PAGTALUNAN VS. TAMAYO (1990)
Petitioners: CELSO PAGTALUNAN and
PAULINA P. PAGTALUNAN; Respondents: HON. ROQUE A. TAMAYO,
Presiding Judge of the CFI of Bulacan, Branch VI, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
and TURANDOT, TRAVIATA, MARCELITA, MARLENE PACITA, MATTHEW and ROSARY, all
surnamed ALDABA; Ponente: CORTES, J.
Doctrine: Intervention is not a matter of right but
may be permitted by the courts when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the
requirements of the law authorizing intervention. Under the Rules of Court,
what qualifies a person to intervene is his possession of a legal interest in
the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an
interest against both, or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by
a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or
an officer thereof. Such interest must be actual, direct and material, and not
simply contingent and expectant.
Facts (Procedure in bold text):
1. [CFI of Bulacan] Respondent Republic of
the Philippines filed a complaint for
expropriation of a parcel of land located in Bo. Tikay, Malolos,
Bulacan, and owned by the Aldabas (as evidenced by a TCT issued by the Register
of Deeds of the province of Bulacan).
2. [CFI of Bulacan] The CFI issued a writ of possession placing the
Republic in possession of the land, upon its deposit of P7,200.00 as
provisional value of the land.
3. [CFI of Bulacan] Petitioners (sp.
Pagtalunans) filed a supplemental
motion for leave to intervene, with complaint in intervention attached thereto,
alleging that petitioner Celso Pagtalunan has been the bona fide
agricultural tenant of a portion of the land. Petitioners asked the trial
court to order payment to Celso Pagtalunan of just compensation for his
landholding or, in the alternative, to order payment of his disturbance
compensation as bona fide tenant in an amount not less than P15,000.00
per hectare.
4. [CFI of Bulacan] December 8, 1978 Order: respondent Judge Roque A. Tamayo denied the
petitioners' supplemental motion, holding that to admit petitioners'
complaint in intervention would be tantamount to allowing a person to sue the
State without its consent since the claim for disturbance compensation is a
claim against the State.
4.a.
[CFI of Bulacan] Petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration
but this was denied by
respondent judge.
4.a.1. [SC] Thus, the petitioners filed an instant petition, which was denied for lack of merit.
4.a.2. [SC]
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,
limiting the discussion on the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court
over the expropriation case.
4.a.3.
[SC] The Court granted the motion for reconsideration and gave due course
to the petition.
4.b. [CFI of
Bulacan] December 22, 1978: The OSG (appealing from the portion of the
December 8, 1978 decision of the CFI which fixed the compensation for the land
expropriated at P30.00 per square meter) filed in behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines a notice of appeal
and a first motion for extension
of 30 days from January 12, 1979 within which to file record on appeal which
was granted by respondent
court.
4.b.1. [CFI of
Bulacan] Counsel for private respondents filed an objection to the public respondent's record on appeal claiming
that the same was filed beyond the reglementary period. The CFI dismissed the appeal interposed
by the Republic.
4.b.2. [CFI of Bulacan] The OSG moved for reconsideration but this was denied for lack of merit.
4.b.3. [CA]
The public respondent filed a petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary
injunction seeking the annulment of the CFI orders. The CA dismissed public respondent's
petition.
4.b.4. [SC]
The public respondent filed a petition
asking this Court to annul the CA decision and to direct and compel the lower
court to approve the Government's record on appeal and to elevate the same to
the CA. In a decision dated August 10, 1981, the Court granted the petition and
directed the trial court to approve the Government's record on appeal and to
elevate the same to the CA.
Issue/s:
[TOPIC ISSUE]
Whether or not the petitioners had the right to intervene in the expropriation
proceedings instituted by the State against the Aldabas (private respondents)
as registered owners of the subject property. (NO)
Held / Ratio:
- Dispositive: Petition is denied
for lack of merit.
