1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012.

March 28, 2022 ]

SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

HEIRS OF JOSE DE LARA, SR.,* PETITIONERS, VS. RURAL BANK OF

JAEN, INC., RESPONDENT.
DECISION

HERNANDO, J.:

In this petition for review on certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the heirs of Jose
E. De Lara seek the reversal of the December 10, 2013 Decision[2] and March 13, 2014
Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA­-G.R. SP No. 126325, which reversed the July
4, 2012 Decision[4] of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in
DARAB Case No. 15281 (Reg. Case No. 08395-SNE-04), and denied their motion for
reconsideration,[5] respectively.

The CA reinstated the January 4, 2006 Decision[6] of the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) for Cabanatuan City that directed the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija to
cancel Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. EP-86727 with DAR E.P. No. 00735825
registered in the name of the late Jose E. De Lara (Jose), and to issue a new title in the name of
respondent Rural Bank of Jaen, Inc.

The Antecedent Facts

Jose, a farmer-beneficiary under the Operation Land Transfer of Presidential Decree No. (PD)
27,[7] was awarded a parcel of land in Dampulan (now Vicente), Jaen, Nueva Ecija with an area
of 2,257 square meters (subject land). On November 20, 1998, TCT No. EP-86727[8] under the
Department of Agriculture Reform (DAR) Emancipation Patent (EP) No. 00735825 covering
the subject land was issued in favor of Jose.[9]

Subsequently, Jose obtained a loan from respondent bank secured by a mortgage over the
subject land. Unfortunately, he failed to pay his obligation; hence, the mortgage was foreclosed.
On February 27, 2003, a public auction was held wherein respondent bank was declared the
highest bidder.[10] On July 3, 2003, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan, Nueva Ecija
issued a Certificate of Sale[11] to respondent bank. On August 19, 2003, respondent bank
registered the sale with the Register of Deeds.[12]

A year passed but neither Jose nor his heirs redeemed the subject land. Thus, on October 4,
2004, respondent bank executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership[13] over the said
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 1/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

land.

On December 16, 2004, respondent bank filed a verified petition[14] for cancellation of TCT No.
EP-86727 covering the subject land before the PARAD. Petitioners filed an Answer[15] and
sought the dismissal of the petition. They argued that the PARAD did not acquire jurisdiction
over them for failure to implead necessary parties. They also averred that respondent bank's
petition lacked a cause of action because the purported real estate mortgage executed by Jose
was void ab initio as it was executed within the 10-year prohibitory period under Section 27[16]
of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657,[17] otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.[18] Lastly, petitioners claimed that the mortgage was void because it was executed
without the consent of Jose's wife, Marcela Mariano (Marcela).[19]

Ruling of the PARAD:

In its Decision[20] dated January 4, 2006, the PARAD granted respondent bank's petition for
cancellation of TCT No. EP-86727.

The PARAD held that respondent bank substantially proved that Jose obtained and failed to pay
his loan, and that the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage was in accord with Act No. 3135,[21]
as amended. Thus, TCT No. EP-86727 ought to be cancelled, and a new one issued in the name
of respondent bank.[22]

Moreover, the PARAD did not give credence to petitioners' claim that the mortgage was void ab
initio due to alleged lack of Marcela's consent. Petitioners should have filed the appropriate
complaint before the RTC after the mortgage was executed or the Certificate of Sale was issued.
Petitioners also did not present in evidence the mortgage contract to prove that Marcela did not
sign the same. Hence, the presumption that Marcela consented to the mortgage stands.

The fallo of the PARAD Decision states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the

Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija (sic) to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. EP-
86727 with DAR E.P. No. 00735825 registered under the name of Jose E. De Lara.
The Register of Deeds is likewise directed to issue a transfer Certificate of title in the
name of the petitioner. Respondents are directed to surrender the afore-referred
Emancipation Patent with the Register of Deeds, otherwise, the latter shall effect the
cancellation of pursuant to the pertinent provisions of P.D. 1529 and its
implementing rules and regulations.

