G.R. No. 162721 - PETRONILA MAYLEM, VS. CARMELITA ELLANO AND ANTONIA MORCIENTO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, petitioner was ordered to surrender the possession thereof to Abad. [19] On appeal, the DARAB, in its January 17, 2001 Decision, [20] adopted the findings and conclusions of the Provincial Adjudicator. Undaunted, petitioner lodged an appeal [21] with the Court of Appeals (CA), but to no avail. In its September 11, 2003 Decision, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the DARAB. The CA ruled that when the emancipation patent was issued in the name of Abad, the latter became the absolute owner of the land in dispute; and that the subsequent registration thereof validated the transfer and created a lien on the property, of which everyone was therefore given constructive notice. [22] It pointed out that Abad retained the rights he had acquired through Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 under the authority of Section 16 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. [23] It concluded that Abad, as owner, would not be affected by the petition for retention. Neither must he be deemed as having abandoned or surrendered the property, especially considering that he was merely induced by petitioner to temporarily relinquish possession with the assurance that it would be restored to him after a year. [24] Finally, as to petitioner's contention that Abad's complaint had already been barred by the three-year prescriptive period provided in the law, the appellate court took exception therefrom on the basis of the social justice policy of resolving doubts in favor of the disadvantaged farmer. [25] With the denial of her motion for reconsideration, [26] petitioner brought to this Court the present recourse. In this petition for review, petitioner advances the notion that while indeed EP No. A-216347 had been issued in Abad's name, the same was nevertheless recalled or cancelled when her petition for retention was granted by the DAR. Hence, she believes that the said land may be validly surrendered to her, especially in view of the waiver made by Abad of his rights thereto allegedly for a total consideration of P57,000.00. Raising once again the issue of prescription, she laments that it is patent from Abad's complaint that the action had already prescribed when the complaint was filed in 1997 and, hence, was dismissible on that ground. For their part, respondents [27] counter that there is no evidence showing that EP No. A-216347 was recalled or cancelled by the DAR and, thus, Abad cannot be deemed to have abandoned the landholding in favor of petitioner in a way that would sever the tenancy relationship, especially considering that Abad merely surrendered possession of the land temporarily upon petitioner's promise to return the same to him after one year. Anent the issue of prescription, respondents aver that it must be deemed to have been waived for failure of petitioner to timely raise the same before the DARAB. The petition is unmeritorious. Prefatorily, it is needless to state that in appeals in agrarian cases, long-standing is