[ G.R. No. 218666. April 26, 2017 ] 809 Phil. 965
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 218666. April 26, 2017 ]
HEIRS OF LEONILO P. NUÑEZ, SR., NAMELY, VALENTINA A. NUÑEZ, FELIX A. NUÑEZ, FELIXITA A. NUÑEZ, LEONILO A. NUÑEZ, JR., MA. ELIZA A. NUÑEZ, EMMANUEL A. NUÑEZ, ROSE ANNA A. NUÑEZ-DE VERA, AND MA. DIVINA A. NUÑEZ-SERNADILLA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR CO-HEIR AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ROSE ANNA A. NUÑEZ-DE VERA, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF GABINO T. VILLANOZA, REPRESENTED BY BONIFACIO A. VILLANOZA, RESPONDENTS. DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the landowner may retain a maximum of five (3) hectares of land, but this land must be compact or contiguous. If the area selected for retention is tenanted, the tenant-farmer may choose to remain in the area or be a beneficiary in a comparable area. This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45, seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals’ September 26, 2014 Decision[2] and June 4, 2015 Resolution,[3] which affirmed the August 11, 2011 Decision of the Office of the President and reinstated the February 23, 2005 Order of the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Director. This case arose from the proceedings in CA-G.R. SP No. 130544. Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez (Sebastian) owned a land[4] measuring “more or less” 2.833 hectares (28,333 square meters) located at Barangay Castellano, San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija.[5] This land was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. NT-143003[6] and was registered on March 16, 1976 to “Leonilo Sebastian . . . married to Valentina Averia."[7] On July 7, 1976, Sebastian mortgaged this property to then ComSavings Bank or Royal Savings and Loan Association, now GSIS Family Bank,[8] to secure a loan. His loan matured on June 30, 1978, but the bank did nothing to collect the payment due at that time.[9] In 1981, tenant-farmer Gabino T. Villanoza (Villanoza) started tilling Sebastian’s land.[10] It was only on December 11, 1997, about 19 years after the maturity of Sebastian’s loan, that GSIS Family Bank extrajudicially foreclosed his mortgaged properties including the land tenanted by Villanoza.[11] A public auction was held, and GSIS Family Bank emerged as “the highest and only bidder."[12] Sebastian’s land title was cancelled and TCT No. NT-271267 was issued in the name of the new owner, GSIS Family Bank.[13] On June 20, 2000, Sebastian filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure sale.[14] Sebastian argued that an action to foreclose the mortgage prescribed after 10 years. GSIS Family Bank’s right of action accrued on June 30, 1978,[15] but it only foreclosed the property 19 years later.[16] Thus, its right to foreclose the property was already barred.[17] While the case was pending at the Regional Trial Court, the Department of Agrarian Reform sent a notice of coverage under Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to GSIS Family Bank, then landowner of the disputed property.[18] Neither GSIS Family Bank nor Sebastian exercised any right of retention within 60 days from this notice of coverage. On November 10, 2000, the government compulsorily acquired from GSIS Family Bank the land covered by TCT No. NT-271267. The bank’s land title was cancelled, and TCT No. NT-276395 was issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The Department of Agrarian Reform put a portion of what is now TCT No. NT-276395 under agrarian reform.[19] On November 27, 2000, the Department of Agrarian Reform issued an emancipation patent or Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA No. 00554664) to Villanoza.[20] The Certificate of Land Ownership Award title was generated but not yet released as of February 23, 2005.[21] During the pendency of his complaint to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, Sebastian died and his heirs, namely: Valentina A. Nuñez, Felix A. Nuñez, Felixita A. Nuñez, Leonilo A. Nuñez, Jr., Eliza A. Nuñez, Emmanuel A. Nuñez, and Divina A. Nuñez, substituted him.[22] On August 9, 2002, the Regional Trial Court found that GSIS Family Bank’s cause of action had prescribed.[23] “[T]herefore, the proceedings for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages [against Sebastian, as substituted by his heirs,][24] were null and void."[25] GSIS Family Bank appealed the case before the Court of Appeals.[26] On March 1, 2004, some of herein petitioners Leonilo A. Nuñez, Jr., Ma. Eliza A. Nuñez, Emmanuel A. Nuñez, Rose Anna Nuñez-De Vera, and Ma. Divina Nuñez-Sernadilla, represented by attorney-in-fact Ma. Eliza A. Nuñez (petitioners), submitted a Sworn Application for Retention (Application for Retention). Their Application for Retention was made pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 and filed before the Department of Agrarian Reform, naming “Leonilo P. Nu[ñ]ez” (Nuñez, Sr.), instead of Sebastian, as the registered owner of the land.[27] It was filed almost four (4) years after the Department of Agrarian Reform issued a notice of coverage over the same property.[28] Petitioners applied to retain this land[29] although the stated name of their predecessor-in-interest “Leonilo Sebastian,” as found in TCT No. NT-143003[30] or “Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez” as found in Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank, was different from “Leonilo P. Nuñez” as found in the Sworn Application for Retention.[31] In the Order dated September 2, 2004, the Department of Agrarian Reform Region III Director Narciso B. Nieto (Regional Director Nieto) denied petitioners’ Application for Retention and ordered the release of Certificate of Land Ownership Award in favor of Villanoza. Regional Director Nieto ruled that petitioners were not entitled to retain the land under Republic Act No. 6657, as their predecessor-in-interest was not qualified under Presidential Decree No. 27.