Estribillo vs. Department of Agrarian Reform

Certificates of title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents under Presidential Decree No. 27 become indefeasible and incontrovertible upon expiration of one year from issuance, like certificates issued in judicial registration proceedings. After compliance with the procedure in Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, such titles enjoy the safeguards of Section 32 thereof and may no longer be collaterally cancelled on the ground of erroneous coverage.

Hacienda Maria, Inc. acquired a 527.8308-hectare forested area in Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur from the Republic through Sales Patent No. 2683 in 1956, covered by OCT No. P-3077-1661. Petitioners and other persons occupied and tilled denuded portions thereof believing the same were public lands, without disturbance from the titled owner. Presidential Decree No. 27, issued on 21 October 1972, mandated that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under Operation Land Transfer and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries.

Petitioners, except Emma Gonzaga and Ana Patiño who are surviving spouses of deceased grantees Manuel S. Gonzaga and Rafael Patiño, are recipients of Emancipation Patents over parcels in Barangay Angas, Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur, ranging from 0.1565 to 6.4266 hectares each and covered by their respective TCT and EP numbers. The parcels formed part of a forested area denuded by the logging operations of respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc., which petitioners and others occupied and tilled believing the same were public lands, without disturbance from HMI. HMI had acquired the entire 527.8308-hectare area, comprising Lot No. 1620, Pls-4 of 28.52 hectares, Lot No. 1621, Pls-4 of 11.64 hectares, and Lot No. 1622, Pls-4 of 487.47 hectares, through Sales Patent No. 2683 in 1956 under OCT No. P-3077-1661.

Thereafter, through Joaquin Colmenares, HMI requested that its 527.8308-hectare landholding be placed under Operation Land Transfer, and receiving compensation therefor, allowed petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the landholdings for coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27. In 1973 the Department of Agrarian Reform conducted parcellary mapping of the entire holding, approving the Parcellary Map Sketching and Amended Parcellary Map Sketching in 1975 and 1976. HMI representatives actively participated in the proceedings, including determination of Average Gross Production per hectare at the Barangay Committee on Land Production, and signed an undated Landowner and Tenant Production Agreement covering the 527.8308 hectares, submitted to the Land Bank of the Philippines in 1977. Also in 1977 HMI executed a Deed of Assignment of Rights in favor of petitioners and others, registered with the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of OCT No. P-3077-1661 as covering the entire 527.8308 hectares.

A final survey of the entire area was conducted and approved in 1982, and from 1984 to 1988 the corresponding TCTs and EPs covering the entire 527.8308 hectares were issued to petitioners and others. In December 1997 HMI filed 17 consolidated petitions before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of CARAGA seeking declaration of erroneous coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27 of 277.5008 hectares of its former holdings and cancellation of the EPs awarded to petitioners, alleging the area was not devoted to rice or corn, was untenanted, and that no compensation was paid therefor. HMI did not question coverage of the other 250.3300 hectares despite similarly claiming the entire holding was untenanted and not devoted to rice and corn. After petitioners failed to submit a Position Paper, the adjudicator relied on the 26 March 1998 Hacienda Maria Action Team report to void the titles, a disposition affirmed by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and left undisturbed on procedural grounds by the Court of Appeals.

• Compliance with Certification Rule: Petitioner argued that there had been compliance with Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure concerning the Certification Against Forum Shopping.
• Indefeasibility of Title: Petitioner maintained that the EPs are ordinary titles which become indefeasible one year after their registration.

• Erroneous Coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27: Respondent countered that 277.5008 hectares were erroneously covered because the area was not devoted to either rice or corn, the area was untenanted, and no compensation was paid therefor, warranting cancellation of the EPs.
• Belated Raising of Indefeasibility: Respondent argued that the issue of indefeasibility of title was raised for the first time on appeal with the DARAB.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping: Whether dismissal was warranted where the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was executed only by petitioner Samuel A. Estribillo without Special Powers of Attorney from his co-petitioners.
• Indefeasibility of Emancipation Patents: Whether certificates of title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are indefeasible upon expiration of one year from issuance and thus no longer subject to cancellation for alleged erroneous coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping: No. Dismissal was not warranted, as one principal party may sign the certification and, in any event, special circumstances justified relaxation of strict compliance to serve substantial justice.
• Indefeasibility of Emancipation Patents: Yes. Titles issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as indefeasible as Torrens titles issued in registration proceedings upon expiration of one year, and were therefore correctly declared valid and subsisting.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping: The certification must be signed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties, not only by counsel, and petitioner Samuel A. Estribillo falls within that phrase. While Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman required strict observance where only one of five petitioners signed without authority, that rigidity was distinguished because of the small number of petitioners and the jurisdictional defect there present. Here, petitioners showed remote residence in Agusan del Sur with houses far apart, scarce habal-habal transport, advanced age, meager resources of their farmers' organization, and counsel based in Quezon City, with only Estribillo able to travel to Manila; subsequent efforts to circulate a Special Power of Attorney still left 24 named persons unsigned because some could not be found or had died. Beyond substantial compliance, relaxation was justified by recognized exceptions where belated authority or certification was allowed in light of special or compelling reasons, the apparent merits of the substantive case, and social justice considerations, technical rules being intended to promote rather than frustrate justice.
• Indefeasibility of Emancipation Patents: Certificates of title issued in administrative proceedings pursuant to patents are as indefeasible as those issued in judicial registration proceedings. Although Presidential Decree No. 27 is silent on indefeasibility, as is the Public Land Act, such silence is construed in favor of the grantee, with Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, now Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, applied by implication from the date of issuance of the patent, corresponding to issuance of the decree. After compliance with Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, under which the Department of Agrarian Reform issues the Emancipation Patent and the Register of Deeds issues the corresponding certificate, the title becomes irrevocable and indefeasible after one year and enrolled in the Torrens system under Chapter IX. The defense of belated raising failed because the issue was already raised before the RARAD. Cancellation after more than 20 years from annotation of the 1977 Deed of Assignment and more than 10 years from issuance of the 1984-1988 titles, coupled with HMI's receipt of compensation, execution of the Landowner and Tenant Production Agreement for the entire 527.8308 hectares as rice and corn lands, abandonment after assignment, non-payment of realty taxes from 1972, and non-disturbance of cultivation, confirmed the absence of basis to disturb possession and showed only a motive to obtain higher valuation under Republic Act No. 6657.