So Ordered.[23]

Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the DARAB maintaining that the EP over the subject land
should not be cancelled.

Ruling of the DARAB:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 2/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

In its July 4, 2012 Decision,[24] the DARAB reversed the PARAD.

The DARAB stated that respondent bank's act of consolidating ownership over the subject land
is prohibited under agrarian laws. The subject land is an agricultural land awarded to qualified
farm-beneficiaries covered by PD 27, and Section 27 of RA 6657, as amended, only allows
transfers of such awarded agricultural lands (a) through hereditary succession, (b) to the
Government, (c) to the Land Bank of the Philippines, or (d) to other qualified farmer­‐
beneficiaries.

The DARAB further held that while Section 73-A of RA 6657 permits financial banking
institutions to sell or transfer mortgaged land which has been foreclosed, the lands contemplated
in the said provision do not include those covered by an EP or a Certificate of Land Ownership
Award (CLOA). To allow a foreclosing bank to transfer ownership of foreclosed lots in its name
is unlawful since it cannot be deemed as a farmer-awardee or a beneficiary of the same under
PD 27 or RA 6657, as amended.

Lastly, the DARAB held that Jose and Marcela's certificate of title over the subject land has
already become indefeasible and incontrovertible since the one-year prescribed period upon the
issuance thereof had already lapsed. Hence, it may no longer be subject to cadastral proceeding
or be decreed to another person.

The dispositive portion of the DARAB Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Assailed Decision dated 4 January

2006 is REVERSED. A NEW DECISION is rendered DISMISSING the Petition for
LACK OF MERIT.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

This adverse ruling prompted respondent bank to file an appeal[25] before the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

In its Decision[26] dated December 10, 2013, the CA reversed the DARAB Decision and
reinstated the PARAD Decision.

The CA ruled that Jose and Marcela had already fully paid Land Bank of the Philippines their
amortizations covering the subject land before it was mortgaged to respondent bank which
resulted in the issuance of an EP on March 18, 1999. Hence, as owners of the subject land, they
validly entered into a mortgage contract with respondent bank. Petitioners failed to duly prove
that fraud or vitiation of consent exists in the execution of the mortgage contract. Thus, the
presumption remains that Jose and Marcela voluntarily entered into a mortgage agreement with
respondent bank.

The CA also held that pursuant to Section 6 of RA 7353,[27] respondent bank, as a rural bank,
can foreclose the subject land although falling under RA 6657 since Jose and Marcela failed to
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 3/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

pay their obligation, and to redeem the property within the one-year period. The subject land
which had been foreclosed can therefore be sold and/or transferred to respondent bank under
Section 6 of RA 7881[28] and Section 71 of RA 6657.[29]

The fallo of the appellate court's Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The

assailed Decision of the DARAB in DARAB Case No. 15281 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, the Decision of the PARAD dated January 4, 2006 in
DARAB Case No. 08-395-SNE-05 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.[30]

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration[31] but the CA denied the same in its
Resolution[32] dated March 13, 2014.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.[33]

Issue

Whether the subject land covered by an EP can be foreclosed and its title cancelled by the
PARAD in favor of respondent bank.

Our Ruling

The petition is impressed with merit.

DARAB has no
jurisdiction over
the case at bench
as there is no
agrarian dispute
between the
parties.

Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure provides that the Adjudicator has the primary
and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and
subsequent issuances of CLOAs and EPs which are registered with the Land Registration
Authority. The DARAB, on the other hand, has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review,
reverse, modify, alter, or affirm resolutions, orders, and decisions of its Adjudicators.

