Dear Atty. Gab

Musta Atty! Gab,

Ako po si Ramon Estrada. Humihingi po ako ng tulong legal tungkol sa lupang sakahan ng tatay ko, si Mang Kiko, sa San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. Matagal na po siyang tenant doon at nabigyan siya ng Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) noong panahon pa ni Marcos, sa ilalim ng P.D. 27. Ang problema po, noong nagkasakit si Tatay mga limang taon na ang nakakaraan, kinausap siya ng anak ng original na may-ari, si Mr. De Leon. Pinapirma daw po si Tatay sa isang ‘Kasunduan’ na nagsasabing kusa niyang isinusuko ang lupa kapalit ng PHP 20,000. Si Tatay po ay matanda na noon, hirap nang bumasa, at sabi niya ay parang napilitan lang daw siya dahil sa pangangailangan at sa pangako na tutulungan daw siya.

Pagkatapos noon, ako pa rin po ang patagong nagsasaka sa maliit na parte ng lupa. Kamakailan lang, nalaman namin na naibenta na pala ang lupa sa isang korporasyon, ang Progreso Realty. Sila na po ngayon ang nagpapaalis sa amin at sinasabing nabili nila ang lupa nang legal. Gulong-gulo po ang isip namin. Valid po ba ‘yung ginawang pagsuko ni Tatay? May halaga pa po ba ‘yung CLT niya, lalo na’t nakapangalan pa rin sa kanya? Pwede po bang sabihin ng Progreso Realty na ‘good faith buyer’ sila kahit may CLT na si Tatay? Ano po ang mga karapatan namin? Sana po matulungan niyo kami. Maraming salamat po.

Lubos na gumagalang,
Ramon Estrada

Dear Ramon,

Thank you for reaching out and sharing your situation. I understand your distress regarding your father’s agricultural land and the challenges you are now facing with Progreso Realty. The circumstances surrounding your father’s ‘Kasunduan’ and the subsequent sale of the land indeed raise important legal questions under our agrarian reform laws.

The Philippine legal system provides significant protections for tenant-farmers, especially those recognized as beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 (P.D. No. 27). A Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) is a crucial document that signifies the government’s recognition of the tenant’s rights. The law is very specific about how tenancy rights can be extinguished, such as through voluntary surrender, and how lands covered by agrarian reform can be transferred. Any surrender or transfer must strictly comply with legal requirements to be valid. Subsequent purchasers of such lands also carry a responsibility to respect these existing rights.

Guarding the Tiller’s Rights: Tenancy Security and P.D. No. 27

The core of your concern revolves around the security of tenure your father, Mang Kiko, enjoyed as an agricultural tenant and a CLT holder, and whether his act of signing the ‘Kasunduan’ validly extinguished these rights. The Agricultural Land Reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844) is foundational in protecting tenants. It establishes the agricultural leasehold relation and grants the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding.

While the law allows for the extinguishment of this relation through voluntary surrender, this is not a simple matter. The law is cautious to ensure that any surrender is genuinely voluntary and not a result of coercion, undue influence, or misunderstanding, especially considering the often-vulnerable position of tenant-farmers. For a voluntary surrender to be valid, several conditions must be met. The intention to surrender must be clear and unequivocal, supported by an actual physical act of giving up possession. Crucially, jurisprudence emphasizes that the tenant’s intention cannot be presumed and must be proven convincingly. Furthermore, Republic Act No. 3844 specifies a key condition for voluntary surrender:

“(5) Voluntary surrender due to circumstances more advantageous to him and his family.”
(Section 28, Republic Act No. 3844)

This means that the surrender should benefit the tenant and his family, not put them in a worse position. If your father, Mang Kiko, who was elderly, unwell, and had difficulty reading, signed the ‘Kasunduan’ for a relatively small sum (PHP 20,000) under duress or without fully understanding its implications, or if this surrender was not clearly more advantageous to him and your family, its validity can be seriously questioned. The fact that he was an identified tenant with a CLT strengthens his position, as he was already recognized as a farmer-beneficiary.

