G.R. No. L-24924. July 31, 1968
CRESENCIA ANTONEL AND ISIDORO DIONISIO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION NOW LAND AUTHORITY AND LORENZO CABRERA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
RUIZ CASTRO, J.:
This is a direct appeal by the spouses Cresencia
Antonel and Isidoro Dionisio from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, dismissing in civil case no. 57102 their complaint for the annulment of
(1) the order of November 13, 1956 of the Land Tenure Administration in LTC
case no. 100, entitled. “Lorenzo Cabrera vs. Cresencia
Antonel,” and (2) a letter dated August 27, 1959
of the Assistant Executive Secretary of the Office of the President awarding to
Lorenzo Cabrera a 5-square meter portion of lot 26, Block 24, Pcs-2561, of the Nuestra Señora de Guia Estate in Tondo, Manila.
The Republic of the Philippines
purchased the Nuestra Señora
de Guia Estate pursuant to the legislative policy
declared in Comm. Act 539.[1]
This Act authorized the expropriation or purchase of private lands to be
subdivided into small lots for resale to “their bona fide
tenants or occupants” at reasonable prices On June 5, 1950 Cresencia Antonel, married to Isidoro Dionisio, applied to the
Landed Estates Division of the Bureau of Lands[2]
for the Purchase of lot 25, Flock 24, Fes-2551, of the aforesaid estate,
containing an area of 125.7 square meters. On April 5, 1951. Director of Lands Jose P. Dans, acting for and in representation of the Republic of
the Philippines,
executed an “Agreement to Sell” (contract no. 06213) covering the
said lot in favor of the applicant. This
agreement was approved by the Secretary Agriculture and Resources on the same.
The applicant then made a down payment of P128.27, and obligated herself to pay
the balance iii installments of P12.00 a month for 10 years.
On October 1, 1054 Lorenzo Cabrera protest the execution of the
“Agreement to Sell,” on the ground that he has the preferential right
to buy the lot as an occupant thereof. In view of this protest, the Director of
Lands conducted an investigation at which the protestant and the applicant
adduced their respective testimonial and documentary evidence.
On July 11, 1955
the Director rendered a decision, the pertinent portions of which are quoted hereunder:
“* * * Lorenzo Cabrera adduced testimonial and documentary
evidence which substantially tend to show that the lot in question was first occupied
in 1940 by one Lucia Gabriel who constructed thereon a ‘barong-barong’ that on
February 8, 1947, as actual occupant, Lucio Gabriel
made a deposit of forty (P40.00) pesos with the defunct Rural Progress
Administration for the acquisition of a portion of the Nuestra
Señora de Guia Estate
(Exhibit ‘A’, Cabrera); that on April 22, 1947, Lucio
Gabriel sold his rights to the land and barong-barong standing thereon in favor
of his mother Severina Arceo,
(Exhibit Cabrera); that later on, Severina Arceo transferred her rights to Cabrera; and that in 1948
he allowed Cresencia Antonel
to occupy the vacant portion of the lot in question.
“Cresencia Antonel
and her witness alleged that the land in question formed part of the land which
her brother-in-law, Perfecto Llorena fenced; that in
1939 she occupied the land by filling it up and building a barong-barong thereon;
that When the land was acquired by the Government, the area fenced by Perfecto Llorena was subdivided into two (2) lots, hence, Llorena gave the lot in question occupied by Cresencia Antonel to her; that
the barong-barong of Lorenzo Cabrera was constructed in 1948 in the adjacent
road lot; that this site occupied by Lorenzo Cabrera belongs formerly to one
Pedro Flores who sold his rights to Lorenzo Cabrera; that it is not true that
she was merely tolerated by the claimant to – occupy, the land; that she has
been paying her rentals for the occupation of the lot since February 24, 1947
(Exhibit 1 and I-A, Antonel); and that she filed her
application to purchase the lot in question on June 5, 1950, and Agreement to
Sell No. 06213 was issued in her favor.
“Lorenzo Cabrera has contested the sale of the land in favor
of Cresencia Antonel on the
ground of prior occupancy of the lot by himself and his, predecessors in
interest, rut the evidence presented by him on this point has failed to
establish that the alleged lot occupied and sold by Lucio
Gabriel in favor of Severina Arceo,
the mother of Lorenzo Cabrera (Exhibit A) is the same lot in question. It is
true that presently his house on the road-lot protrudes on a portion of the lot
in controversy, but it is believed this was a recently built addition to this
house. This belief is supported by the sketch plan of the lots in the Nuestra Señora de Guia Estate, prepared in the later part of 1950, after a
census of the occupants of the estate was made and the relative Positions of
their occupations ascertained. This plan
shows that Lot No. 26, Block 24, Pcs-2561 of the estate is solely occupied by Cresencia Antonel, while Lorenzo
Cabrera is occupying the road-lot adjacent to the lot subject of this case. On
the basis of the foregoing and because of the fact that Cresencia
Antonel has been paying her rentals for the land
since February, 1947, we are more inclined to give credence to he alleged prior
occupancy of the lot in question.
