G.R. No. 132163 - GRACIANO PADUNAN, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) AND MARCOS RODRIGUEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1. Declaring petitioner Marcos Rodriguez as the lawful tenant-beneficiary of the subject landholding; 2. Directing the issuance of the corresponding Emancipation Patents in favor of the petitioner; 3. Directing the respondent to vacate the premises in question in favor of the petitioner after paying the mortgage consideration in the amount of P50,000.00; 4. Dismissing all claims for damages and counterclaims. [13] From the above decision, herein petitioner Graciano Padunan appealed to the DARAB. On January 27, 1995, the DARAB affirmed in toto the decision of Provincial Adjudicator Romeo Bello. Thus, petitioner Graciano Padunan elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. On August 14, 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition for review for lack of merit. The appellate court ruled as follows: Petitioners claim is based on an alleged sale/waiver of rights by Angelina R. Rodriguez in his favor. This contention is untenable. To begin with, rights over agrarian reform-covered landholdings under the agrarian reform program, are not legally transferable. They are deemed outside the commerce of man. However, the waiver of rights in favor of private respondent here is entirely different. The substitution was through transfer action authorized under existing laws and DAR issuances. Strictly speaking, the land involved was not really transferred. The designated farmer-beneficiary was just replaced by another qualified farmer-beneficiary, as recommended and with the conformity of the Samahang Nayon in the locality. Then, too, the alleged waiver in favor of petitioner took place only after there had been a transfer action, with private respondents as the substitute farmer-beneficiary. So, when Angelina R. Rodriguez executed the waiver/sale in favor of petitioner, she no longer possessed any right over the subject landholding. xxx The annulment adjudged in the decision under review, springs from the finding that the issuance of Emancipation patents in the name of farmer beneficiary Angelina R. Rodriguez was erroneous. The issuance of said Emancipation patents was due to inadvertence. Thus, annulment thereof is a correction of an administrative error; a matter within the exclusive competence of the public respondent as adjudicating arm of DAR. And as stressed by public respondent, the said Emancipation patents in question were not even registered with the proper Registry of Property. xxx PARADs decision under scrutiny is not anemic of evidentiary support. Records contain documents showing that the former farmer beneficiary Angelina R. Rodriguez, waived by a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July 21, 1981 (Exh. B), her rights over subject landholdings in favor of the private respondent and that said waiver was with the confirmation by the local Samahang Nayon, as embodied in Kapasyahan Blg. 15 (Exh. C). PARAD was thus reasonably convinced that there was a valid transfer ac