The Court, in Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,[34] held that the jurisdiction of the DAR
concerns the (1) determination and adjudication of all matters involving implementation of
agrarian reform; (2) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land-tenure related problems; and (3)
approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring, or readjustment of agricultural lands
into residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses.[35] The DAR, in turn,

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 4/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

exercises this jurisdiction through its adjudicating arm, the DARAB.[36]

The enactment of RA 9700,[37] as the amendatory law to RA 6657, now transfers the exclusive
and original jurisdiction over these cases to the Secretary of the DAR.[38]

Even if the case involves cancellation of an EP, an agrarian dispute between the parties should
first exist for the then DARAB or DAR Secretary to acquire jurisdiction.[39]

Section 3(d) of RA 6657 defines agrarian dispute as "any controversy relating to tenurial
arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to
agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of
persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions
of such tenurial arrangements".[40] It also includes "any controversy relating to compensation of
lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from
landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and
tenant, or lessor and lessee."[41]

Tenancy relationship between the parties must exist for the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction.[42]
The following indispensable elements should therefore first be established: (1) that the parties
are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the
relationship is an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the parties to the
relationship; (4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5)
that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) that the
harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.[43] These elements
have not been satisfied in the present case.

There was no tenancy relationship between petitioners and respondent bank over the subject
land. Neither did they have any leasehold or agrarian relations when respondent bank filed its
petition with the DARAB. In fact, respondent bank did not allege in its petition that such kind of
relationship exists between them. What is crystal clear in the instant case is that respondent
bank's petition for cancellation of certificate of title stemmed from the subject land's foreclosure.
There was therefore no agrarian dispute notwithstanding the fact that the land involved is an
agricultural land. Thus, respondent's petition should have been dismissed by the DARAB for
lack of jurisdiction.

Admittedly, petitioners did not question the DARAB 's jurisdiction or the lack thereof. However,
the Court could not simply ignore this especially since it is apparent from the face of the petition
that there was no tenancy relationship between the parties, a material allegation which would
confer jurisdiction to the DARAB.

The Court's pronouncement in Heirs of Julian Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Alberto Cruz[44] is
instructive:

It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or

government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 5/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed
for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such
reliefs. Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the
Constitution and the law, and not by the consent or waiver of the parties where the
court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the nature or subject matter of the
action. Nor can it be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the
parties. Moreover, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has
none over the cause of action. The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction
of the DARAB does not prevent the court from addressing the issue, especially
where the DARAB's lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint or
petition.[45] (Citations omitted.)

Respondent
bank's recourse
should have been
with the Register
of Deeds, not
before the
DARAB.

It is well to note at this juncture that the DAR was not even the proper forum for the resolution
of the matter at hand.

Section 63 of PD 1529,[46] otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, states:

Section 63. Foreclosure of Mortgage. (a) x x x

xxxx

xxxx

(b) If the mortgage was foreclosed extrajudicially, a certificate of sale executed by

the officer who conducted the sale shall be filed with the Register of Deeds who shall
make a brief memorandum thereof on the certificate of title.

In the event of redemption by the mortgagor, the same rule provided for in the
second paragraph of this section shall apply.

In case of non-redemption, the purchaser at foreclosure sale shall file with the
Register of Deeds, either a final deed of sale executed by the person authorized
by virtue of the power of attorney embodied in the deed of mortgage, or his
sworn statement attesting to the fact of non­-redemption; whereupon, the
Register of Deeds shall issue a new certificate in favor of the purchaser after the
owner's duplicate of the certificate has been previously delivered and canceled.
(Emphasis supplied.)

Respondent bank, being the purchaser in the foreclosure sale of the subject land and after Jose's
failure to redeem the same, should have at least first brought its cause before the appropriate

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 6/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

Register of Deeds, not before the DAR. The CA thus erred in reversing the Decision of the
DARAB since the petition to cancel TCT No. EP-86727 is beyond the jurisdiction of the DAR.

This notwithstanding, the petition if given due course would still be dismissed.

Subject land is
deemed non­‐
transferrable
under the
provisions of PD
27 and RA 6657,
as amended by
RA 9700.

PD 27 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. (Emphasis supplied.)

