EIGHTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 57517. February 26, 2001.]
RUPERTO PUYAT, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD And VIRGILIO MACASPAC, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SANTOS, J p:
Before us is a petition for certiorari which seeks to nullify the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board dated February 8, 2000, REVERSING and DISMISSING the complaint filed by petitioner, the dispositive portion of which as quoted is as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED, and a new one entered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED" 1
and the Provincial Adjudication Reform Board's decision which was reversed by the BOARD, decretal portion of which is stated as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Ordering the defendant to reconvey to the plaintiff the lands covered by Certificates of Landownership Award Nos. 68842, 68843, 68844 and 62245;
2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of San Fernando, Pampanga, to cancel the same and register them instead in the name of RUPERTO PUYAT, JR.
SO ORDERED." 2
The antecedent and material facts of the case as correctly found by the Board a quo are as follows:
". . . that plaintiff is an heir of the late Ruperto Puyat who since ancient times has always been in open and publicly known tenant of a parcel of agricultural land located at Divisoria, Mexico, Pampanga; it is labeled as Lots Nos. 45, 49, 58 and 59, Block II, Plan Psd-665 with an area of 2.6 hectares, more or less; during the lifetime of the late Ruperto Puyat, son-plaintiff has been occupying, possessing and tilling the aforesaid land to the exclusion of the general public and enjoying the fruits thereon; tasked with that possession of his father, plaintiff has been there conceivably for a period of fifty (50) years, more or less; his father was sickly and due to financial stresses, Ruperto Puyat borrowed money and he had to submit to the demands and impositions of the money lender, Emilia S. Dizon, a resident of Mexico, Pampanga and this was — that Virgilio Macaspac, one of her workers, should work on the land of plaintiff's father until the full payment of the said loan of P2,000.00; thus, Virgilio Macaspac, herein defendant, gained possession of the piece of land; having money to pay back said loan, plaintiff had been trying to locate Emilia Sandico but she could not be reached; plaintiff tendered the payment of the said amount to the defendant but the latter refused to accept it, and that through deceit and fraud the defendant was able to secure an alleged waiver of rights which was discovered only recently and despite the plaintiff's demands for its reconveyance, the defendant refused to do so; and consequently, plaintiff supplicates that the land in dispute be ordered reconveyed to him and such waiver of rights be invalidated.
On the other hand, defendant asseverated that the late Ruperto Puyat, plaintiff's father, was in actual possession and cultivation of the land in question, and not the plaintiff; defendant claimed that the late Ruperto Puyat had never borrowed any money from Emilia Sandico; that the latter had nothing to do over the land herein contested nor to the status of the defendant, the defendant being the true, lawful and legitimate tenant over the aforesaid land; that the late Ruperto Puyat sold his right of possession to the defendant which was reduced into writing by Notary Public Ruben Silvestre and executed a waiver of rights in favor of the Department of Agrarian Reform stating that he has no more right and interest over the lands in dispute by virtue of the sale; that herein plaintiff knew fully well the sale made by his late father and after the sale plaintiff went to Manila and employed himself as a driver and the plaintiff was never in actual possession and cultivation of the lands in dispute; that defendant claimed that he has been in possession thereof since 1963; the waiver of rights was executed on April 1, 1976; that after the Department of Agrarian Reform identified the defendant as qualified farmer then awarded Certificate of Land Transfer Nos. 15471, 15468, 15470 and 5469 (sic) with the total area of 25,521, square meters; and thereafter, certificates of land ownership awards were given to the defendant." 3
In his petition, petitioner alleged that it is foolish to pretend that public respondent Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board did not gravely abuse its discretion in returning a finding that the subject waiver of right is valid and effective.
The thrust of petitioner's disquisition is basically directed to the validity of waiver of right executed by his late father Ruperto Puyat. Petitioner alleged that his father was an unlettered person who neither knew how to read nor to write 4 and that voluntary surrender of a landholding is not tolerated and frowned heavily by the government.
Petitioner further argues that the affidavit executed by Emilia Sandico-Dizon is devoid of merit and has no probative value for failure of the latter to appear and testify before the Board a quo and that the nullification and cancellation of Certificate of Land Transfer in the name of Ruperto Puyat should be attacked directly as to its validity and not collaterally.
At the very outset, the focal issue in the case before Us is the validity of the waiver of rights executed by petitioner's father Ruperto Puyat, Sr. on April 1, 1976. On this point petitioner cast a big doubt on the validity and authenticity of its execution. Firstly, petitioner's father Ruperto Puyat, Sr. is an illiterate person who neither knew how to read nor to write and the questioned waiver was written in a foreign language which is in English. Secondly, petitioner's father was confined in the Tala Leprosarium for reason that the latter was suffering from the disease of Ketong. These facts were not considered and taken by the Board below. However, the Provincial Adjudicator glaringly noted these facts. Thus, it ratiocinated in this manner to which this court agrees.
