FERNANDO SIACOR, PETITIONER, VS. RAFAEL GIGANTANA, CORAZON GIGANTANA, NILO RUBIO, DELFIN GIGANTANA, RAUL CAPURAS, AND ADELIA RUBIO ESPINA, RESPONDENTS.

Siacor versus Gigantana

The Case

This is Fernando Siacor versus Rafael Gigantana and others, a petition for review decided by the Supreme Court in April 2002. Fernando Siacor is a farmer-beneficiary under Presidential Decree Number 27, the land reform decree that emancipated tenant-tillers. He complains that the very land the government awarded him was sold by the former owners to the Gigantana spouses, and that he was later ejected from it by force. The case matters because it gathers in one decision three rules a Bar candidate must know: the absence of a Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee certification is not fatal to an agrarian complaint, a sale of land covered by a Certificate of Land Transfer is void, and a waiver of tenancy rights is contrary to law and public policy.

Procedural History

Fernando Siacor filed suit before the Agrarian Reform Adjudicator for Region Seven in Cebu City, seeking annulment of the deed of sale, damages, and injunction. The Adjudicator dismissed his complaint. He appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, which reversed the Adjudicator. The Board annulled the deed of sale insofar as it affected the area covered by his Certificate of Land Transfer and directed the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Bantayan, Cebu, to reallocate the surrendered landholding to a qualified beneficiary.

The Gigantana spouses then went up to the Court of Appeals on a petition for review. The Court of Appeals set aside the Board's decision and affirmed the Adjudicator's dismissal. Hence this petition for review before the Supreme Court, which reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Board's decision.

Facts

Fernando Siacor was a farmer-beneficiary under Presidential Decree Number 27. On July 20, 1983, he was issued Certificate of Land Transfer Number 0-050555 over Lot Number 00202, with an area of 1.0043 hectares, located in Sillon, Bantayan, Cebu. The land formerly formed part of a large landholding belonging to Manuel Rubio. Upon his death, the estate was partitioned among his children, namely Antonio, Nilo, Amelita, Manuel Junior, and Adelia Rubio Espina.

On June 6, 1986, Nilo Rubio and Adelia Rubio Espina sold their shares to the respondent spouses Rafael and Corazon Gigantana. The land sold included the portion previously awarded to the petitioner, because it straddled the portions inherited by Nilo and Adelia. The deed of sale described the property as Cadastral Lot Number 4610, situated in Sillon, Bantayan, Cebu, with an area of 7.5715 hectares. But the tax declaration in the name of Rafael Gigantana described land situated in Kangkaibe, Bantayan, Cebu, with an area of 6.6816 hectares.

In the afternoon of February 11, 1992, Rafael Gigantana, helped by his brother Delfin Gigantana, ejected the petitioner from the landholding. Two days later, Delfin Gigantana, helped by Raul Capuras, plowed the land. The petitioner then brought suit on October 1, 1992. The respondents denied that he was a tenant and set up a waiver of his rights over Lot Number 4610.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaint was premature for lack of a prior mediation and conciliation conference before the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee.
• Whether or not the land sold to the Gigantana spouses is the same Lot Number 00202 awarded to the petitioner under his Certificate of Land Transfer.
• Whether or not the waiver of tenancy rights executed by the petitioner is valid and effective.

Applicable Provisions

Rule Three, Section One, paragraph c of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure provides:

the lack of the required certification cannot be made a ground for the dismissal of the action.

This answers the first issue: the missing Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee certification does not defeat the complaint.

Article 6 of the Civil Code provides:

Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

This governs the third issue: a waiver of rights under Presidential Decree Number 27 offends law and public policy and is of no force and effect.

Article 1410 of the Civil Code provides:

The action for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.

This disposes of the defense of prescription and laches against the action to annul the deed of sale.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the absence of a Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee certification is not fatal to the petitioner's cause, because the DARAB Revised Rules expressly say the lack of the required certification cannot be made a ground for dismissal. Any objection on that ground was also waived, since the respondents never raised it in their answers, at the conference, or in their position paper. The Court stressed that the absence of barangay-level conciliation is not a jurisdictional defect.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals misapprehended the facts. The deed of sale placed the land in Sillon, the same sitio as the petitioner's award, while the tax declaration relied upon by the respondents placed the land in Kangkaibe, with a different area. The Court concluded that the land sold included the lot awarded to the petitioner, and that his waiver referred only to Lot Number 4610 in Kangkaibe, not to Lot Number 00202 in Sillon. The sale was therefore void, having been made in violation of Presidential Decree Number 27 and Executive Order Number 228, which declared tenant-tillers the full owners of the lands they tilled. The Court quoted its own earlier ruling:

Upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 27, 1972, petitioner was DEEMED OWNER of the land in question.

On the third issue, the Court held that even if the waiver had covered the lot under the Certificate of Land Transfer, it would still be of no force and effect, being contrary to law and public policy under Article 6 of the Civil Code. The petitioner was not in pari delicto, that is, not equally at fault with the respondents, because to allow that defense would defeat a fundamental policy of the State.

Doctrine

First, the lack of a Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee certification is not a ground for dismissing an agrarian action, and failure to seasonably object to the lack of conciliation is a waiver. Second, upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree Number 27, the tenant-tiller is deemed owner of the land he tills, and he cannot make any valid transfer of it except to the government or by hereditary succession. A sale made by the former owners in violation of that decree is null and void. Third, a waiver of rights under Presidential Decree Number 27 is contrary to law and public policy under Article 6 of the Civil Code, and the defense of pari delicto cannot be invoked against the farmer-beneficiary. Fourth, the action for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe under Article 1410 of the Civil Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.

Remember This

Memorize this line: upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree Number 27, the tenant-tiller was deemed owner of the land, and any sale of it by another is void. Examiners use this case for the non-fatal character of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee certification, for the void waiver of tenancy rights under Article 6 of the Civil Code, and for the imprescriptibility of an action to declare a contract inexistent.