G.R. No. 182629 - MERCEDES N. ABELLA, MA. THERESA A. BALLESTEROS AND MARIANITO N. ABELLA, VS. HEIRS OF FRANCISCA C. SAN JUAN namely: GLICERIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, BENIGNA SAN JUAN VASQUEZ, EVARISTO SAN JUAN, NIEVES SAN JUAN LUSTRE AND MATILDE SAN JUAN QUILONIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Libra

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the assailed decision dated April 12, 2005 of the RTC, Branch 23, Naga City, in Civil Case No. RTC'2005-0033, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . A new judgment is entered, declaring plaintiffs-appellants the owners of the subject property covered by CLT No. 843 and quieting their title thereto. SO ORDERED . [31] (Emphasis in the original.) Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated April 14, 2008. [32] The Petition Petitioners assail the CA Decision and Resolution on the following grounds: First , the Agreement, being a mere relocation agreement, did not violate nor contravene the true spirit of PD 27 and other agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations. [33] Second , the DAR/MAR are agencies tasked to implement PD 27 and other agrarian laws, rules and regulations relative to the disputed land, thus their approval of the Agreement must be accorded great weight by the CA. [34] Third , Toralba v. Mercado is not applicable because Francisca did not surrender the Balatas property to her former landowner, Dr. Abella, as contemplated under PD 27. Instead, she received in return the Cararayan property. [35] Fourth , PD 27 does not automatically vest ownership of a piece of land to a. tenant-farmer beneficiary, contrary to the findings of the CA. Pending compliance with certain conditions set forth by PD 27, a qualified farmer cannot claim the right of absolute ownership over the land because he is considered as a mere prospective owner. Francisca defaulted in the payment of the annual amortizations for more than two years, thus, her status as deemed owner of the landholding covered by CLT No. 843 (159301) had ceased to exist. This holds true even if the cancellation of the CLT was not annotated on the certificate of land transfer and the CLT was not cancelled from the registry book of the Registry of Deeds. [36] Fifth , petitioners maintain that the respondents are estopped from questioning the Agreement. Benigna knew of the Agreement and yet, she neither complained nor moved to have it cancelled. When Benigna sought permission from Mrs. Abella that she be allowed to stay in the property, she recognized Mrs. Abella and the children as its owners. Benigna even benefited from the benevolence of the petitioners when upon her request, she and her family were allowed to construct their houses on the property without paying any rentals. [37] Sixth , the decision of the CA would unjustly enrich respondents at the expense of the petitioners. Francisca, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had already received, and enjoyed the following properties: (a) 0.600 hectare or 6,000-square meter Cararayan property; (b) disturbance compensation of P5,250.00; and (c) the 120-square meter Balatas home lot, all of which were given by Dr. Abella in exchange for the Balatas property. And yet, by virtue of the CA decision, the respondents would still be entitled to recover the Balatas property. [38] Our Rulin