[32] Thus, his heirs could not avail themselves of a right which he himself did not have.[33] The dispositive portion of the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office’s September 2, 2004 Order read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, an ORDER is hereby issued: DENYING the application for retention filed by the heirs of the late Leonilo S. Nu[ñ]ez, Sr., as represented by their co-heir/attorney-in-fact, Ma. Eliza A. Nu[ñ]ez, involving the 4.9598 hectares, embraced by TCT Nos. NT-143003; P-8537; and P-9540, situated at Barangay Castellano, San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija, for lack of merit; DIRECTING the DAR personnel concerned to acquire the rest of the landholdings and distribute the same to qualified beneficiaries pursuant to existing DAR policies, rules and regulations; and ORDERING the DAR personnel concerned to issue and release TCT CLOA-CA-19771 with CLOA No. 00554664 covering the 28,833 square meters, more or less, in favor of Gabino T. Villanoza. SO ORDERED.[34]
On September 23, 2004, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[35] Meanwhile, Villanoza registered his Certificate of Land Ownership Award title under the Torrens system.[36] On November 24, 2004, the Certificate of Land Ownership Award title was cancelled and a new regular title, TCT No. NT-299755, was issued in his name.[37] On February 23, 2005, Regional Director Nieto partially modified his September 2, 2004 Order.[38] He held that petitioners were entitled to a retention area of not more than five (5) hectares from the total landholdings, but they could not retain the property covered under TCT No. NT-143003 (now TCT No. NT-299755) as it was neither compact nor contiguous.[39] Petitioners were ordered to choose their retained area from the other lots of their predecessor-in-interest. The dispositive portion of Regional Director Nieto’s reconsidered Order[40] dated February 23, 2005 read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the ORDER, dated September 2, 2004, issued by this Office in the above case is hereby RECONSIDERED, and is accordingly modified, as follows: GRANTING the heirs of the late Leonilo P. Nu[ñ]ez, St., as represented by their co-heir/attorney-in-fact, Ma. Eliza A. Nu[ñ]ez, to retain five (5) hectares of their landholdings at Barangay Castellano, San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija, provided the same must be compact, contiguous[,] and least prejudicial to the tenants therein pursuant to RA No. 6657, as amended; MAINTAINING the tenants affected in the retained area as lessees pursuant to RA No. 3844; DIRECTING the DAR personnel concerned to acquire the rest of the landholdings and distribute the same to qualified beneficiaries pursuant to existing DAR policies, rules and regulations; and ORDERING the DAR personnel concerned to issue and release TCT-CA-19771 with CLOA No. 00554664 covering the 28,833 square meters, more or less, in favor of Gabino T. Villanoza. SO ORDERED.[41] (Emphasis in the original)
On March 21, 2005, petitioners appealed the February 23, 2005 Regional Director Order before the Office of Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman (Secretary Pangandaman).[42] In the meantime, this Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and reinstated that of the Regional Trial Court on November 17, 2005 in Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank.[43] It held that GSIS Family Bank’s foreclosure of Sebastian’s mortgage was null and void and that his heirs were the rightful owners of the property.[44] The heirs, however, did not move to execute this Decision.[45] As for the Application for Retention, Secretary Pangandaman directed the cancellation of Villanoza’s Certificate of Land Ownership Award title in the Order dated August 8, 2007.[46] According to him, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 “[did] not require that the landholding (sought to be retained) should always be compact and contiguous,"[47] particularly so if it involved “small landownership of bits and pieces in hectarage."[48] The dispositive portion of Secretary Pangandaman’s August 8, 2007 Order read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Order dated 23 February 2005 issued by the Regional Director of DAR Regional Office-Ill is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Thus, a new Order is hereby issued to read as follows: GRANTING the landowners, herein applicants-appellants, the five (5) hectares as their retention area; DIRECTING the [Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer], [Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer], or landowner concerned to initiate the cancellation of the CLOA No. 00554664 issued to GA[B]INO T. VILLANOZA; GRANTING the tenant to exercise the option whether to remain in the retained area as a leaseholder or be a beneficiary in another agricultural land with similar comparable features, the choice of one forfeits the other option; and DIRECTING the [Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer] concerned to assist the parties in the execution of the Leasehold Agreement, if warranted. SO ORDERED.[49]
On September 6, 2007, Villanoza filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Villanoza’s Motion for Reconsideration).[50] He argued that the title issued to him was already indefeasible and the land it covered was “not compact and contiguous."[51] On April 25, 2008, Villanoza died[52] and his heirs substituted him.[53] On December 10, 2008, Secretary Pangandaman resolved to deny Villanoza’s Motion for Reconsideration.[54] Respondents heirs of Villanoza appealed before the Office of the President,[55] which ruled[56] in their favor on August 11, 2011. Interpreting Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657, it held that the land sought to be retained “must be compact and contiguous,"[57] contrary to the view of the Department of Agrarian Reform in its August 8, 2007 Order. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 gives the landowners the right to retain[58] up to five (5) hectares[59] of land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. According to the Office of the President, the proceedings before Regional Director Nieto established that petitioners had other landholdings which, taken together, exceeded the five (5)-hectare retention limit allowed by law. Likewise, it held that Villanoza’s title had become “irrevocable and indefeasible."[60] The dispositive portion of the Office of the President Decision dated August 11, 2011 read:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appealed Orders dated August 8, 2007 and December 10, 2008 of the-Honorable Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman, Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated February 23, 2005 rendered by the Regional Director of DAR Region III is hereby reinstated. SO ORDERED.[61]