The above provision declares that lands acquired through PD 27 may only be transferred by
hereditary succession or to the government. These lands are "not subject to foreclosure, except
by the Land Bank, because foreclosure contemplates the transfer of ownership over the
mortgaged lands."[47]

In the case of Rural Bank of Dasmariñas v. Jarin[48] (Jarin) the Court had elaborated the ratio
for the rule under PD 27:

The policy behind the prohibition in Presidential Decree No. 27 precludes expanding
the exceptions therein. So this Court declared:

Upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21,

1972, petitioner was DEEMED OWNER of the land in question. As of
that date, he was declared emancipated from the bondage of the soil. As
such, he gained the rights to possess, cultivate, and enjoy the landholding
for himself. Those rights over that particular property were granted by the
government to him and to no other. To insure his continued possession
and enjoyment of the property, he could not, under the law, make any
valid form of transfer except to the government or by hereditary
succession, to his successors.

x x x The prohibition against transfers to persons other than the heirs of

other qualified beneficiaries stems from the policy of the Government to
develop generations of farmers to attain its avowed goal to have an
adequate and sustained agricultural production. With certitude, such
objective will not see the light of day if lands covered by agrarian reform
can easily be converted for non-agricultural purposes.[49] x x x
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 7/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

The factual background of Jarin substantially mirrors that of the case at hand. Jarin, et al. were
awarded Certificates of Land Transfer over certain farm lots in Dasmariñas, Cavite. They
procured loans from Rural Bank of Dasmariñas, Inc. (RBDI), and secured the same by executing
real estate mortgages over their farm lots. Jarin, et al. failed to pay the loaned amount; hence,
RBDI foreclosed the mortgages and purchased the farm lots as the highest bidder. RBDI,
however, could not register the farm lots in its name as Jarin, et al. refused to surrender the
owner's copies of the TCTs covering the farm lots. RBDI thus filed a complaint against Jarin, et
al. for the delivery of the said TCTs. The Court invalidated RBDI's right to foreclose the
mortgages over Jarin, et al.'s farm lots. Quoting the above provision of PD 27, the Court ruled
that Jarin, et al.'s farm lots acquired through PD 27 may only be transferred by hereditary
succession or to the government.[50] These lands were "not subject to foreclosure, except by the
Land Bank, because foreclosure contemplates the transfer of ownership over the mortgaged
lands."[51]

However, unlike in Jarin, the Court cannot resolve the present case by relying solely on the
provisions of PD 27.

Section 27 of RA 6657 was originally phrased as:

SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. – Lands acquired by

beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except
through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other
qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the
children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from
the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. x x x (Emphasis,
underscoring supplied.)

It is best to be reminded that the subject land had been granted to Jose per the Operation Land
Transfer of PD 27. Under the above initial terms of RA 6657 that were enacted in 1988, this 10-
year holding period strictly applied to land grants under RA 6657, and was thus irrelevant to the
circumstances of herein subject land.

In 2009, however, RA 9700 became law, amending above Section 27 of RA 6657 to read as
follows:

SEC. 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. — Lands acquired by beneficiaries

under this Act or other agrarian reform laws shall not be sold, transferred or
conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP,
or to other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR for a period of ten (10) years:
Provided, however, That the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right
to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

Beneficiaries are still enjoined to retain for themselves the lands they have been granted under
existing agrarian reform laws, and the exceptions to this rule remain: the law shall allow
transfers of awarded lands via hereditary succession, or transfers to the government, the Land
Bank of the Philippines, or to other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR. But this rule under
PD 27 is not anymore absolute with the new amendments in RA 6657 carried out by RA 9700.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 8/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

The prohibition shall now subsist for only a period of 10 years. After such retention period,
lands acquired under existing agrarian reform laws may be sold, transferred, or conveyed to any
party other than to the aforementioned exceptions. Effectively, the avowed public policy
promoted by PD 27 is renewed, in that the fact of ownership of land beneficiaries is
strengthened upon the law's permission for them to finally alienate the land. After all, ownership
includes the power to dispose, and the removal of the absolute prohibition against dispositions
and transfers involving awarded lands further empowers its grantees with the full exercise of the
rights pertaining to that of a true owner.

