Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 110335 June 18, 2001
IGNACIO GONZALES, LILIA R. GONZALES, GUSTAVO R. GONZALES, WIGERTO R. GONZALES,
GIL!A GONZALES"SALUTA, #ERNAN!O RAMIREZ, OCTAVIO RAMIREZ, JR., IGNACIO RAMIREZ,
ESMIRNA RAMIREZ, MERCE!ES GONZALES"#AVIZ, JAIME GONZALES, #E!ERICO GONZALES,
ROSARIO GONZALES, PATRICIA GONZALES, !ANIEL GONZALES, AL!O GONZALES, CLAU!IA
GONZALES $n% AMAN!A GONZALES, petitioners,
vs.
&ONORALE COURT O# APPEALS, ESTANISLAO SALVA!OR, MATEO SALVA!OR, ALERTO
SARMIENTO, MA'IMO ESGUERRA, MAMERTO ANTONIO, VIRGILIO !E GUZMAN, ANGEL #AJAR!O,
AA! !ELA CRUZ, PE!RO #AJAR!O, JUANITO !E LARA, ELIGIO !E GUZMAN, SALVA!OR
MARTINEZ, E!UAR!O !ELA CRUZ, JOSE MATIAS, SOLE!A! ESTRELLA, ROMAN GUINGON, CIRILO
SALVA!OR, CATALINA !ELA CRUZ, ERNAR!O ESGUERRA, JR., GLORIA CAANA, PA(UITO
C&AVEZ, RENATO GARCIA, #RANCISCO PASCUAL, WAL!O SALVA!OR, MARIO SALVA!OR, PE!RO
GARCIA, ALINO SALVA!OR, ANTONIO !E GUZMAN, AMROCIO SALVA!OR, TERESITA CAPATE,
E!UAR!O TALENS, ENIGNO CARAIG, ERNESTO ERNAE, SERGIO CARLOS, SIMEON ALINGA),
ANTONIO NANGEL, TEO#ILO INU)A $n% WIL#RE!O !ELA CRUZ, respondents.
MELO, J.*
Per .M. No. !!"#"!$"S% dated &ebruar' (), (!!*, this case +hich could have been acted upon earlier, +as
ra,ed to undersi-ned ponente. .ssentiall', petitioners see/ to annul and set aside the decision dated
March *0, *##$ of the %ourt of ppeals in its %"1.R. SP No.(23*2 +hich reversed the rulin- of then
Secretar' of -rarian Refor4 5en6a4in T. 7eon-, as +ell as the order dated Ma' *), *##$ den'in-
reconsideration thereof.
The factual antecedents of the instant case 4a' be chronicled as follo+s8
The no+ deceased spouses I-nacio 1on9ales and Marina 1on9ales +ere the re-istered o+ners of t+o
parcels of a-ricultural 7and situated at 5arrio &ortale9a, %abanatuan %it', covered b' Transfer %erti:cate of
Title No. ()3( and deno4inated as 7ot 00*"% and 7ot 00(". 7ot 00*"% contains an area of 32.#) hectares
+hile 7ot 00(" contains an area of $).0)$0 hectares. Herein petitioners are the successors"in"interest or
the children and -randchildren of said 1on9ales spouses. On the other hand, private respondents are the
far4ers and tenants of said spouses +ho have been cultivatin- the parcels of land even before ;orld ;ar
II either personall' or throu-h their predecessors"in"interest.
On Ma' ), *#2#, Marina 1on9ales died intestate and appointed as ad4inistratri< of her estate +as
petitioner 7ilia 1on9ales. Prior to the partition of said estate, I-nacio 1on9ales e<ecuted a Deed of
Donation on =ul' *(, *#)( conve'in- his share of the propert', speci:call' 7ot No. 00*"%, in favor of his *3
-randchildren. The said donation +as not re-istered. Thus, +hen Presidential Decree No. () >P.D. No. ()?
too/ e@ect on October (*, *#)(, the landholdin-s of the spouses 1on9ales +ere placed under Operation
7and Transfer b' virtue of said decree, and private respondents +ere accordin-l' issued the correspondin-
%erti:cates of 7and Transfer and .4ancipation Patents. On March 0, *#)3, the ad4inistratri< 7ilia 1on9ales
:led an application for retention +ith the then Ministr' of -rarian Refor4, reAuestin- that their propert'
be e<cluded fro4 the covera-e of Operation 7and Transfer. fter initial investi-ation, Hearin- OBcer
Melchor Pa-solin-an reco44ended the denial of said application for retention and this action +as aBr4ed
b' ssistant Secretar' of -rarian Refor4 5en6a4in 7aba'en, in an order dated Septe4ber *(, *#)).