Petitioners moved for reconsideration,[62] which the Office of the President denied in its Order dated May 30, 2013.[63] In the Decision dated September 26, 2014, the Court of Appeals likewise denied[64] the appeal for lack of merit. It held that the Department of Agrarian Reform should have rejected petitioners’ Application for Retention outright as petitioners failed to prove that Sebastian intended to make the land, measuring more or less 2.833 hectares and now titled in Villanoza’s favor, a part of his retained holdings.[65] Neither the heirs of Sebastian may invoke this right. Citing Administrative Order No. 02-03, Section 3.3,[66] the Court of Appeals held that petitioners could only exercise the retention right had Sebastian himself manifested before August 23, 1990 that he wished to exercise this right. August 23, 1990 was the day when this Court’s ruling in Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs. Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform[67] became final.[68] Administrative Order No. 02-03 was issued pursuant to Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 27, and Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657.[69] The Court of Appeals added that the ruling in Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank could not apply to the parties here. That case pertained to the claim of “Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez” while this case pertains to the claim of petitioners over the same lot but in their capacities as heirs of “Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr."[70] Petitioners failed to present any evidence that “Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr.” and “Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez” were the same person.[71] Even assuming that they referred to only one person, the Court of Appeals questioned petitioners’ failure to push for the execution of this Court’s Decision in Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank. That ruling was promulgated on November 17, 2005, but as of September 26, 2014, there was no information yet as to the status of the decision in that case.[72] The Court of Appeals held that petitioners were barred by laches for failing to protect their rights for an unreasonable length of time or for nine (9) long years.[73] The dispositive portion of the Decision dated September 26, 2014 read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 11, 2011 and Order dated May 30, 2013 issued by the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 09-A-022 is AFFIRMED insofar as it reinstated the February 23, 2005 Order of the DAR Regional Director confirming the title issued in favor of Gabino T. Villanoza. SO ORDERED.[74] (Emphases in the original)
In their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners posited that Nuñez, Sr. did not receive a notice of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program coverage from the Department of Agrarian Reform; thus, he could not be deemed to have waived his right to retain the property.[75] They also submitted, for the first time, photocopies of Nuñez, Sr.’s Certificate of Baptism[76] and the Affidavit of Nuñez, Sr.’s mother, Teofila Patiag vda. de Nuñez (Teofila), dated September 14, 1959.[77] According to the baptismal certificate, “Leonilo S. Nuñez” was the son of Teofila Patiag and Felix Nuñez.[78] Meanwhile, Teofila’s Affidavit stated that “Leonilo Sebastian Nu[ñ]ez” and “Leonilo P. Nu[ñ]ez” referred to “one and the same person only."[79] The Affidavit was allegedly an ancient document which the Court of Appeals could consider in evidence.[80] Therefore, petitioners argued, this Court’s ruling in Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank had become immutable and unalterable in their favor.[81] In its Resolution[82] dated June 4, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration, which petitioners appealed before this Court. On April 6, 2016, this Court[83] required the respondents to comment. In their Comment[84] dated July 5, 2016, respondents pointed out the absence of any evidence on record to show that “Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez” and “Leonilo P. Nuñez” were the same person.[85] They also objected to the petitioners’ belated presentation of new pieces of evidence in a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals.[86] They added that, in the eyes of the law, GSIS Family Bank was the landowner when the government compulsorily acquired the property.[87] However, GSIS Family Bank did not exercise its retention right within 60 days from receipt of the notice of coverage.[88] When this Court promulgated Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank, the land was already distributed to tenant-farmer Villanoza.[89] Meanwhile, this Court’s decision was never executed against GSIS Family Bank.[90] For resolution are the following issues: First, whether the Court of Appeals properly exercised its appellate jurisdiction; Second, whether Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank binds respondents; and Finally, whether petitioners have a right of retention over the land measuring “more or less” 2.833 hectares awarded to farmer beneficiary Gabino T. Villanoza.
