispensable
requirement to the proper exercise of the right of redemption by the
agricultural-lessees.[16]
Absent the requisite
tender and consignation of the redemption price, we hold that under
R.A.
No. 3844, as amended, Ignacio Arcega, et al. cannot redeem the subject
landholdings.cralaw:red
The right of redemption
under R.A. No. 3844, as amended, is an essential mandate of the
agrarian
reform legislation to implement the State’s policy of
owner-cultivatorship
and to achieve a dignified, self-reliant existence for small farmers.[17]
Unfortunately, such laudable policy could not be effected in favor of
Ignacio
Arcega, et al. since they failed to tender or consign payment of the
redemption
price. Thus, spouses Mallari should be allowed to continue enjoying
their
right over the subject property as purchasers thereof, for the State’s
commendable agrarian reform policy is never intended to unduly
transgress
the rights of innocent purchasers of land.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the instant
motion for reconsideration filed by spouses Mallari is GRANTED and our
assailed Decision dated March 20, 2002 in these consolidated cases is
RECONSIDERED
and SET ASIDE. The "Certification To Finance Redemption Of Estate Under
R.A. No. 3844, As Amended," dated January 15, 1982 issued by the Land
Bank
of the Philippines is declared VOID, being in violation of Section 12,
R.A. 3844, as amended, and Land Bank Circular Letter No. 3 dated
February
25, 1980. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, San
Fernando,
Pampanga (acting as an Agrarian Court) in Agrarian Case No. 1908
dismissing
the petition for redemption filed by Ignacio Arcega, et al. is AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Vitug,
Panganiban, and Carpio, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Dated March 20, 2002.
[2]
See Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-61093, May 25, 1988, 161 SCRA
503,
505.
[3]
The Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963.
[4]
The Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines, which took effect on
September
10, 1971.
[5]
Entitled Eligio P. Mallari & Marcelina I. Mallari vs. Court of
Appeals,
Ignacio Arcega et al., 161 SCRA 503 (1988).
[6]
161 SCRA 508.
[7]
Id. at 510.
[8]
Penned by Judge Norberto C. Ponce.
[9]
Petition in G.R. No. 106615, Rollo at 136.
[10]
Id. at 138-139.
[11]
Id. at 139.
[12]
Exhibit "35", marked as Annex "2" of Annex "K", Petition in G.R. No.
106615,
Rollo at 83-85. See also Decision dated November 8, 1990 of the trial
court
in Agrarian Case No. 1908, Rollo at 103-143, 130, 139.
[13]
161 SCRA 510.
[14]
Annexes "H" & "H-1", Motion for Reconsideration, Rollo of G.R. No.
109452 at 197, 200.
[15]
Rollo of G.R. No. 109452 at 187.
[16]
Quiño vs. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 449 (1998).
[17]
Hidalgo vs. Hidalgo, G.R. No. L-25326, May 29, 1970, 144 PHIL. 312. |