May 6, 1998

DAR OPINION NO. 58-98

MARO RAMONINA F. RUELO

DAR-Municipal Office

Kabulacan, Sta. Catalina

Negros Oriental

Dear MARO RUELO:

This refers to your letter dated 06 February 1998 addressed to Director Gloria J. Fabia of the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution, which was subsequently indorsed to this Office, inquiring whether or not landholdings within a resettlement area acquired by an individual from the original claimants (Pioneer Settlers) could be offered to the DAR under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme.

You state that the subject property was surveyed and approved by the Bureau of Lands sometime in 1954 prior to the proclamation of the Resettlement Area in Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental on July 28, 1958; that when the subdivision survey was conducted on the proclaimed areas, these lots were marked "PSU accepted" in the subdivision plans of the resettlement area in Sta. Catalina; that said landholdings were issued Certificates of Allocation (CAs) by the now defunct NARRA to the original allocatees (Pioneer Settlers); that sometime in 1964-65, the original allocatees eventually sold their rights to Engr. Jesus Lacson who acquired a total area of more than a hundred hectares from the previous allocatees; that Engr. Lacson had occupied said landholdings and had introduced several improvements therein through his administration and some portions were cultivated by tenants; that as of now, this property is being offered for CARP under the VOS scheme and that you are in quandary as to the legal rights of Engr. Jesus Lacson, the supposed landowner, because these landholdings are within the Resettlement Area and no title had been issued to the original allocatees nor to Engr. Jesus Lacson; that as per record, there were Cancellation Proceedings initiated by your predecessors but no Cancellation Order was issued due to lack of proof on the transfer of rights by the original allocatees, as required; and that Mr. Lacson is now banking on the fact that he had continuous peaceful possession of the landholding for more than 33 Yearn and that he had assumed the legal rights of his predecessors on the landholdings.

Please be clarified at the outset that a Certificate of Allocation (CA) is only a proof that a holder thereof is a potential beneficiary/awardee of the landholding described therein. The holder merely acquires possessory rights over the said landholding, which means that he is occupying the property only in a possessory capacity and not in the concept of an owner. Ownership of which still remains with the State unless the same has been finally awarded to him by virtue of a duly issued corresponding patent or CLOA, as the case may be.

As regards the sale by the pioneer settlers of the landholdings to Engr. Jesus Lacson, such sale is considered null and void. Section 29 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, otherwise known as the "Public Land Act" provides in part:

". . . Any sale and encumbrance made without the previous approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall be null and void and shall produce the effect of annulling the acquisition and reverting the property and all rights thereto to the State, and all payments on the purchase price theretofore made to the Government shall he forfeited . . ."

Clear from the foregoing is that any sale or encumbrance by the original claimants or pioneer settlers of their landholdings acquired under the abovementioned law without prior approval of the concerned government agency (i.e., NARRA, then Lands Authority and now DAR) is null and void. Since the lands have not yet been fully awarded to the settlers, they therefore acquire no better right than the State in disposing said properties. It bears stressing again that holders of Certificates of Allocation acquire only possessory rights over the properties allocated to them. Thus, since they violated the conditions and requisites for the eventual issuance of title in their favor, cancellation proceedings must necessarily be undertaken to revoke the CAs awarded to them and, concomitantly, to determine who would be the next qualified beneficiaries to the subject landholdings in their stead. Accordingly, Engr. Lacson likewise acquired no better right than the original allocatees' considering that the transactions between him and the original settlers are presumably without the proper approval of the agency concerned, thus the same were a complete nullity and void ab initio.

As regards the claim of Engr. Lacson that he had continuous peaceful possession of the landholdings for more than 33 years and that he had assumed the legal rights of his predecessors on these landholdings, such claim is without legal basis. The transaction between him and the original settlers is null and void, and being such, he did not acquire title over said landholdings. It has been an established doctrine in our legal system that, when transaction entered into by two parties is a complete nullity or void ab initio, any supervening event will not cure the defect of said void transaction. From the legal point of view, Engr. Lacson is not considered an owner of any of the said properties because the same are still deemed within a presidentially proclaimed agrarian resettlement area. Hence, the provisions of R.A. No. 6940 in relation with Joint DAR-DENR Memorandum Circulars Nos. 14 and 19, Series of 1997 (attached) with regard to untitled privately claimed agricultural lands (i.e., a person with recognizable private rights by virtue of continuous occupancy and cultivation for thirty (30) Years prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6940 an April 16, 1990) find no application in the instant case. Besides it appears from the facts of the case that Engr. Jesus Lacson is not actually cultivating the subject landholdings but is merely administering the same and leaving the cultivation thereof to other tenants. Further, even assuming arguendo that the abovementioned law and Memorandum Circulars apply in this particular case, the indispensable requirement of cultivation is not present so as to entitle and regard Engr. Lacson as a private person with recognizable private rights thereto. The landholdings in issue have a total area of more then 100 hectares and it would be inconceivable for one person to have actually cultivated the whole area.

From the foregoing, it could be concluded that the landholding in issue could not be the subject of a VOS scheme since the alleged landowner has no valid title over the land, the same being still within the presidentially proclaimed agrarian resettlement area owned by the State. Accordingly, said landholdings should be titled and distributed to qualified beneficiaries, without prejudice to the improvements introduced by Engr. Lacson, and his right of becoming a beneficiary if likewise qualified, pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1939. Said guideline implements and is in keeping with the legally mandated principle that land has a social function and there is social responsibility in its ownership, hence, the land shall be distributed to the actual tillers thereof within the award limits as established by law.

Please be guided accordingly and we hope to have clarified the matters with you.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning

Copy furnished:

Director Gloria J. Fabia

Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution

This Department

The Regional Director

Department of Agrarian Reform

COACO Bldg., M. J. Cuenco Avenue

Mabolo, Cebu City

The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer

Department of Agrarian Reform

MHS Bldg., EJ Blanco Drive

Piapi, Dumaguete City

Negros Oriental