- Intervention is not a matter of
right but may be permitted by the courts when the applicant shows facts which
satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention. Under Section
2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court, what qualifies a person to
intervene is his possession of a legal interest in the matter in litigation,
or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or
when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof. Such
interest must be actual, direct and material, and not simply contingent
and expectant.
- Petitioners claim
that Celso Pagtalunan possesses legal interest in the matter in litigation for
he, not private respondents, is the party entitled to just compensation for the
subject property sought to be expropriated or, in the alternative, disturbance
compensation as a bona fide tenant. Petitioners base their claim for
just compensation on the certificate of land transfer issued to them, where the
tenant farmer/grantee is “deemed owner” of the agricultural land
identified therein. Petitioners contend that the certificate is evidence of
their legal ownership of a portion of the subject property. Thus, they
conclude that they are entitled to a portion of the proceeds from the
expropriation proceedings instituted over the subject property.
- The Court is
fully aware that the phrase "deemed to be the owner" is used to
describe the grantee of a certificate of land transfer. But the import of
such phrase must be construed within the policy framework of Pres. Decree No.
27, and interpreted with the other stipulations of the certificate issued
pursuant to this decree. Pres. Decree No. 27 (“Tenant Emancipation Decree”)
recognized the necessity to encourage a more productive agricultural base of
the country's economy. To achieve this end, the decree laid down a system
for the purchase by small farmers, long recognized as the backbone of the
economy, of the lands they were tilling. A careful study of the provisions
of Pres. Decree No. 27, and the certificate of land transfer issued to
qualified farmers, will reveal that the transfer of ownership over these
lands is subject to particular terms and conditions the compliance with which
is necessary in order that the grantees can claim the right of absolute
ownership over them.
> And under Pres. Decree No. 266 which specifies
the procedure for the registration of title to lands acquired, full
compliance by the grantee is required for a grant of title under the Tenant
Emancipation Decree and the subsequent issuance of an emancipation
patent in favor of the farmer/grantee [Section 2, Pres. Decree No. 226]. It
is the emancipation patent which constitutes conclusive authority for
the issuance of an Original Certificate of Transfer, or a Transfer Certificate
of Title, in the name of the grantee.
Hence, the mere issuance of the certificate of land
transfer does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land described
therein. The certificate simply
evidences the government's recognition of the grantee as the party qualified to
avail of the statutory mechanisms for the acquisition of ownership of the land
tilled by him as provided under Pres. Decree No. 27. Neither is this
recognition permanent nor irrevocable. Failure on the part of the
farmer/grantee to comply with his obligation to pay his lease rentals or
amortization payments when they fall due for a period of two (2) years to the
landowner or agricultural lessor is a ground for forfeiture of his certificate
of land transfer [Section 2, Pres. Decree No. 816].
> It is only after compliance with the above
conditions which entitle a farmer/grantee to an emancipation patent that
he acquires the vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding (a
right which has become fixed and established, and is no longer open to doubt or
controversy). At best, the farmer/grantee, prior to compliance with these
conditions, merely possesses a contingent or expectant right of ownership over
the landholding.
- Petitioners
have not been issued an emancipation patent. Furthermore, they do
not dispute private respondents' allegation that they have not complied with
the conditions enumerated in their certificate of land transfer which would
entitle them to a patent. Petitioners do not even claim that they had
remitted to private respondents, through the Land Bank of the Philippines, even
a single amortization payment for the purchase of the subject property.
> Under these circumstances, petitioners cannot now
successfully argue that Celso Pagtalunan is legally entitled to a portion of
the proceeds from the expropriation proceedings corresponding to the value of
the landholding. Therefore, considering that petitioners are not entitled to
just compensation for the expropriation of the subject property, nor to disturbance
compensation under Rep. Act No. 3844, as amended, the Court finds that
the trial court committed no reversible error in denying petitioners' motion
for leave to intervene in the expropriation proceedings.
Comments
Post a Comment