I
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, signed into law by then President Corazon C. Aquino on June 10, 1988, is the government initiative to comply with the constitutional directive to grant ownership of agricultural lands to landless farmers, agricultural lessees, and farmworkers.[91] As of December 31, 2013, about 6.9 million hectares of land, or 88% of the total land subject to agrarian reform, has been acquired and distributed by the government.[92] To understand the context of the issue relating to a retention right, this Court reviews the history of the agrarian reform program. Prior to any colonization, various ethnolinguistic cultures had their own customary laws governing their property relationships. The arrival of the Spanish introduced the concept of encomienda, or royal land grants,[93] to loyal Spanish subjects, particularly the soldiers.[94] Under King Philip II’s decree, the encomienderos or landowners were tasked “to maintain peace and order” within their encomiendas, to protect the large estates from external attacks, and to support the missionaries in converting the natives into Christians.[95] In turn, the encomienderos had the right to collect tributes or taxes such as gold, pearls, cotton cloth,[96] chickens, and rice[97] from the natives called indios.[98] The encomienda system helped Hispanicize the natives and extended Spanish colonial rule by pacifying the early Filipinos within the estates.[99] There were three (3) kinds of encomiendas: the royal encomiendas, which belonged to the King; the ecclesiastical encomiendas, which belonged to the Church; and the private encomiendas, which belonged to private individuals. The local elites were exempted from tribute-paying and labor, or polo services,[100] required of the natives. The encomienda system was abused by the encomienderos.[101] Filipinos were made to pay tribute more than what the law required. Their animals and crops were taken without just compensation, and they were forced to work for the encomienderos.[102] Thus, the indios, who once freely cultivated the lands, became mere share tenants[103] or dependent sharecroppers of the colonial landowners.[104] In the 1899 Malolos Constitution and true to one (1) of the principal concerns of the Philippine Revolution, then President General Emilio Aguinaldo declared “his intention to confiscate large estates, especially the so-called [f]riar lands."[105] Unfortunately, the First Philippine Republic did not last long. The encomienda system was a vital source of revenue and information on the natives for the Spanish crown.[106] In the first half of the 19th century, the cash crop economy emerged after the Philippines integrated into the world market,[107] increasing along with it the powers of the local elites, called principalias, and landlords.[108] The United States arrived later as the new colonizer. It enacted the Philippine Bill of 1902, which limited land area acquisitions into 16 hectares for private individuals and 1,024 hectares for corporations.[109] The Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) established a comprehensive registration of land titles called the Torrens system.[110] This resulted in several ancestral lands being titled in the names of the settlers.[111] The Philippines witnessed peasant uprisings including the Sakdalista movement in the 1930’s.[112] During World War II, peasants and workers organizations took up arms and many identified themselves with the Hukbalahap, or Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon.[113] After the Philippine Independence in 1946, the problems of land tenure remained and worsened in some parts of the country.[114] The Hukbalahaps continued the peasant uprisings in the 1950s.[115] To address the farmers’ unrest, the government began initiating various land reform programs, roughly divided into three (3) stages. The first stage was the share tenancy system under then President Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957).[116] In a share tenancy agreement, the landholder provided the land while the tenant provided the labor for agricultural production.[117] The produce would then be divided between the parties in proportion to their respective contributions.