"The records (t.s.n., November 11, 1993, pages 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52) will disclose:
QUOTES
Page 41 Q You said you are resident of Divisoria, Mexico, Pampanga since when you been a resident of that particular place?
A Since I was a child
Q Do you know a certain person by the name of Ruperto Puyat?
A Yes Sir
Q Why do you know him?
A He is my father
Q Is Mr. Puyat still alive?
A Died Sir.
Q When did he die?
A 1977.
Q Now, can you tell us what was the cause of his death?
Page 42 — Atty. Cunanan:
The witness testified that he died in 1977.
A My father is a leper patient in the hospital
Q Why do you mean by leper? (sic)
A Allergy, Ketong.
Q When you say ketong do you mean to say that he was confined in the hospital during his lifetime?
A From 1977 down.
Q From 1977 down he was already suffering from leprosy. In what particular hospital your father was confined?
A He was confined at TALA.
Q In what year he was confined in the particular hospital?
A He was confined in the hospital and once in a while he was allow to go home but he was to return every now and then.
Q What about your mother?
A Yes Sir.
Q Meaning to say that your mother is also suffering from leprosy?
A Yes sir.
Q She was also confined in the hospital just like your father?
A Yes Sir.
Atty. Tuazon:
Q I am showing to you a certain document denominated as waiver of rights tell this Honorable Board whether you know this particular document. At the bottom of this document there appears a signature particularly of your father Ruperto Puyat, will you please tell us you know this particular signature.
A No sir.
Page 44 — Atty. Tuazon:
Q What about your signature this thubmark (sic) allegedly by your mother. Do you know this thumbmark? I am executed sometime in April 1976. Do you know whether your father was still confined in the leprosarium hospital in 1976 or April 1976? (sic)
A Yes Sir.
Page 45 — Atty. Tuazon:
Of your knowledge. Do you know whether your father was signing his name whenever a certain document is being presented.
Atty. Cunanan:
The witness is incompetent all documents that is being signed by his father there is no showing that all documents signed by his father he is at present as a matter of fact I am hesitant to clear his direct testimony. All question no basis your honor please there is no showing that there is a question of waiver of rights. With regards to the document that he signed with his father, not in all document he is being shown to you there is no showing as such. Because all these signature are being disputed and don't make a comparison documents signed whether he is aware that he is not.
Atty. Tuazon:
You honor (sic) he can testify as whether during his lifetime especially during he still such whether he sign document and according to this witness being the son of his father because according to him his father does not even know how to sign his name.
Atty. Tuazon:
Q Do you know whether your father studies in the High School? (sic)
Atty. Cunanan:
The witness is incompetent he was not yet born perhaps when he was studied in the elementary. Do you know whether studied in the elementary he was not yet born at that time.
Page 46 — Atty. Tuazon:
Of your knowledge. Can you tell what is the educational attainment of your father?
A None Sir.
Q Do you mean to say your father still did not study in the school also with your mother?
A I don't know.
Q Where showing to you this waiver of rights mark as Annex over the defendant there appear a signature Ruperto Puyat. Will you please examine this particular signature whether this is the signature of your father?
A This is not the signature of my father because my father do not know how to sign.
Q What about this thumbmark of your mother. Can you tell us this particular thumbmark.
Page 47 — Atty. Tuazon:
Q I am showing to you this particular document was executed in 1976 April, can you tell us whether your father was confined in the hospital in 1976?
A Yes, Sir.
Q You are now claiming not only your father that does know he to write or signed his name your father was still in the hospital in 1976 suffering from leprosy?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And you have knowledge whatever that this waiver of right?
Q This kind of question are too leading it just a matter of placing of the mouth of the witness the answer the basis and the predicate your honor please.
Page 52 —
I did not confront Mr. Macaspac because I have no understanding with him and I did not talk to him.
Atty. Tuazon:
Q In other words you did not personally keep permission from Mr. Macaspac to work or farm this particular land?
Atty. Cunanan:
Already answer your honor please. I did not confront him already answer.
Provincial Adjudicator:
The witness may answer.
A I did not confront him anymore sir because in the first place I did not talk to him, I have no arrangement with him, I did not borrow money from him that is the reason why I did not confront him, although I came to know later it was Mr. Macaspac who was farming of this particular landholding.
A thorough, careful and incisive study of the waiver of rights dated April 1, 1976 reveals that it is written in English. It is a format for such alleged waiver of rights. There are unfilled blanks. The reasons therein written were premeditated. No one from the family of the late Ruperto Puyat subscribed to it as a witness.