The Court also emphasizes that rural banks are specifically permitted by law to foreclose lands
mortgaged to it, subject to the conditions and provisions of RA 6657.[52] Relatedly, Section 71
of RA 6657 allows banks and financial institutions in general to foreclose mortgages on
agricultural lands:

Sec. 71. Bank Mortgages. – Banks and other financial institutions allowed by law to
hold mortgage rights or security interests in agricultural lands to secure loans and
other obligations of borrowers, may acquire title to these mortgaged properties,
regardless of area, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed
assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 13 of this Act.

In 2003, RA 7881[53] introduced Section 73-A into RA 6657, bolstering the legality of
foreclosure sales executed by banks on failed mortgages over agricultural lands:

Sec. 73-A. Exception. — The provisions of Section 73, paragraph (E),[54] to the
contrary notwithstanding, the sale and/or transfer of agricultural land in cases where
such sale, transfer or conveyance is made necessary as a result of a bank's
foreclosure of the mortgaged land is hereby permitted.

Be that as it may, the facts of the case impel the Court to invalidate the foreclosure sale to
respondent bank.

Records show that the EP covering the subject land was issued in favor of Jose on November 20,
1998. At the time the foreclosure sale was held on February 27, 2003, only four years had
passed from the time he acquired the said land in his name. While respondent bank's right to
foreclose the mortgage over the subject land properly had its basis on Jose's failure to pay the
loan, it arose within the 10-year period during which Jose was supposed to keep the subject land
to his name. There was, therefore, a factual impediment to respondent's action to foreclose the
mortgage, and a legal imperative to await the lapse of the 10-year retention period before
pursuing his cause against Jose. Nonetheless, the foreclosure sale proceeded. This violated the
provisions of PD 27 and RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700.

Agreements that violate law and public policy are inexistent and void from the beginning. The
Civil Code declares so, viz.:

ART. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:

(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy;
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 9/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

xxxx

These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of
illegality be waived. (Emphasis supplied)

All said, the sale of the subject land by foreclosure to herein respondent bank, being violative of
the law and public policy embodied in PD 27 and RA 6657 as amended by RA 9700, is void ab
initio.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The December 10, 2013 Decision and Resolution
dated March 13, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-­G.R. SP No. 126325 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Petition for Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. EP-86727 filed
by the respondent Rural Bank of Jaen, Inc. is DISMISSED.

The extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage on July 3, 2003 over the land located in
Dampulan (now Vicente), Jaen, Nueva Ecija with an area of 2,257 square meters registered
under the name of Jose E. de Lara per Transfer Certificate of Title No. EP-86727 is declared
VOID AB INITIO.

SO ORDERED.

Perlas-Bernabe, (Chairperson), Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concur.

* Jose De Lara, Sr. who was also referred to as Jose E. De Lara and Jose De Lara in some parts
of the records.

[1] Rollo, 3-19.

[2]Id. at 22-34; Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by

Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser.

[3] Id. at 100-101.

[4] Id. at 35-46.

[5] Id. at 84-98.

[6] Id. at 47-48.

[7]Entitled "DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE

OF THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY
TILL AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM THEREFOR."
Approved: October 21, 1972.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 10/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

[8] CA rollo, p. 47.

[9] Rollo, p. 23.

[10] Id.

[11] CA rollo, pp 48-49.

[12] Rollo, p. 23.

[13] CA rollo, p. 51.

[14] Id. at 45-46.

[15] Id. at 52-54.

[16] Rollo, p. 24.

[17]Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM

PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING
THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
Approved: June 10, 1988.

[18] CA rollo, pp. 52-54.

[19] Rollo, p. 24.

[20] Id. at 47-48.