[118] On August 30, 1954, Congress passed Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act), ensuring the “equitable division of the produce and [the] income derived from the land[.]"[119] Compulsory land registration was also established under the Magsaysay Administration. Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act) granted the Land Tenure Administration the power to purchase or expropriate large tenanted rice and corn lands for resale to bona fide tenants or occupants who owned less than six (6) hectares of land.[120] However, Section 6(2) of Republic Act No. 1400 set unreasonable retention limits at 300 hectares for individuals and 600 hectares for corporations,[121] rendering President Magsaysay’s efforts to redistribute lands futile. On August 8, 1963, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) and abolished the share tenancy system,[122] declaring it to be against public policy. The second stage of land reform, the agricultural leasehold system, thus began under President Diosdado Macapagal (1961-1965). Under the agricultural leasehold system, the landowner, lessor, usufructuary, or legal possessor furnished his or her landholding, while another person cultivated it[123] until the leasehold relation was extinguished.[124] The landowner had the right to collect lease rental from the agricultural lessee,[125] while the lessee had the right to a homelot[126] and to be indemnified for his or her labor if the property was surrendered to the landowner or if the lessee was ejected from the landholding.[127] Republic Act No. 3844 also sought to provide economic family-sized farms to landless citizens of the Philippines especially to qualified farmers.[128] The landowners were allowed to retain as much as 75 hectares of their landholdings. Those lands in excess of 75 hectares could be expropriated by the government.[129] The system finally transitioned from agricultural leasehold to one of full ownership under President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-1986). On September 10, 1971, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6389 or the Code of Agrarian Reform. Republic Act No. 6389 automatically converted share tenancy into agricultural leasehold.[130] It also established the Department of Agrarian Reform as the implementing agency for the government’s agrarian reform program.[131] Presidential Decree No. 2 proclaimed the whole country as a land reform area.[132] On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27, or the Tenants Emancipation Decree, superseded Republic Act No. 3844. Seeking to “emancipat[e] the tiller of the soil from his bondage,"[133] Presidential Decree No. 27 mandated the compulsory acquisition of private lands to be distributed to tenant-farmers. From 75 hectares under Republic Act No. 3844, Presidential Decree No. 27 reduced the landowner’s retention area to a maximum of seven (7) hectares of land. Presidential Decree No. 27 implemented the Operation Land Transfer Program to cover tenanted rice or corn lands. According to Daez v. Court of Appeals,[134] “the requisites for coverage under the [Operation Land Transfer] program are the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; and (2) there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein."[135] Therefore, the land for acquisition and distribution must be planted with rice or corn and must be tenanted under a share tenancy or an agricultural leasehold agreement.[136] The landowner would not enjoy the right to retain land if his or her entire landholding was intact and undisturbed.[137] On the other hand, if a land was subjected to compulsory land reform under the Operation Land Transfer program, the landowner, who cultivated this land, or intended to cultivate an area of the tenanted rice or corn land, had the right to retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares.[138] On October 21, 1976, Letter of Instruction No. 474 further amended the rule. If the landowner owned an aggregate area of more than seven (7) hectares of other agricultural lands, he or she could no longer exercise any right of retention. Letter of Instruction No. 474 states:
- You shall undertake to place under the Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven hectares or less belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.
Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao[139] affirmed that the landowner’s retention right was restricted by the conditions set forth in Letter of Instruction No. 474.[140] In Heirs of Sandueta v. Robles,[141] this Court denied the landowner’s application for retention as it fell under the first disqualifying condition of Letter of Instruction No. 474: the landowner’s total area was 14.0910 hectares, twice the seven (7)-hectare limit for retention.[142] In Vales v. Galinato:[143]
[B]y virtue of [Letter of Instruction No.] 474, if the landowner, as of October 21, 1976, owned less than 24 [hectares] of tenanted rice or corn lands, but additionally owned (a) other agricultural lands of more than 7 [hectares], whether tenanted or not, whether cultivated or not, and regardless of the income derived therefrom, or (b) lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes, from which he [or she] derives adequate income to support himself [or herself] and his [or her] family, his [or her] entire landholdings shall be similarly placed under [Operation Land Transfer] Program coverage, without any right of retention.[144]
Following the People Power Revolution, then President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992) fulfilled the promise of land ownership for the tenant-farmers. Proclamation No. 131 instituted the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Executive Order No. 129 (1987) reorganized the Department of Agrarian Reform and expanded it in power and operation. Executive Order No. 228 (1987) declared the full ownership of the land to qualified farmer beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27. Likewise, the 1987 Constitution, which was promulgated during President Corazon C. Aquino’s term, enshrines the promotion of rural development and agrarian reform.[145] To balance the interests of landowners and tenants, Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution also recognizes the landowner’s retention right, as may be prescribed by law:
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. (Emphasis supplied)
On June 10, 1988, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6657,[146] otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, to supersede Presidential Decree No. 27. The compulsory land acquisition scheme under Republic Act No. 6657 empowers the government to acquire private agricultural lands[147] for distribution to tenant-farmers.[148] A qualified farmer beneficiary is given an emancipation patent,[149] called the Certificate of Land Ownership Award,[150] which serves as conclusive proof of his or her ownership of the land.[151] To mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition,[152] Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 allows the landowners the right to retain up to five (5) hectares of land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, thus:
Section 6. Retention Limits. — …. The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features…
On July 14, 1989, this Court promulgated Association of Small Land Owners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,[153] acknowledging that the landowner, whose property was subject to compulsory land reform, might opt to retain land under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657. On August 30, 2000, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 and this Court’s ruling in Association of Small Land Owners in the Philippines, the Department of Agrarian Reform issued Administrative Order No. 05-00 to provide implementing rules on the landowner’s retention right.[154] Section 9(a) of Administrative Order No. 05-00 states that the retention limit for landowners covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 is “seven (7) hectares, except those whose entire tenanted rice and corn lands are subject of acquisition and distribution under [Operation Land Transfer].” Section 9(a) further states that a landowner may not exercise his or her retention right under the following conditions:
If [the landowner], as of 21 October 1972, owned more than twenty- four (24) hectares of tenanted rice and corn lands; or By virtue of Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474, if [the landowner], as of 21 October 1972, owned less than twenty-four (24) hectares of tenanted rice and corn lands but additionally owned the following: other agricultural lands of more than seven (7) hectares, whether tenanted or not, whether cultivated or not, and regardless of the income derived therefrom; or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which he derives adequate income to support himself [or herself] and his [or her] family.
On January 16, 2003, the Department of Agrarian Reform issued Administrative Order No. 02-03 to further clarify the rules governing the landowner’s retention right.[155] Section 4.1 of Administrative Order No. 02-03 gives the landowner the option to exercise the right of retention at any time before he or she receives a notice of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program coverage.[156] The right to choose the area to be retained belongs to the landowner, subject to the condition that the area must be (a) a “private agricultural land”[157] that is (b) compact and contiguous, and (c) “least prejudicial to the entire landholding and the majority of the farmers” of that land.[158] Landowners who voluntarily sold or transferred their land must have exercised the right of retention simultaneous with the offer for sale or transfer.[159] If the land was compulsorily acquired by the government, the right of retention must have been exercised “within sixty (60) days from receipt of notice of coverage."[160] Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 02-03 provides that the landowner seeking to exercise his or her retention right must submit an affidavit stating “the aggregate area of his [or her] landholding in the entire Philippines” and “the names of all farmers . . . actual tillers or occupants, and/or other persons directly working on the land,” thus:
SECTION 7. Criteria/Requirements for Award of Retention — The following are the criteria in the grant of retention area to landowners: 7.1. The land is private agricultural land; 7.2. The area chosen for retention shall be compact and contiguous and shall be least prejudicial to the entire landholding and the majority of the farmers therein; 7.3. The landowner must execute an affidavit as to the aggregate area of his landholding in the entire Philippines; and 7.4. The landowner must submit a list of his children who are fifteen (15) years old or over as of 15 June 1988 and who have been actually cultivating or directly managing the farm since 15 June 1988 for identification as preferred beneficiaries, as well as evidence of such. 7.5. The landowner must execute an affidavit stating the names of all farmers, agricultural lessees and share tenants, regular farmworkers, seasonal farmworkers, other farmworkers, actual tillers or occupants, and/or other persons directly working on the land; if there are no such persons, a sworn statement attesting to such fact.
If the area selected by the landowner for retention is tenanted, “the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain … as lessee or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.” Section 9 of Administrative Order 02-03 states that the tenant must exercise this option within one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his or her choice of the area for retention, as follows:
SECTION 9. When Retained Area is tenanted 9.1. In case the area selected by the landowner or awarded for retention by the [Department of Agrarian Reform] is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein as lessee or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. 9.3. The tenant must exercise his option within one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention, or from the time the [Municipal Agrarian Reform Office] has chosen the area to be retained by the landowner, or from the time an order is issued granting the retention.