The issuance of a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) under P.D. No. 27 is a significant step. P.D. No. 27, titled “Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil,” aimed to make tenant-farmers owners of the land they till. A CLT serves as a provisional title of ownership while the beneficiary is amortizing the value of the land. The law is very strict about the transferability of lands acquired under this decree to protect the beneficiaries. The decree itself states:

“Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reforms and other existing laws and regulations.”
(Paragraph 13, Presidential Decree No. 27)

This provision fundamentally restricts the tenant-beneficiary from transferring ownership, rights, or possession of the landholding to others, or surrendering it back to the former landowner, outside of the exceptions mentioned. Any transaction that violates this prohibition is generally considered null and void. This is further reinforced by policy issuances like Memorandum Circular No. 7, series of 1979, from the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform, which explicitly states:

“Despite the above prohibition, however, there are reports that many farmer-beneficiaries of P.D. 27 have transferred their ownership, rights and/or possession of their farms/homelots to other persons or have surrendered the same to their former landowners. All these transactions/surrenders are violative of P.D. 27 and therefore null and void.”
(Memorandum Circular No. 7, series of 1979)

Therefore, even if a document of surrender was executed, if it contravenes the spirit and letter of P.D. No. 27—for example, if it effectively transfers the land back to the landowner or to a third party not sanctioned by law—it could be deemed void from the beginning. The P20,000 your father received might be considered disturbance compensation, but it doesn’t automatically validate a surrender that violates agrarian reform principles, especially if the circumstances were not advantageous to him.

Regarding Progreso Realty’s claim as a potential buyer in good faith, this is also contentious in the context of agrarian reform. Lands covered by P.D. No. 27 and evidenced by a CLT are impressed with a public interest. Purchasers of such lands are expected to exercise a higher degree of diligence. The existence of a CLT and the land’s coverage under agrarian reform should put any prospective buyer on notice. They cannot simply claim ignorance if records indicate the land is under OLT (Operation Land Transfer) coverage. The law’s intent is to keep the land with the tiller-beneficiary.

If your father did not actually and physically surrender the landholding, and you continued cultivation, this further weakens the argument that a valid voluntary surrender occurred. The law requires that the intent to surrender must be coupled with the physical act of yielding possession. The mere signing of a document, especially under questionable circumstances, may not suffice if he or his family remained effectively in possession and continued to cultivate the land.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Gather All Documentation: Collect your father’s Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT), a copy of the ‘Kasunduan’ he signed, any receipts for the PHP 20,000, and any notices or demands from Progreso Realty. Also, compile any proof of amortization payments if any were made for the land.
• Document Your Father’s Circumstances: Write down all details you remember about your father’s condition (age, health, literacy level) when he signed the ‘Kasunduan’, and any statements he made about feeling pressured or not understanding the document.
• Evidence of Continued Cultivation: If you or your family continued to till the land after the ‘Kasunduan’ was signed, gather any evidence of this (photos, testimonies from neighbors, records of produce). This can dispute the claim of physical surrender.
• Seek Assistance from DAR: Immediately consult the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) office in your locality (Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer – MARO, or Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer – PARO). Present your case and documents. They are mandated to assist farmer-beneficiaries.
• Question the Validity of the Surrender: The ‘Kasunduan’ may be challenged on grounds that it was not truly voluntary, that the circumstances were not advantageous to your father as required by R.A. 3844, that his consent was vitiated, or that the transaction violated P.D. No. 27’s restrictions on transfer.
• Challenge the ‘Buyer in Good Faith’ Claim: Argue that Progreso Realty cannot be considered a buyer in good faith if the land was already covered by P.D. No. 27 and a CLT was issued. The CLT serves as notice of the land’s status.
• Legal Counsel: Consider engaging a lawyer who specializes in agrarian law. They can best represent your interests before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) or the courts, if necessary.
• Emancipation Patent (EP): Remember that a CLT is a step towards full ownership. An Emancipation Patent, the final title, is issued upon full payment of the land’s value. If amortizations are pending, this will also be a factor in securing full ownership.

The path ahead may involve legal proceedings, likely starting with the DAR. It is crucial to act promptly to protect any rights your father may still have, which you, as his heir, may be able to assert. The law leans towards protecting the tiller, but this protection must be actively sought and legally established.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.