G.R. NO. 169193 - SPOUSES ILUMINADA CAPITLE AND CIRILO CAPITLE, VS. FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA AND ROSALINDA C. OLAR. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: ORDERING AND DECLARING DARAB Case No. 5987'NNE'96 DISMISSED for lack of merit; The recall/cancellation of TCT No. CLOA-0-3514 previously issued to the late Cristobal Olar; The PARO, DAR-North, Talavera, Nueva Ecija thru the Chief, Landed Estate Section to cause the issuance of a new CLOA in the name of Iluminada Capitle married to Cirilo Capitle; The Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija to cancel TCT No. CLOA-0-3514 adverted to if the same is already registered and cause the registration of a new CLOA in the name of Iluminada Capitle married to C[i]rilo Capitle; and Other claims and counterclaims likewise DISMISSED for lack of legal basis. [8] Respondents appealed the decision to the DARAB, arguing that the PARAD erred in holding that: I. . . . PETITIONERS FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA AND ROSALINDA OLAR CAN NO LONGER RECOVER POSSESSION OVER THE SUBJECT FARM LOT, MUCH LESS DEMAND PAYMENT OF LEASE RENTALS FROM THE RESPONDENTS. II. . . . THE PETITION FOR RECALL/CANCELLATION OF TCT NO. CLOA-0-3514 PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO THE LATE CRISTOBAL OLAR WOULD PROSPER. [9] By Decision [10] of December 29, 2003, the DARAB set aside the PARAD's decision, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered: Ordering Spouses Capitle and any or all persons acting in their behalf to immediately vacate the subject landholding and deliver the same to Fortunata Elbambuena and Rosalinda C. Olar; Ordering the issuance of CLOA in favor of Fortunata Elbambuena and Rosalinda C. Olar as legal heirs of Cristobal Olar. Setting aside the decision of the Adjudicator a quo in DARAB Regional Case No. 6261'NNE'97 for lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the Heirs of Cristobal Olar; The demand for back lease rentals by [respondents] is denied for lack of merit. [11] Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via petition for review, arguing that the DARAB erred: IN CONCLUDING THAT THE POSSESSION OF LOT NO. 1849 since 1960 DESERVES NO MERIT THERE BEING NO BASIS BOTH IN FACT AND IN LAW; THAT THE PRESUMPTION, THE CLOA WAS ISSUED TO CRISTOBAL OLAR IN THE REGULAR COURSE [OF] OFFICIAL FUNCTION WAS NEVER OVERCOME BY CONTRARY EVIDENCE; THAT THE WAIVER EXECUTED BY CRISTOBAL OLAR IN FAVOR OF SPS. CAPITLE IS VOID FOR BEING CONTRARY TO LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY; IN CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSFER ACTION CONDUCTED BY THE SAMAHANG NAYON OF VALLE, TALAVERA, NUEVA ECIJA CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL DEFECTS; [and] IN CONCLUDING THAT THE CANCELLATION OF TCT No. CLOA-0-3514 DOES NOT BIND FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA AND ROSALINDA OLAR BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MADE PARTY TO DARAB CASE NO. 6261'NNE'97. [12] By the challenged Decision of November 23, 2004, [13] the appellate court affirmed in toto the DARAB decision, ratiocinating as follows: The DARAB correctly found that petitioners-appellants' possession of the questioned property since 1960 is of dubious legality . No amount of p