If the landowner fails to manifest an intention to exercise the right to retain within 60 calendar days after receiving the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program coverage, he or she is considered to have waived the right of retention as explained in Section 2.2 of Administrative Order No. 02-03:
2.2. The landowner shall exercise the right to retain by signifying his intention to retain within sixty (60) days from receipt of notice of coverage. Failure to do so within the period shall constitute a waiver of the right to retain any area.
On August 7, 2009, Republic Act No. 9700 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms was enacted to strengthen the comprehensive agrarian reform program and to extend the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands. The rules on the retention right have remained the same. The Court of Appeals properly exercised its jurisdiction in finding that “Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr.” was different from “Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez.” Contrary to petitioners’ allegations,[161] the Court of Appeals could not be estopped simply because the issue was never raised before the Department of Agrarian Reform. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals is empowered to have an independent finding of fact or adopt those set forth in the decision appealed from.[162] This is true especially when the factual finding on the matter contradicts the evidence on record. Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Simon Enterprises, Inc.[163] has held that even this Court, which generally reviews questions of law, may review questions of facts when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[164] This Court may likewise do so when there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based or when the relevant and undisputed facts have been manifestly overlooked which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[165] This gives all the more reason for the Court of Appeals to review questions of facts and law. In Garcia v. Ferro Chemicals, Inc.,[166] this Court has also held that a matter not raised by the parties may be reviewed if “necessary for a complete resolution of the case."[167]
II
This Court cannot apply Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank in petitioners’ favor or to respondents’ prejudice. First, neither Villanoza nor his heirs were impleaded in that case. Villanoza and his heirs were non-parties to the mortgage and did not participate in the proceedings for foreclosure and annulment of foreclosure of mortgage. No person can be affected by any proceeding to which he or she is a stranger. Being complete strangers in that case, respondents are not bound by the judgment rendered by this Court. Second, the Court of Appeals properly found that petitioners did not furnish timely and sufficient evidence to prove that “Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr.” was also “Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez.” The new pieces of evidence that petitioners attached are inadmissible. Cansino v. Court of Appeals[168] has held that “a motion for reconsideration cannot be used as a vehicle to introduce new evidence."[169] The belated introduction of these documents in a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals violates respondents’ right to contest the new evidence presented.[170] Moreover, the Certificate of Baptism and Teofila’s Affidavit are “mere photocopies."[171] Petitioners failed to present the original or certified true copies of these documents. Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court states that “[w]hen the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself[.]” The due execution and authenticity of the baptismal certificate, being a private document,[172] were also not established. Under Section 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court:
Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioners did not comply Rule 132, Section 20 of the Rules of Court. Likewise, the photocopy of Teofila’s Affidavit may not be considered an ancient document under Rule 132, Section 21 of the Rules of Court as follows:
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a private document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be given.
A copy purporting to be an ancient document may be admitted in evidence if it bears a certification from the proper government office where the document is naturally found genuine that the document is the exact copy of the original on file.[173] Here, the photocopied Affidavit of Teofila does not carry such certification from the notary public or the Register of Notaries Public, among others.[174] Petitioners have not shown that the Affidavit of Teofila is free from suspicion and unblemished by alterations. Even assuming that “Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr.” is also “Leonilo Sebastian,” the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that petitioners’ non-execution of this Court’s Decision in Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank constituted an abandonment of their rights. The Court of Appeals considered this Court’s judgment in that case, which was never executed for almost 10 years,[175] a hollow victory. According to the Court of Appeals, “if [petitioners] truly believe that said decision will entitle them to get back the subject property,"[176] then they had every reason to have quickly taken steps to enforce the judgment in their favor. The Office of the President ruled similarly, thus:
Clear from the records … is the fact that [petitioners] are not the owners of the subject property when the same was placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government through the Department of Agrarian Reform. The existence of a Court decision finding them to be the rightful owner[s] without the decision having been executed . . . renders the decision inutile and becomes an empty victory for the prevailing part[ies].[177] (Citations omitted)
Cormero v. Court of Appeals[178] has established that the failure to assert one’s right for an unreasonable amount of time leads to the presumption that he or she has abandoned this right. The Court of Appeals properly held that petitioners were barred by laches for failing to protect their rights for at least nine (9) years, which was an “unreasonable length of time."[179] In their defense, petitioners aver that they sought for the execution of Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank, only that the sheriff did not implement it.[180] However, they did not show any evidence to prove their claim. “Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof."[181] The one alleging a fact has the burden of proving it.[182]
III
Finally, assuming that Sebastian could properly exercise his retention right, this could not cover the land awarded to Villanoza. Petitioners cite Santiago, et al. v. Ortiz-Luiz[183] to claim that an emancipation grant cannot “defeat the right of the heirs of the deceased landowner to retain the [land]."[184] However, in that case, this Court denied the landowner’s retention right for exceeding what the law provides.[185] There is no cogent reason why this Court should rule differently in this case. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657[186] gives the landowner the option to choose the area to be retained only if it is compact or contiguous. The Department of Agrarian Reform, the Office of the President, and the Court of Appeals have consistently found that the land subject of the dispute is neither compact nor contiguous. Section 6 also provides that if the area selected for retention is tenanted, it is for the tenant to choose whether to remain in the area or be a beneficiary in the same or a comparable agricultural land.[187] Petitioners’ Application for Retention stated that Villanoza occupied the property as a tenant and farmer beneficiary.[188] Thus, the option to remain in the same land was for Villanoza to make. The landowner’s retention right is subject to another condition. Under Section 3.3 of Administrative Order No. 02-03, the heirs of a deceased landowner may exercise the retention right only if the landowner signified his or her intention to exercise the right of retention before August 23, 1990.[189] Section 3.3 states:
3.3.
