MAGDALENA CORUÑA, JORGE CORUÑA, ESTATE OF ALBERTO CORUÑA, ROSITA CORUÑA, ESTATE OF BENJAMIN CORUÑA, JUANITA ELIZALDE, FLORA ACOSTA, LORETO CORUÑA, AND ESTATE OF JOSE CORUÑA, VS. SATURNINO CINAMIN

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is hereby rendered dismissing the complaints for utter lack of merit. For lack of evidence, the counterclaim is denied. [15] According to the PARAD, petitioners failed to support their claim that respondents were not tenants of the lands subject of this dispute while for their part, respondents were able to prove the existence of tenancy relationship between them and petitioners. According to the PARAD, respondents were identified by the DAR as farmer-beneficiaries of Pres. Decree No. 27 and Letter of Instruction No. 474 and as such, they became owners of the land they tilled when Pres. Decree No. 27 took effect on 21 October 1972. [16] Respondents' status as tenants of Lot Nos. 1176-A and 350-B was also corroborated by receipts evidencing their payments of rentals or landowner's share to petitioners which were signed by petitioner Jorge Coruña and the affidavits executed by respondents to the effect that they were tenants in petitioners' lands. [17] As for respondents' alleged failure to pay rentals, the PARAD ruled in this wise: Payment of rentals to the landowner is no longer the concern of EP beneficiaries. From the moment the EP is issued, the obligation of the EP holder is concentrated with the Land Bank of the Philippines for purposes of amortizations of the value of the land. It is in fact prevalent on the date the value of the land is established (Memo Circular No. 6, Series of 1978, Curso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62985, April 2, 1984). In the instant case, aside from being not the proper party, complainants [petitioners herein] presented no concrete evidence showing that respondents failed to do so. On the contrary, they presented LBP receipts to prove no cause of claim (Annexes "O-15," "R-15," "Y-19," "OO," "OO-1," and "OO-2") against the provisions of IV-B-7 of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1994 which makes as a ground for cancellation of registered EP's or (CLOAÑs), the "failure of the ARB's to pay for at least three (3) annual amortizations to the LBP, except in cases of fortuitous events and force majeure." [18] Anent petitioners' contention that the inclusion of parts of Lot Nos. 1176-A and 350-B within the coverage of Pres. Decree No. 27 undermined their retention limit under said law, the PARAD held that as each complainant already owned around 12.7614 hectares of agricultural land aside from the area covered by Operation Land Transfer, they are no longer entitled to the seven-hectare retention area. The PARAD based this finding on the following provision of DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 1991, which was quoted in its decision: "x x x An owner of tenanted rice and corn lands may not retain these lands under the following cases: x x x x b) By virtue of LOI 474, if he as of 21 October 1976 owned less than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands but additionally owned the following: - Other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares, whether tenanted or