pparentl', ho+ever, a reinvesti-ation +as conducted, resultin- in the present Depart4ent of -rarian
Refor4 >DR? resolution dated &ebruar' ($, *#C$ reco44endin- that the land sub6ect of the deed of
donation, or 7ot No. 00*"%, be e<e4pt fro4 Operation 7and Transfer. On Septe4ber $, *##*, DR
Secretar' 5en6a4in 7eon- issued an order declarin- that the sub6ect landholdin-s covered b' the deed of
donation are e<e4pt fro4 Operation 7and Transfer, and cancellin- the %erti:cates of 7and Transfer issued
in favor of private respondents. In so rulin-, the DR Secretar' reasoned8
s the donation had been dul' accepted b' the donees +ho +ere alread' of le-al a-e on the date
of the donation and b' the le-al -uardians of the donees +ho +ere still 4inors at that ti4e, and the
donor havin- /no+n of said acceptance, the donation had therefore been perfected in accordance
+ith the la+, and the donees had acAuired a valid title to the portion donated on the date the
instru4ent +as e<ecuted.
>p. 3, DR Order.?
--rieved b' this rulin-, private respondents :led a petition for certiorari +ith the %ourt of ppeals +hich
rendered its decision on March *0, *##$, reversin- the action of the DR and upholdin- the certi:cates of
land transfer and e4ancipation patents.
Petitioners 4oved for a reconsideration of the above decision but the sa4e +as denied b' the %ourt of
ppeals in its Resolution dated Ma' *), *##$.
Thus, the instant petition anchored on the follo+in- -rounds8
. the % failed to reconsider that the land sub6ect of this case does not fall +ithin the purvie+ of
P.D. ()D
5. the % should have found that the evidence clearl' sho+s that the tenants >private respondents
herein? +ere a+are that the land had been donated b' I-nacio 1on9ales in favor of his
-randchildren prior to the e@ectivit' of P.D. ()D and
%. the e@ect of non"re-istration under the land re-istration la+s are inapplicable to the present
case.
The :rst and third assi-ned errors, bein- interrelated, shall be 6ointl' discussed.
The sole issue to be resolved is +hether the propert' sub6ect of the deed of donation +hich +as not
re-istered +hen P.D. No. () too/ e@ect, should be e<cluded fro4 the Operation 7and Transfer.
Petitioners insist that the deed of donation e<ecuted b' I-nacio 1on9ales validl' transferred the o+nership
and possession of 7ot 00*"% +hich co4prises an area of 32.#) hectares to his *3 -randchildren. The'
further assert that inas4uch as 7ot 00*"% had alread' been donated, the sa4e can no lon-er fall +ithin
the purvie+ of P.D. No. (), since each donee shall have a share of about three hectares onl' +hich is +ithin
the e<e4ption li4it of seven hectares for each lando+ner provided under P.D. No. ().
rticle )3# of the %ivil %ode provides inter alia that Ein order that the donation of an i44ovable 4a' be
valid, it 4ust be 4ade in a public docu4ent, specif'in- therein the propert' donated and the value of the
char-es +hich the donee 4ust satisf'.E %orollaril', rticle )!# of the sa4e %ode e<plicitl' states that Ethe
titles of o+nership, or other ri-hts over i44ovable propert', +hich are not dul' inscribed or annotated in
the Re-istr' of propert' shall not pre6udice third persons.E &ro4 the fore-oin- provisions, it 4a' be inferred
that as bet+een the parties to a donation of an i44ovable propert', all that is reAuired is for said donation
to be contained in a public docu4ent. Re-istration is not necessar' for it to be considered valid and
e@ective. Ho+ever, in order to bind third persons, the donation 4ust be re-istered in the Re-istr' of
Propert' >no+ Re-istr' of 7and Titles and Deeds?. lthou-h the non"re-istration of a deed of donation shall
not a@ect its validit', the necessit' of re-istration co4es into pla' +hen the ri-hts of third persons are
a@ected, as in the case at bar.
