Heirs of Deleste v. Land Bank of the Philippines AUTHOR: Magsino, Patricia Marie C.

[G.R. No. 169913, Jun. 08, 2011] NOTES:

TOPIC: Substantive due process Due process and
property rights
PONENTE: Velasco, Jr., J.
FACTS:

Spouses Gregorio Nanaman and Hilaria Tabuclin owners of a parcel of agricultural land in Tambo, Iligan City;
they were childless and only had Virgilio Nanaman (son of Gregorio by another woman)
Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the Iligan property and subsequently sold this to Dr.
Jose Deleste
Hilaria died in 1954, Gregorios brother Noel was appointed as regular administrator of the estate, he then
filed an action for reversion of the title of the property, this case went up to the SC where it was ruled that the
property was the conjugal property of Nanaman spouses and so Hilaria can only sell of the land
Deleste and the intestate estate of Gregorio were then held to be co-owners of the property
PD 21 was issued in 1972 - 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 property was placed under the
Operation Land Transfer program, however only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by Department of
Agrarian Reform as landowners
In 1975, the City of Iligan passed an ordinance -- Zoning Regulation of Iligan City which reclassified the land
into commercial/residential
In 1984, the DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer in favor of private respondents who were the tenants and
actual cultivators of the land
In 2001, Emancipation Patents and Original Certificates of Title were issued to the private respondents
City of Iligan expropriated a part of the property as the issue of ownership was pending, the just compensation
was deposited with the Development Bank of the Philippines held in trust for the RTC of Iligan City
Petitioners Heirs of Deleste filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a
petition seeking to nullify the EPs issued to the private respondents
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) declared the EPs null and void, in view of the
pending issues of ownership, the subsequent reclassification of the property into a residential/commercial
land and the violation of petitioners constitutional right to due process of law
Private respondents filed a Notice of Appeal, while the petitioners filed a Motion for Writ of Execution
DARAB reversed the ruling of PARAD and held the EPs were valid and that the petitioners Heirs of Deleste
should have been the one informed by DAR at the time the property was placed under the OLT program
Petitioners filed a petition for review with the CA which was denied for failure to attach the writ of execution, a
subsequent motion for reconsideration was filed and denied
Petitioners filed with the SC a petition for review which was denied as no reversible error was shown, they then
filed an MR which the SC granted and gave due course hence this proceeding
ISSUE(S):
1. Were the petitioners constitutional right to due process violated by DAR (for failure to send notice)?

2. Is the property covered by the agrarian reform program?

3. Is the property covered by PD 27?

HELD:

1. YES. DAR violated the petitioners right to due process when it failed to notify them that the property will
 be covered by the agrarian reform program

2. NO. It is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program in view of the enactment of the local zoning
ordinance.

3. NO. Even if under PD 27, tenant-farmers are deemed owners as of October 21, 1972, this is not to be
construed as automatically vesting upon these tenant-farmers absolute ownership over the land. They need
to comply with certain requirements first.
RATIO:
1.
The importance of actual notice in subjecting a property under the agrarian reform program cannot be
underrated, as noncompliance with it trods roughshod with the essential requirements of due process
The Court underscored the significance of notice in implementing the agrarian reform program when it stated
that notice is part of the constitutional right to due process of the law. It informs the landowner of the States
intention to acquire private land upon payment of just compensation and gives him the opportunity to present
evidence that his landholding is not covered or is otherwise excused from agrarian law
DAR should have sent notices to the petitioners Heirs of Deleste as the tax declarations were already in the
name of Dr. Jose Deleste
Petitioners right to due process of the law was indeed violated when DAR failed to notify them that it is
subjecting the property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program (OTL)

2.
In light of the enactment of the local zoning ordinance reclassifying the property from agricultural into
commercial/residential, the property became exempt from the coverage of the agrarian reform program
The local government has the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural land

3.
It should be clarified that even if under PD 27, tenant-farmers are deemed owners as of October 21, 1972, this is
not to be construed as automatically vesting upon these tenant-farmers absolute ownership over the land they
were tilling. Certain requirements must also be complied with, such as payment of just compensation, before full
ownership is vested upon the tenant-farmers

Prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements, tenant-farmers have, at most, an inchoate right over the
land they were tilling

In the case at bar, the CLTs were issued in 1984 therefore, for all intents and purposes , it was only in 1984 that
private respondents, as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have an inchoate right over the subject
property prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements. Considering that the local zoning ordinance
was enacted in 1975, and subsequently approved by the HSRC in 1978, private respondents still had no vested
rights to speak of during this period, as it was only in 1984 that private respondents were issued the CLTs and
were deemed owners
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):