“WHEREFORE, this Office holds and so decides that the claim of
Lorenzo Cabrera should be, as hereby it is, denied and dismissed. The sale of
the Lot No, 26, Block 24, Pcs-2561, Nuestra Senora de
Gina Estate, Tondo, Manila, to Cresencia
Antonel shall be given due course.”
The Director, acting on Cabrera’s subsequent petition for
reconsideration or reopening of the administrative case, rendered an amended
decision on September 28, 1955,
finding that Cabrera’s house protrudes on a portion of the lot in question,
designated as “X”, of an area of 7.8 square meters. The Director
resolved to exclude that portion from the area sold to Cresencia
Antonel and awarded it to Cabrera.[3]
The protestant and the applicant moved for a reconsideration of the amended
decision.
The Land Tenure Administration; which in the meantime had assumed
the functions and powers of the Landed Estates Division, resolved the motions
for reconsideration (LTC Case 100, entitled “Lorenzo Cabrera vs. Cresencia Antonel“) in an
order dated November 23, 1956, by modifying, the amended decision of the
Director of Lands. It ordered the
division of lot 26 into two separate lots of 68.7 sq.m.
and 57 sq. m. The first it awarded to Antonel, the
second to Lorenzo Cabrera, en appeal by Antonel,
Assistant Executive Secretary Enrique Quema of the
Office of the President affirmed the amended decision of the Director of Lands
in a letter of August 27, 1959,
in the following words:
” * * * neither of the parties acquired preferential rights
to the lot in question as bona fide tenants of the estate. However, both were
recognized as occupants thereof, it appearing that they had erected their
respective dwellings thereon. The house of Cresencia Antonel is on the upper portion while that of Lorenzo
Cabrera occupies a part of the lower portion and of a road lot. Portion ‘X’,
which was originally awarded to Lorenzo Cabrera, contains only seven and 8/10
square meters. The utter impracticability of erecting a dwelling on such a
small area is too evident to require argument.
“Considering that the parties herein have equal rights to
occupancy and that the award of portion ‘X’ to Lorenzo Cabrera is inequitable’,
the Land Tenure Administration subdivided the lot in such a manner as to be
responsive to the needs of both parties to erect their respective houses
thereon. In so doing, it acted not only in conformity with the law and
regulations on the matter but also in harmony with the established policy of
affording the landless equal opportunities to acquire home lots.”
On October 28, 1959
the Land Tenure Administration executed an “Agreement to Sell”
(contract no. 4049) covering lot 26-A of lot 26, containing an area of 57
square meters, in favor of Lorenzo Cabrera.
On May 21, 1964 Cresencia Antonel and Isidoro Dionisio instituted the present action in the Court of
First Instance of Manila, impugning the award and subsequent sale of the
57-squaremeter portion of lot 26 to Lorenzo Cabrera as an “illegal and
unwarranted impairment of the obligation of contract,” because long before
the award was made the Government had already sold the entire lot to her. She
prayed that the orders and decisions of the Land Tenure Administration and the
Assistant Executive Secretary be annulled and set aside.
Resolving the issues raised in the complaint and discussed in the
separate answers filed by the Land Tenure Administration and by Lorenzo
Cabrera, and in the memoranda of the contending parties, the lower court
rendered judgment on June 26, 1965, dismissing the complaint, without costs,
upon the view “that the order or decision sought to be reviewed and
annulled has [not] violated any rule or law, x x x since the alleged contract (No. 06213) is governed by
rules and regulations on the matter and are subject to conditions which must
first be complied with. In short, said contract is not final and
absolute.”
Hence this appeal by the spouses.
The issue tendered for resolution is whether the lower court
erred in holding that no “rule or law” has been violated by the Land
Tenure Administration and the Assistant Executive Secretary in adjudging that Cresencia Antonel and Lorenzo
Cabrera “have equal rights to occupancy” of lot 26, and are
entitled to 68. 7 and 57 square meters of the lot, respectively.
Although the decision of the Land Tenure Administration which was
affirmed by the Assistant Executive Secretary and echoed by the decision
appealed from, found that Antonel actually occupied
117.9 of the 125.7-square-meter lot in dispute, and that Cabrera actually
occupied the remaining 7.8 square meters, it nevertheless, considered the
“utter impracticability of erecting a dwelling [by Lorenzo] on Such a
small area” of 7.8 square meters, and resolved to reduce the portion
occupied by Antonel by 49.2 square meters and add it
to Lorenzo’s, and awarded to him a total area of: 57 square meters.
We are of the view that the Land Tenure Administration and the
Office of the President incurred in grave error in declaring that Cabrera is,
entitled to the portion of lot 26 awarded to him. And we hold that, upon the
evidence on record, Antonel has satisfactorily
established her preferential right to purchase the entire lot to the exclusion
of Cabrera, for several reasons.