It is actuall' the act of re-istration that operates to conve' re-istered land or a@ect title thereto. Thus,
Section 0! of ct No. 3#2 >7and Re-istration ct?, as a4ended b' Section 0* of P.D. No. *0(# >Propert'
Re-istration Decree?, provides8
S.%. 0*. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner " . . . 5ut no deed, 4ort-a-e, lease, or
other voluntar' instru4ent, e<cept a +ill purportin- to conve' or a@ect re-istered land, shall ta/e
e@ect as a conve'ance or bind the land, but shall operate onl' as a contract bet+een the parties
and as evidence of authorit' to the Re-ister of Deeds to 4a/e re-istration.
The act of re-istration shall be the operative act to conve' or a@ect the land insofar as third
persons are concerned, . . .
&urther, it is an entrenched doctrine in our 6urisdiction that re-istration in a public re-istr' creates
constructive notice to the +hole +orld >Olizon vs. Court of Appeals, ($2 S%R *3C F*##3G?. Thus, Section
0* of ct No.3#2, as a4ended b' Section 0( of P.D. No. *0(#, provides8
S.%. 0(. Constructive notice upon registration " .ver' conve'ance, 4ort-a-e, lease, lien,
attach4ent, order, 6ud-4ent, instru4ent or entr' a@ectin- re-istered land shall, if re-istered, :led
or entered in the OBce of the Re-ister of Deeds for the province or cit' +here the land to +hich it
relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons fro4 the ti4e of such re-isterin-, :lin- or enterin-.
It is undisputed in this case that the donation e<ecuted b' I-nacio 1on9ales in favor of his -randchildren,
althou-h in +ritin- and dul' notari9ed, has not been re-istered in accordance +ith la+. &or this reason, it
shall not be bindin- upon private respondents +ho did not participate in said deed or had no actual
/no+led-e thereof. Hence, +hile the deed of donation is valid bet+een the donor and the donees, such
deed, ho+ever, did not bind the tenants"far4ers +ho +ere not parties to the donation. s previousl'
enunciated b' this %ourt, non"re-istration of a deed of donation does not bind other parties i-norant of a
previous transaction >Sales vs. Court of Appeals, (** S%R C0C F*##(G?. So it is of no 4o4ent that the
ri-ht of the tenants"far4ers in this case +as created b' virtue of a decree or la+. The' are still considered
Ethird personsE conte4plated in our la+s on re-istration, for the fact re4ains that these tenants"far4ers
had no actual /no+led-e of the deed of donation.
&ro4 the fore-oin-, the ineluctable conclusion dra+n is that the unre-istered deed of donation cannot
operate to e<clude the sub6ect land fro4 the covera-e of the Operation 7and Transfer of P.D. No. (), +hich
too/ e@ect on October (*, *#)(. To rule other+ise +ould render ine@ectual the ri-hts and interests that
the tenants"far4ers i44ediatel' acAuired upon the pro4ul-ation of P.D. No. (), especiall' so because in
the case at bar, the' have been cultivatin- the land even before ;orld ;ar II. ccordin-l', the %erti:cates
of 7and Transfer and the .4ancipation Patents respectivel' issued to private respondents over the land in
Auestion cannot be cancelled. It should be noted that one of the reco-ni9ed 4odes of acAuirin- title to
land is b' e4ancipation patent +hich ai4s to a4eliorate the sad pli-ht of tenants"far4ers. 5' virtue of P.D.
No. (), tenants"far4ers are dee4ed o+ners of the land the' till. This polic' is intended to be -iven e@ect
b' a provision of the la+ +hich declares that, Ethe tenant"far4er, +hether in land classi:ed as landed
estate or not, shall be D..M.D O;N.R of a portion constitutin- a fa4il' si9e far4 of :ve >0? hectares if
not irritated and three >$? hectares if irri-atedE >P.D. No. (), third para-raph?. It 4a', therefore, be said
that +ith respect to 7ot 00*"%, private respondents beca4e o+ners thereof on October (), *#)(, the da'
P.D. No. () too/ e@ect.
The second error assi-ned deals +ith a Auestion of fact. ;e have consistentl' ruled that it is not the
function of this %ourt to assess and evaluate the evidence all over a-ain, its 6urisdiction bein- -enerall'
li4ited to revie+in- errors of la+ that 4i-ht have been co44itted b' the lo+er court. Nevertheless, since
the factual :ndin-s of the %ourt of ppeals are at variance +ith those of an ad4inistrative a-enc' such as
the Depart4ent of -rarian Refor4, +e are co4pelled to revie+ the records presented both in the %ourt of
ppeals and the said Depart4ent >Deiparine vs. Court of Appeals, (## S%R 22C F*##CG?. Moreover, in the
e<ercise of sound discretion and considerin- the fact that the parties have relentlessl' pursued this case
since *#)3 or for a period of () 'ears alread', this %ourt has opted to loo/ into the factual bases of the
assailed decision of the %ourt of ppeals.