The authenticity and genuineness of the said waiver of rights dated April 1 was put into issue. The plaintiff had completely elucidated its inefficiency. There was no evidence presented to controvert the testimonies of Ruperto Puyat, like a subserving witness to it, namely, Ruben Bautista to declare that Feliza Tiqui and Ruperto Puyat actually went to the notary public to acknowledge the same as the rightful and true expression in that alleged 'waiver of rights' and their respective thumbmark and signatures thereon. Witness, plaintiff positively declared that his late father, Ruperto Puyat, in 1976 was suffering from the dreased disease (sic) of 'ketong'; that he was confined in the hospital many years. Likewise, he was illiterate. And his mother also." 5
Apropos, the affidavit executed by Emilia Sandico-Dizon deserves a close review and consideration. It will be recalled that affiant was ordered to appear and testify on the scheduled hearing. But the affiant refused to appear before the hearing and failure to appear to such hearing adversely affects the affidavit executed by Emilia Sandico-Dizon. It should be remembered that it is a hornbook doctrine that unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from the judicial proceedings, being inadmissible hearsay. 6 Evidently, the affidavit of Emilia Sandico-Dizon has no probative value in the case at bar.
Moreover, the findings of the provincial adjudicator deserves a favorable consideration for it falls within all the FOURS to which this Court is left with no alternative except to adopt the same, to wit:
"The disclaimer made by Emilia Sandico Dizon deserves scant consideration who shunned the proceedings despite her receipt of the subpoena, ordering her to appear and to testify on the scheduled hearing. (Section 26, Rule 130, Rules of Court). The strangely and unnatural conduct which this old lady attributed to the deceased Ruperto Sr., as well as to the plaintiff simply does not inspire confidence. (People vs. Bacasas, L-61134, July 15, 1985). There is, therefore, more reasons to believe that indeed the subject property was mortgaged to her for valuable consideration, considering the customary practice prevalent in the barrio woe the poor farmer an easy prey by the rich.
Too, the testimonies of the barangay captain of the locality concerned and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Candaba, Pampanga, attest to the fact of the mortgage made by the late Ruperto Puyat in favor of Ms. Sandico-Dizon. (tsn, pages 6, 7 and 28, November 11, 1993).
There is no doubt that by reason of the fraudulent pretense of the defendant, he was able to obtain the certificates of land transfer as a farmer and president of the samahang nayon of the locality where the property is located." 7
Withal, the Certificate of Land Transfer issued in the name of Ruperto Puyat, Sr. can neither be override nor be cancelled by another Certificate of Land Ownership Award. It is true enough that a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary under Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. 8 However, the Certificate issued to respondent Virgilio Macaspac cannot be given validity by this Court.
The issue of the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. 9 The validity of Certificate of Land Transfer which had already been issued to a tenant cannot be attacked collaterally. Nullification of said certificate may be had only in a case directly attacking its validity but never collaterally. 10
Finally, the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses is accorded great respect and finality in the absence of any indication that it overlooked certain facts or circumstances of weight and influence, which if reconsidered, would alter the result of the case 11 and unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case. 12 Thus, the case at bar falls under such exception.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Barcelona and Cosico JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 P. 21, Rollo.
2 p. 327, Record.
3 Pp. 336-338, Ibid.
4 p. 201, Ibid.
5 Pp. 330-336, Ibid.
6 People vs. Quidato, Jr., 297 SCRA 1.
7 Pp. 327-328, Record.
8 Roxas & Co. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106.
9 Eduarte vs. Court Of Appeals, 311 SCRA 18.
10 Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, 141 SCRA 302.
11 People vs. Realin, 301 SCRA 495; Yam vs. Court of Appeals; 303 SCRA 1; People vs. Maglantay, 304 SCRA 272; Silverio, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 547; People vs. Borromeo, 305 SCRA 180; Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 305 SCRA 219; Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 498; People vs. Quiñanola, 306 SCRA 710; People vs. Sllvestre, 307 SCRA 68; People vs. Torion, 307 SCRA 169; People vs. Sandico, 307 Scra 204; People vs. Silvestre, 307 SCRA 296; People vs. Macahia, 307 SCRA 404; People vs. Hillado, 307 SCRA 535; People vs. Jose, 307 SCRA 571; People vs. Velasco, 307 SCRA 684; People vs. Eestepano, 307 SCRA 701; Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 559; People vs. Dizon, 309 SCRA 669; Dizon vs. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 1; People s. Milan, 11 SCRA 461; Baylon vs. Court of Appeals, 312 SCRA 502; People vs. Lim, 312 SCRA 550; Cadua vs. Court of Appeals, 312 SCRA 703; People vs. Andales, 312 SCRA 738; Brusas vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 176; People vs. Perez, 313 SCRA 544; Alba Vda. De Paz vs. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 36; People vs. Sesbreño, 314 SCRA 87; People vs. Delos Santos, 314 SCRA 303; Caoili vs. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 345; People vs. Juntilla, 314 SCRA 568; People vs. Tan, 315 SCRA 373; People vs. Vergel, 316 SCRA 199; People vs. Caratay, 316 SCRA 251; People vs. Roganas, 316 SCRA 457; People vs. Clemente, 316 SCRA 667; People vs. Manegdeg, 316 SCRA 689; People vs. Batoon, 1317 SCRA 454; People vs. Catampongan, 318 SCRA 676; People vs. Merino, 321 SCRA 199.
12 People vs. San Juan, 270 SCRA 693.