First. – Antonel occupied the
lot in 1939, and introduced improvements thereon by “filling it up”
and building a barong-barong. Cabrera, on his part, claims that his
predecessor Lucio Gabriel first occupied the lot in
1940. Antonel was, therefore, ahead in date of
occupation by 1 year. Second. – The “sketch’ plan” of the lots
comprising the Nuestra Senora de Guia
Estate, prepared in the later part of 1950 after a census of the occupants of
the estate was made and their relative positions ascertained, shows that
“lot No. 26, Block 24, Pcs-2561 of the estate is solely occupied by Cresencia Antonel, while Lorenzo
Cabrera is occupying the road-lot adjacent to the lot subject .of this
case.” Third. – Apart from Antonel’s
prior occupancy of the lot in dispute, she has been paying rentals since February 24, 1947. Cabrera, on the
other hand, has not paid any rental for his; supposed occupation of the
7.8-square-meter portion of the disputed lot. His averment that Lucio Gabriel made a 40 deposit with the defunct Rural
Progress Administration does not improve his position, because the deposit was
made in general terms, that is, “for the acquisition of a portion of the Nuestra Senora de Guia
Estate,” and not specifically for lot 26, Fourth. – Antonel applied for the purchase of the entire lot as early
as June 5, 1950, and, on the basis of this application, the Director of Lands,
on April 6, 1951, executed “Agreement to Sell” no. 16213 in her
favor. This agreement was approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources on the same date. She made a first payment in the sum of P128. 27.
Upon the other hand, Cabrera has never applied for the purchase of the lot or
of the portion thereof supposedly occupied by him. Fifth. – Cabrera
protested the “Agreement to Sell” only after more than 4 years’ and 4
months had elapsed from June 5, 1950 (when Antonel
filed her application to purchase the entire lot), and after 3 years and 6
months had passed since April 6, 1951 (When the Bureau of Lands executed the
“Agreement to Sell” – approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources). He has not even submitted any plausible explanation for
the delay in filing his protest.
The division of lot 26 containing an area of only 125.7 square
meters into two lots of 68.7 and 57 sq. meters, instead of enhancing the
purpose of Commonwealth Act 539, Acts 1170 and 1933 (Friar Lands Acts) and
Corn. Acts 20, 26 and 378 (Homesite Acts), which is
to sell to a person the land on which his house stands,[4]
and afford him an opportunity to become the owner of a home and a residential
lot,[5]
would defeat the very letter of the Said legislative enactments. This Court
held in Grande and Josef vs. Santos and Santos and Director of Lands,[6]
that a 144-squaremeter lot “is barely enough for a single family,”
and that to subdivide it into three separate lots “may, and, in all
probability would lead to frictions, conflicts, misunderstandings and, perhaps,
disturbances of the peace, which are precisely sought to be averted by
Commonwealth Act No. 539,” and concluded that adjudicating the entire
144-square-meter lot to Dalisay Santos is in
consonance “With either the letter, or the spirit, of said legislative
enactment.”
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is reversed;
the order of the appellee Land Tenure Administration
of November 13, 1956 in LTC Case 100, entitled “Lorenzo Cabrera versus Cresencia Antonel,” the
confirmatory letter of the Assistant Executive Secretary of August 27, 1959,
and the “Agreement to Sell” (Contract No. 4049) covering lot 26-A of
lot 26, executed by the appellee Land Tenure
Administration in favor of the appellee Lorenzo
Cabrera, are annulled and set aside. The plaintiff-appellant Cresencia Antonel is hereby
adjudged as entitled to purchase the entire lot 26, containing an area of 125.7
square meters, Block 24, Pcs-2561, of the Nuestra Señora de Guia Estate, in Tondo, Manila, and the “Agreement to Sell”
(Contract No. 06213), dated April 6, 1951, executed by the Director of Lands in
favor of the said appellant Cresencia Antonel, married to Isidoro Dionisio, is hereby declared in full farce and effect.
Costs against the defendant-appellee Lorenzo Cabrera.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles, and
Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1]
Approved May 26, 1940.
[2]
Ex. Order 191, approved March 2, 1939,
charged the defunct Rural Progress Administration with the disposition and
administration of all landed estates of the Government. Ex. Order 376, approved
November 28, 1950,
transferred such powers and functions to the Landed Estates Division of the
Bureau of Lands. Section 23 of R.A. 1400, approved September 9, 1955, abolished
the Landed Estates Division and transferred its functions, powers and duties,
personnel, records, etc., to the Land Tenure Administration, now known as The
Land Authority under R.A. 3844
[3]
See Answer of defendant LTC, R. A., p. 35.
[4] Javillonar vs. Nat’l. Planning Commission, 100 Phil.
485, 489.
[5]
Bernardo, et al. vs. Bernardo, et al., 96 Phil, 202, 206, citing
Messages of the President, Vol. 4, pp. 288-290.
[6]
98 Phil. 62, 67; see also sec. 3, R.A. 1162, which fixed the area that an
occupant may purchase from the estates expropriated by the Government at 150
square meters.