Petitioners 4aintain that private respondents /ne+ of the donation as evidenced b' the aBdavit and
testi4on' of &rancisco Villanueva and bad Dela %ru9. This contention is unacceptable. Villanueva testi:ed
that as the overseer of I-nacio 1on9ales, he +as tas/ed to infor4 his co"tenants about the donation.
Ho+ever, the records sho+ that Villanueva has transferred his ri-ht to cultivate the land to a certain
5e4ardo .s-uerra as earl' as *#20 >p. (!$, Rollo?, leadin- one to lo-icall' conclude that Villanueva +as no
lon-er a tenant, 4uch 4ore an overseer, +hen the donation +as e<ecuted in *#)(. On the other hand,
Dela %ru9, in an Bdavit e<ecuted on Ma' (C, *##(, denied testif'in- before tt'. Ro4eo 5ello at the
OBce of the Depart4ent of -rarian Refor4 to the e@ect that he and his co"tenants +ere a+are of the
donation. He declared that he had no /no+led-e of the donation 4ade b' I-nacio 1on9ales, nor did he
have an' idea that an investi-ation +as conducted b' DR on said 4atter >pp. (!3"(!0, Rollo?.
7i/e+ise, petitioners clai4 that private respondents had been sharin- their produce +ith the donees or the
-randchildren of I-nacio 1on9ales, su--estin- thereb' that private respondents have reco-ni9ed the
donees as the ne+ o+ners of the land. -ain, +e :nd this ar-u4ent to be unfounded. The evidence on
record reveals that the tenants"far4ers paid their rentals to I-nacio 1on9ales and not to the -randchildren
>pp. *0!"*#3, Rollo?.
Petitioners contend that the deed of donation +as not re-istered because of the pendenc' of the intestate
proceedin-s. This ar-u4ent +as correctl' re6ected b' the %ourt of ppeals, in this +ise8
;e do not a-ree +ith respondents that the failure to re-ister the deed of donation +as due to the
pendenc' of the intestate proceedin-s and the fact that the propert' had been 4ort-a-ed to the
Philippine National 5an/ >PN5?, because the pendenc' of the intestate proceedin-s and the real
estate 4ort-a-ed to the PN5, do not preclude the re-istration annotation of the donation at the
bac/ of the certi:cate of title coverin- the land.
>p. 3, %ourt of ppeals Decision.?
Thus, +e aBr4 the conclusion of the appellate court that the land sub6ect of the donation is covered b'
Operation 7and Transfer. The :ndin-s of fact 4ade b' the %ourt of ppeals are conclusive and bindin- on
the Supre4e %ourt even if contrar' to these of the trial court or the ad4inistrative a-enc', so lon- as such
:ndin-s are supported b' the records or based on substantial evidence >Tabaco vs. Court of Appeals, ($#
S%R 3C0 F*##3G?. ;hile the fore-oin- doctrine is not absolute, petitioners have not suBcientl' proved
that the :ndin-s co4plained of are totall' devoid of support in the records, or that the' are so -larin-l'
erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.
s a :nal note, our la+s on a-rarian refor4 +ere enacted pri4aril' because of the reali9ation that there is
an ur-ent need to alleviate the lives of the vast nu4ber of poor far4ers in our countr'. Het, despite such
la+s, the 4a6orit' of these far4ers still live on a hand"to"4outh e<istence. This can be attributed to the
fact that these a-rarian la+s have never reall' been e@ectivel' i4ple4ented. %ertain individuals have
continued to pre' on the disadvanta-ed, and as a result, the far4ers +ho are intended to be protected and
uplifted b' the said la+s :nd the4selves bac/ in their previous pli-ht or even in a 4ore distressin-
situation. This %ourt ou-ht to be an instru4ent in achievin- a di-ni:ed e<istence for these far4ers free
fro4 pernicious restraints and practices, and thereIs no better ti4e to do it than no+.
;H.R.&OR., the petition is D.NI.D and the decision of the %ourt of ppeals dated March *0, *##$ in %"
1.R. SP No. (23*2 is hereb' &&IRM.D.
SO ORD.R.D.
Vitug, anganiban, !onzaga"#eyes, and Sandoval"!utierrez, $$., concur.