Case Digest: SPOUSES ILUMINADA and CIRILO CAPITLE v. FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA et al.

SPOUSES ILUMINADA and CIRILO CAPITLE v. FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA et al.

509 SCRA 444 (2006)

Absent evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that public officers adhered to the provisions of Section 22 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).

A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) was issued to Cristobal Olar covering a parcel of agricultural land situated in Nueva Ecija. Consequently, a Transfer Certificate of Title in his name was issued. When Olar died, respondents Fortunata Elbambuena and Rosalinda Olar, spouse and daughter-in-law, respectively, claim that Olar relinquished one-half of the lot in favour of Rosalinda; and that the remaining portion of the lot was surrendered to Fortunata. Spouses Iluminada and Cirilo Capitle, on the other hand, claim that they have been in possession of the lot since 1960 and presented a “Waiver of Rights” executed by Olar, wherein he acknowledged that he co-possessed the lot with petitioners Capitle. A ―Pinagsamang Patunay‖ certifying that they are the actual tillers and possessors of the lot was likewise presened.

While Elbambuena and Olar‘s petition was pending before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), petitioners Capitle filed before the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), Nueva Ecija a petition for cancellation of the CLOA issued to Olar, on the ground that they are the new farmer-beneficiaries as shown by, among other things, the “Waiver of Rights” executed by Olar.
PARAD ruled in favor of petitioners Capitle. Elbambuena and Olar appealed the decision to the DARAB. The DARAB set aside PARAD‘s decision. The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals via petition for review. The appellate court affirmed in toto the DARAB decision.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the presumption that the CLOA was issued to Olar in the regular course of official function was overcome by contrary evidence

HELD:

Petitioners Capitle‘ argument that “it would be absurd for Olar to bequeath his property to his estranged wife not to a relative who had indeed helped him in tilling the property and took good care of his needs,” is a virtual admission that their possession was not in the concept of owners, they having merely “helped” in tilling the lot, thereby acknowledging that Olar was the actual possessor and tiller.

Absent evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the public officers who issued the CLOA to Olar regularly performed their duties, including adhering to the provisions of Section 22 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) which provides that lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the order of priority provided.