The right of retention of a deceased landowner may be exercised by his heirs provided that the heirs must first show proof that the decedent landowner had manifested during his lifetime his intention to exercise his right of retention prior to 23 August 1990 (finality of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines Incorporated versus the Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform).
Petitioners cannot claim the right of retention through “Leonilo Sebastian” or “Leonilo P. Nuñez, Sr.” when the alleged predecessor-in-interest himself failed to do so. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that during his lifetime, Sebastian did nothing to signify his intent to retain the property being tilled by Villanoza. It was only two (2) years after his death that petitioners started to take interest over it.[190] Neither was any right of retention exercised within 60 days from the notice of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program coverage. The Court of Appeals properly considered this as a waiver of the right of retention,[191] pursuant to Section 6.1 of Administrative Order No. 02-03. Section 6.1 provides that the landowner’s “[f]ailure to manifest an intention to exercise his right to retain within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt of notice of CARP coverage” is a ground for losing his or her right of retention. The Department of Agrarian Reform sent a notice of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program coverage to GSIS Family Bank, which was then landowner of the disputed property.[192] Neither GSIS Family Bank nor Sebastian exercised any right of retention within 60 days from this notice of coverage. In Vda. De Dayao v. Heirs of Robles,[193] this Court has held that the Department of Agrarian Reform “has no authority to decree a retention when no application was in the first place ever filed."[194] Petitioners themselves admit that the Department of Agrarian Reform sent a notice of coverage to GSIS Family Bank.[195] During this time, no application was ever filed by GSIS Family Bank or petitioners. The same land, which the Republic of the Philippines subsequently acquired, was awarded to Villanoza. While all agrarian reform programs have always accommodated some forms of retention for the landowner, all rights of retention have always been subject to conditions. Unfortunately in this case, the landowner has miserably failed to invoke his right at the right time and in the right moment. The farmer beneficiary should not, in equity, be made to suffer the landowner’s negligence. Finally, the issuance of the title to Villanoza could no longer be revoked or set aside by Secretary Pangandaman.[196] Acquiring the lot in good faith, Villanoza registered his Certificate of Land Ownership Award title under the Torrens system.[197] He was issued a new and regular title, TCT No. NT-299755, in fee simple;[198] that is to say, it is an absolute title, without qualification or restriction. Estribillo v. Department of Agrarian Reform[199] has held that “certificates of title issued in administrative proceedings are as indefeasible as [those] issued in judicial proceedings."[200] Section 2 of Administrative Order No. 03-09 provides that “[t]he State recognizes the indefeasibility of [Certificate of Land Ownership Awards], [Emancipation Patents] and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program.” Here, a Certificate of Land Ownership Award title was already issued and registered in Villanoza’s favor on December 7, 2007.[201] Villanoza’s Certificate of Land Ownership Award was titled under the Torrens system on November 24, 2004.[202] After the expiration of one (1) year, the certificate of title covering the property became irrevocable and indefeasible. Secretary Pangandaman’s August 8, 2007 Order, which came almost three (3) years later, was thus ineffective. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated September 26, 2014 and Resolution dated June 4, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 130544, which affirmed the Office of the President’s Decision dated August 11, 2011 and reinstated the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Director’s Order dated February 23, 2005, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza, and Martires, JJ., concur.