[21]Entitled "AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER SPECIAL

POWERS INSERTED IN OR ANNEXED TO REAL ESTATE MORTGAGES," approved on
March 6, 1924.

[22] Id. at 48.

[23] Id.

[24] Id. at 35-46.

[25] CA rollo, pp. 14-39.

[26] Rollo, pp. 22-34.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 11/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

[27]Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION, ORGANIZATION AND

OPERATION OF RURAL BANKS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, approved on April 2,
1992. Cited by the CA as follows:

Loans or advances extended by rural banks organized and operated under this Act
shall be primarily for the purpose of meeting the normal credit needs of farmers,
fishermen or farm families owning or cultivating land dedicated to agricultural
production as well as the normal credit needs of cooperatives and merchants. In
granting of loans, the rural bank shall give preference to the application of farmers
and merchant whose cash requirements are small.

xxxx

A rural bank shall be allowed to foreclose lands mortgaged to it: Provided, That said
lands shall be covered under Republic Act No. 6657.
(Id. at 28.)

[28] Cited by the CA as follows:

[T]here shall be incorporated after Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6657 a new
section to read as follows: "Section 73-A Exceptions – The provisions of Section 73,
paragraph (E), to the contrary notwithstanding, the sale and/or transfer of agricultural
land in cases where such sale, transfer or conveyance is made necessary as a result of
a bank's foreclosure of the mortgaged land is hereby permitted.
(Id. at 29.)

[29] Cited by the CA as follows:

Section 71. Bank Mortgages. – Banks and other financial institutions allowed by law
to hold mortgage rights or security interests in agricultural lands to secure loans and
other obligations of borrowers, may acquire title to these mortgaged properties,
regardless of area, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed
assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 13 of this Act.
(Citations omitted; id.)

[30] Id. at 33-34.

[31] CA rollo, pp. 166-181.

[32] Rollo, pp. 100-101.

[33] Id. at 3-20.

[34] 270 Phil. 88 (1990).

[35] Id. at 93-94.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 12/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

[36] See id. at 98.

[37]
Entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM
PROGRAM (CARP), EXTENDING THE ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALL
AGRICULTURAL LANDS, INSTITUTING NECESSARY REFORMS, AMENDING FOR
THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988, AS
AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR,"

[38]
See Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform v. Heirs of Abucay, G.R. Nos. 186432
& 186964, March 12, 2019.

[39] See id.

[40] Heirs of Nisperos v. Nisperos-Ducusin, 715 Phil. 691, 701 (2013).

[41] Id.

[42] Id. at 702, citing Morta, Sr. v. Occidental, 367 Phil. 438, 446 (1999).

[43] Id.

[44] 512 Phil. 389 (2005).

[45] Id. at 400-401.

[46]
Entitled "AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION
OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 11, 1978.

[47] Rural Bank of Dasmariñas v. Jarin, 619 Phil. 171, 178 (2009).

[48] Id.

[49] Id. at 179.

[50] Id. at 179.

[51] Id. at 178.

[52] Section 6 of RA 7353, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION,
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF RURAL BANKS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,"
approved on April 2, 1992 provides in pertinent part:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 13/14
1/16/24, 9:18 PM [ G.R. No. 212012. March 28, 2022 ]

xxxx

A rural bank shall be allowed to foreclose lands mortgaged to it: Provided, That said
lands shall be covered under Republic Act No. 6657.

[53]
Entitled "AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT No. 6657,
ENTITLED "AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM
PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING
THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
Approved: February 20, 1995.

[54] Section 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. – The following are prohibited:

xxxx

(e) The sale, transfer, conveyance or change of the nature of lands outside of urban
centers and city limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity of this Act. The
date of the registration of the deed of conveyance in the Register of Deeds with
respect to titled lands and the date of the issuance of the tax declaration to the
transferee of the property with respect to unregistered lands, as the case may be, shall
be conclusive for the purpose of this Act.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: February 14, 2023

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 14/14