• Certification against forum shopping; signature by principal party and liberal construction — The certification under Section 5, Rule 7 must be signed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties, not solely by counsel unless clothed with special authority. While mandatory to prevent multiple actions involving the same issues, the requirement, originating from Revised Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94, is not to be interpreted with absolute literalness where doing so would subvert substantial justice. Applied here, signature by one of twenty-five farmer-petitioners sufficed, and remote residence, poverty, age, and distance from counsel supported relaxation.
• Relaxation for special circumstances or compelling reasons — Belated filing of authority or certification may be excused where special circumstances or compelling reasons make strict application clearly unjustified, including the apparent merits of the substantive case and social justice considerations. The Court relied on General Milling Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Shipside Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals, Uy vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, De Guia vs. De Guia, and Damasco vs. National Labor Relations Commission to allow substantial compliance and decide the merits rather than dismiss on technicality.
• Indefeasibility of titles issued pursuant to public land patents and Emancipation Patents — Where land is granted by the government to a private individual, the patent is recorded and the certificate issued, the land is brought within the Land Registration Act and the title becomes irrevocable and indefeasible upon expiration of one year from issuance, like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding. Applied here, Transfer Certificates of Title issued upon Emancipation Patents under Presidential Decree No. 27 and Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, enrolled under the Torrens system, could no longer be cancelled more than ten years later on collateral claims of erroneous coverage.

• "Technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate, justice." — States the interpretive principle justifying relaxation of the certification-against-forum-shopping rule to achieve substantial justice expeditiously.
• "It must be emphasized that a certificate of title issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent, as in the instant case, is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding, provided the land covered by said certificate is a disposable public land within the contemplation of the Public Land Law." — Supplies the controlling formulation from Ybañez extended to Emancipation Patents to support indefeasibility after one year.
• "where land is granted by the government to a private individual, the corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is issued to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automatically brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act, the title issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all the safeguards provided in Section 38 of the said Act. In other words, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding." — Quotes the canonical Lahora rule applied to hold petitioners' Torrens titles irrevocable and indefeasible.

• Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 392 Phil. 596 (2000) — Cited by the Court of Appeals to require strict personal knowledge and authorization for the certification; distinguished by the Court because of the small number of petitioners and different jurisdictional context therein.
• General Milling Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 442 Phil. 425 (2002) — Followed as allowing substantial compliance where board authority for the signatory was belatedly submitted on reconsideration to serve substantial justice.
• Shipside Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals, 352 SCRA 334 (2001) — Followed for the rule that belated filing of certification or proof of authority may be excused for special circumstances or compelling reasons, including merits and submission of a certification albeit without initial proof of authority.
• Uy vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 391 Phil. 303 (2000) — Followed to treat apparent merits of the substantive case as a special circumstance warranting reinstatement despite belated certification.
• Ybañez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 194 SCRA 743 (1991) — Followed as authority that administrative titles pursuant to patents are as indefeasible as judicial titles.
• Lahora vs. Dayanghirang, Jr., 147 Phil. 301 (1971) — Followed for the rule that upon one year from issuance, a patent-based certificate becomes irrevocable and indefeasible like a registration-proceeding certificate.
• Mendigorin vs. Cabantog, 436 Phil. 483 (2002); Escorpizo vs. University of Baguio, 366 Phil. 166 (1999); Condo Suite Club Travel, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 380 Phil. 660 (2000) — Cited to establish that any principal party, not only counsel, may sign the certification against forum shopping.
• De Guia vs. De Guia, 356 SCRA 287 (2001); Damasco vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 346 SCRA 714 (2000) — Cited for the inherent power to suspend rules and disregard non-compliance to resolve merits in the interest of justice and social justice.

• Section 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath non-commencement of other actions involving the same issues, status of any pending action, and undertaking to report later knowledge; non-compliance is cause for dismissal without prejudice and false certification constitutes indirect contempt. Applied to sustain signature by one farmer-petitioner and to excuse strict multi-signature compliance.
• Presidential Decree No. 27 — Decreed emancipation of tenants and transfer of ownership of tenanted rice and corn lands under Operation Land Transfer. Applied as the basis for coverage, mapping, production agreement, assignment, and issuance of the disputed Emancipation Patents.
• Section 32 and Section 105, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Section 32 provides indefeasibility after one year; Section 105 provides issuance of Emancipation Patents by the Department of Agrarian Reform and issuance of corresponding certificates by the Register of Deeds, with Chapter IX covering Certificates of Land Transfer and Emancipation Patents. Applied to cloak petitioners' titles with Torrens indefeasibility.
• Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) — Covers redistribution regardless of crops produced and irrespective of tenurial arrangement. Referenced to reject the Hacienda Maria Action Team recommendation to cancel Emancipation Patents and re-cover under this law with later issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award, which would only delay reform and increase valuation.

Ynares-Santiago, J. (Acting Chairman), Austria-Martinez, J., and Callejo, Sr., J., concur. Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson), on official leave.