G.R. NO. 150736 - VIRGILIO MACASPAC, VS. RUPERTO PUYAT, JR..

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that: I. That said farmland be ordered reconveyed to the plaintiff from the defendant; II. That said Annex A be declared null and void. Plaintiff also prays for other reliefs just and proper under the circumstances. [3] Puyat, Jr. appended to his complaint a photocopy of the Waiver of Rights [4] dated April 1, 1976 bearing the signature above the typewritten name Ruperto Puyat on the said deed and the thumbmark above the typewritten name Feliza Tiqui, his mother, and of petitioner Macaspac. Macaspac, through the Trial Attorney of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Pampanga Provincial Office, alleged in his answer to the complaint that the right of possession over the property was sold to him by Puyat, Sr. in 1963; the said transaction was confirmed when Puyat, Sr. executed a Waiver of Rights over the tenancy in his favor in 1976. Macaspac further alleged that he had been in possession of the property since 1963 and cultivated the same. He claimed that Puyat, Jr. had never cultivated the property because he worked as a driver in Manila, whereas he had been granted an emancipation patent and a transfer certificate of title over the property. [5] Macaspac filed a position paper to which he appended and marked in evidence the Waiver of Rights, Certificates of Land Transfer Nos. 15468 to 15471 executed by the President of the Philippines through the Ministry of Agrarian Reform on January 16, 1979 over the lots in the name of Macaspac; [6] Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 2222 to 2225 based on Certificates of Real Transfer Awards in Macaspacs name over the said lots; [7] and the Certificate of Full Payment issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines, dated March 17, 1993 in favor of Macaspac, stating that the latter had paid the total amount of P4,964.00 as amortization for the property. [8] Puyat, Jr. adduced testimonial and documentary evidence. Rodolfo dela Peña, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Mexico, Pampanga, testified that, as gleaned from the master list of farmers-beneficiaries in Mexico, Pampanga, in the possession of the MARO, Macaspac was a tenant therein, while Puyat, Jr. was not on the list. He also testified that Macaspac was the owner of the subject lots, Lot Nos. 48, 49, 58 and 59, Block 2, and that the said lots had been tenanted by the latter since 1963. Danilo Gomez testified that he was born on July 15, 1957. He had been the barangay captain of Barangay Divisoria, Mexico, Pampanga, since 1986. He stated that Puyat, Jr. was the tenant of Block 1 and Block 2 in Barangay Divisoria, Mexico, Pampanga, until the property was mortgaged. Furthermore, he had not seen the plaintiff since 1963 and came to know that the property was mortgaged only during apparent mediation proceedings in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Puyat, Jr. testified on direct examination that his father, Puyat, Sr., had no educational attainment and did not know how to read and sign