Petronito Maylem vs. Ellano G.R. No. 162721, July 13, 2009

"emancipation patent"


Facts:
Petitioner files a motion for recovery of possession of a piece of agricultural land.
Bonifacio Abad was awarded a parcel of land that was under a leasehold agreement
he entered with the petitioner’s husband by virtue of PD No, 27 under Emancipation
Patent. The land transfer was covered by a transfer certificate of title registered with the
Register of Deeds. Petitioner persuaded Abad to allow her to a one year possession of the
land which he allowed. After the lapse of the agreed period petitioner refused to return
the land to Abad who subsequently filed complaint for recovery of possession of said
property before the provincial adjudicator of DAR after learning that it was mortgaged
by the petitioner to a third party. Meantime, the petitioner filed exclusion of her property
from the coverage of the Agrarian Reform Law. The Provincial adjudicator rendered
favor of Abad ruling that ownership of Abad of the property by virtue of emancipation
patent is absolute. Petitioner contends that pending the appeal for retention Abad’s
ownership of the land is not yet absolute and that the action brought by Abad already
prescribed. CA ruled in favor of Abad rendering him absolute owner of the property by
virtue of emancipation patent.




Issue:
Whether or not acquisition of property by emancipation patent is absolute and may
prescribe?

Ruling:
It was held that acquisition of property by emancipation patent vests absolute ownership
to the person whose name is registered in the title. Land transfer under P.D. No. 27

is effected in two stages: (1) the issuance of a certificate of land transfer to a farmer-
beneficiary as soon as the DAR transfers the landholding to him in recognition of his
being deemed an owner; and (2) the issuance of an emancipation patent as proof
of full ownership of the landholding upon full payment of the annual amortizations or
lease rentals by the farmer-beneficiary. The issuance of title gives the grantee absolute
ownership and he ceases to be a mere tenant or lessee.

As to the contention of the petitioner that Abad abandoned his right to the property by
allowing her to take possession of the land the court ruled that Abandonment or neglect,

as a ground for the cancellation of an emancipation patent or certificate of land award
requires a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or a claim, or to abandon a
right or property coupled with an external act by which that intention is expressed or
carried into effect. It consists in any one of these conditions: (a) failure to cultivate the
lot due to reasons other than the non-suitability of the land to agricultural purposes, for
at least two (2) calendar years, and to pay the amortizations for the same period; (b)
permanent transfer of residence by the beneficiary and his family, which has rendered
him incapable of cultivating the lot; or (c) relinquishment of possession of the lot for at
least two (2) calendar years and failure to pay the amortization for the same period. None
of the instances cited above obtains in this case.

Furthermore, ownership by emancipation patent is non-transferrable except by hereditary
succession or in favor to the government. Even if Abad waived his right to the property it
is deemed void. Also prescriptive period under the Agrarian Reform Law do not apply to
emancipated patent. Petition is denied.