Case Digest: Padua v. CA G.R. No. 153456 Mar 02, 2007 517 SCRA 232 (2007)

Padua v. CA
G.R. No. 153456 Mar 02, 2007
517 SCRA 232 (2007)

Facts:
Pepito Dela Cruz, et al. (Dela Cruz, et al.) were tenants of Lot Nos. 68 and 90 of the Dolores Ongsiako Estate in Anao, Tarlac.
In 1966, Dela Cruz, et al. agreed to donate said properties to the municipality on the condition that these be used as school sites. The project did not materialize Dela Cruz, et al. asked that the properties be returned to them. However, they found out that Mayor Cruz had distributed Lot No. 68 to Flor Labagnoy (Labagnoy) and Lot No. 90 to Edwin Cruz (Cruz) who were each issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT).
Cruz executed an Affidavit of Waiver over his interest in Lot No. 90 on the basis of which DAR Regional Office III issued an Order dated December 7, 1987 cancelling the CLT of Cruz and declaring Lot No. 90 open for disposition.
On November 7, 1989, then DAR Secretary Miriam Defensor Santiago issued an Order awarding Lot No. 90 to herein petitioner Roberto Padua (Padua) who had been occupying said property and paying the amortization thereon to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).​On July 2, 1995 DAR Secretary Garilao issued Order cancelling the Order of Award dated November 7, 1989 issued in favor of Roberto Padua and directing the Regional Director to cause the restoration of possession of said lot in favor of Dela Cruz, et al. All payments made by Roberto Padua on account of said lot as rentals for the use thereof are forfeited in favor of the government.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s status in relation to Lot No. 90 was no longer that of a mere potential agrarian reform farmer-beneficiary but a civil law vendor dealing directly with the LBP in the payment of amortizations on the property.

Held:
No. That view is incorrect. The statutory mechanism for the acquisition of land through agrarian reform requires full payment of amortization before a farmer-beneficiary may be issued a CLOA or EP, which, in turn, can become the basis for issuance in his name of an original or a transfer certificate of title. As Padua himself admitted that he is still paying amortization on Lot No. 90 to LBP, his status in relation to said property remains that of a mere potential farmer-beneficiary whose eligibilities DAR may either confirm or reject. In fact, under Section 2 (d) of Administrative Order No. 06-00, DAR has authority to issue, recall, or cancel a CLT, CBC, EP, or CLOA issued to potential farmer-beneficiaries but not yet registered with the Register of Deeds.