"x x x.
Agrarian Reform; land ownership; mere issuance of the Certificate of Land Transfer does not vest full ownership on the holder and does not automatically operate to divest the land owner of all of his rights over the landholding; requirements to effect a transfer of ownership; agricultural lands; any sale or disposition of agricultural lands made after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 which has been found contrary to its provisions shall be null and void; procedures for the reallocation of farmholdings covered by P.D. No. 27 by reason of abandonment or the refusal to become a beneficiary; requisites of abandonment. The mere issuance of the Certificate of Land Transfer (“CLT”) does not vest full ownership on the holder and does not automatically operate to divest the landowner of all of his rights over the landholding. The holder must first comply with certain mandatory requirements to effect a transfer of ownership. Under R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) in relation with P.D. No. 27 (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) and E.O. No. 228(Declaring Full Land Ownership to Qualified Farmer Beneficiaries Covered by P.D. No. 27: Determining the Value of Remaining Unvalued Rice and Corn Lands Subject to P.D. No. 27; and Providing for the Manner of Payment by the Farmer Beneficiary and Mode of Compensation to the Landowner), the title to the landholding shall be issued to the tenant-farmer only upon the satisfaction of the following requirements: (1) payment in full of the just compensation for the landholding, duly determined by final judgment of the proper court; (2) possession of the qualifications of a farmer-beneficiary under the law; (3) full-pledged membership of the farmer-beneficiary in a duly recognized farmers’ cooperative; and (4) actual cultivation of the landholding. We explained in several cases that while a tenant with a CLT is deemed the owner of a landholding, the CLT does not vest full ownership on him. The tenant-holder of a CLT merely possesses an inchoate right that is subject to compliance with certain legal preconditions for perfecting title and acquiring full ownership.
Pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) in relation with P.D. No. 27 (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), any sale or disposition of agricultural lands made after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 which has been found contrary to its provisions shall be null and void. The proper procedure for the reallocation of the disputed lot must be followed to ensure that there indeed exist grounds for the cancellation of the CLT or for forfeiture of rights under it, and that the lot is subsequently awarded to a qualified farmer-tenant pursuant to the law.
Under Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 04-83 (Supplemental Guidelines to Govern Transfer Action of Areas Covered by P.D. 27 by Reason of Abandonment, Waiver of Rights and Illegal Transactions) in relation with Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 08-80 (Guidelines in the Disposition and Reallocation of Farmholdings of Tenant-Farmers who Refuses to Become Beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27) and Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 07-79 (Rules and Regulations Governing Transactions Involving Lands Covered by P.D. No. 27), the following procedures must be observed for the reallocation of farmholdings covered by P.D. No. 27 by reason of abandonment or the refusal to become a beneficiary, among others:
I. Investigation Procedure
1. The conduct of verification by the concerned Agrarian Reform Team Leader (ARTL) to ascertain the reasons for the refusal. All efforts shall be exerted to convince the tenant-farmer to become a beneficiary and to comply with his obligations as such beneficiary.
2. If the tenant-farmer still refuses, the ARTL shall determine the substitute. The ARTL shall first consider the immediate member of the tenant-farmer’s family who assisted in the cultivation of the land, and who is willing to be substituted to all the rights and obligations of the tenant-farmer. In the absence or refusal of such member, the ARTL shall choose one from a list of at least three qualified tenants recommended by the President of the Samahang Nayon or, in default, any organized farmer association, subject to the award limits under P.D. No. 27.
3. Formal notice of the report shall be given to the concerned farmer-beneficiary together with all the pertinent documents and evidences.
4. The ARTL shall submit the records of the case with his report and recommendation to the District Officer within 5 days from the ARTL’s determination of the substitute. The District Officer shall likewise submit his report and recommendation to the Regional Director and the latter to the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, for review, evaluation, and preparation of the final draft decision for final approval.
5. The decision shall declare the cancellation of the CLT if issued.
In the event of the farmer-beneficiary’s death, the transfer or reallocation of his landholding to his heirs shall be governed by Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 19-78 (Rules and Regulations In Case of Death of a Tenant-Beneficiary).
For abandonment to exist, the following requisites must concur: (1) a clear intent to abandon; and (2) an external act showing such intent. The term is defined as the “willful failure of the ARB, together with his farm household, to cultivate, till, or develop his land to produce any crop, or to use the land for any specific economic purpose continuously for a period of two calendar years.” It entails, among others, the relinquishment of possession of the lot for at least two (2) calendar years and the failure to pay the amortization for the same period. What is critical in abandonment is intent which must be shown to be deliberate and clear. The intent must be established by the factual failure to work on the landholding absent any valid reason as well as a clear intent, which is shown as a separate element.Heirs of Lorenzo Buensuceso vs. Perez; G.R. No. 173926. March 6, 2013
x x x."
