Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

Top Management Programs Corp. v. Luis Fajardo and the Meanwhile, herein petitioner Top Management Programs Corporation
Register of Deeds of Las Piñas City | GR 150462 | June 15, 2011 sought the annulment of the CFI orders on the ground of extrinsic
| J. Villarama, Jr. fraud. Petitioner claimed that by virtue of a notarized Deed of Absolute
Sale, the heirs of Gregorio sold to it a parcel of land and a TCT covering
FACTS: Emilio Gregorio filed an application for registration of title over the said property was issued in its name. The CA rendered its decision
Lots 1 to 4 of Plan Psu-204785 situated at Mag-asawang Mangga, Las dismissing the petition for annulment.
Piñas, Rizal, before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal; said court
issued an order declaring as abandoned the reserved oppositions of ISSUE: W/N Petitioner may quiet title and order the cancellation of the
Jose T. Velasquez and Pablo Velasquez. TCT in favor of Luis Fajardo.

Meanwhile, Jose T. Velasquez filed an application for registration of title HELD: No. In an action for quieting of title, the plaintiffs must show not
over six lots before the same court. The CFI rendered a decision only that there is a cloud or contrary interest over the subject real
declaring Gregorio to be the absolute owner of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 property, but that they have a valid title to it. The court is tasked to
described in Plan Psu-204785. On March 9, 1966, an order was issued determine the respective rights of the complainant and the other
by said court for the issuance of the decree of registration. claimants, not only to place things in their proper places, and to make
the claimant, who has no rights to said immovable, respect and not
The LRA called the attention of the Director of Lands regarding the disturb the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that
overlapping of several lots awarded to Velasquez, with lots adjudicated whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property
to Gregorio, and requested that portions of these lots that are not dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce the
in conflict be segregated. LRA informed the CFI that Lots 1 and 7 had improvements he may desire, as well as use, and even abuse the
been amended by the Bureau of Lands to exclude therefrom portions property as he deems fit.
covered by Lot 2, Psu-64894, Psu-96904, and Lots 1 to 4, Psu-204785
of Gregorio. Velasquez petitioned the CFI to set aside the award earlier The TCT in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio, on its face showed
made in favor of Gregorio. The CFI issued an Order declaring that the badges of irregularity in its issuance. First, the technical
application of Velasquez be given due course insofar as Lots 1 and 7 of description. Second, the decree number and date of issuance, as well
Ap-11135 which are identical to Lots 1 to 4, Plan Psu-204785 in favor of as OCT number clearly indicate that the original decree pertained to
Gregorio respecting the same lots as null and void. Certificates of Title Velasquez and not Gregorio. Third, the name of the registered owner in
were issued in favor of Velasquez. Gregorio appealed the decision of the original certificate is not Velasquez or Gregorio but “Delta Motor
the CFI to the CA. Corp.” And fourth, the certificate from which TCT No. 107729 was
supposedly a transfer should have been the OCT (of Gregorio) and not
Sometime after this, he entered into an agreement with Tomas those unfamiliar TCT numbers indicated therein.
Trinidad (Trinidad) and Luis Fajardo (Fajardo) entitled “Kasunduan na
may Pambihirang Kapangyarihan.” By virtue of this agreement, There are serious discrepancies in the registration process. In fact, it is
Fajardo would finance the cost of the litigation and in return he would not far-fetched that the erroneous entries could have been intended to
be entitled to one-half of the subject property after deducting twenty create the impression that TCT No. 107729 was a separate and distinct
per cent (20%) of the total land area as attorney’s fees for Trinidad if title from the previously issued TCT No. S-91911 even if they pertain to
the appeal is successful. Fajardo and Trinidad filed Civil Case before one and the same lot adjudicated to Emilio Gregorio. Such conclusion is
the RTC of Pasig to enforce their agreement with Gregorio. The court reinforced by the unexplained inaction or failure of the heirs of Gregorio
rendered judgment in their favour. to rectify the alleged errors in their title before selling the property to
petitioner. The heirs of Gregorio knew that their TCT bore
encumbrances in favor of third parties, notably the notice of pending
litigation (Lis Pendens) involving the property covered by said title
1
 Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

before the CFI of Pasig, Metro Manila in Civil Case, which Trinidad caused for mandamus alleging that the respondent judge committed grave
to be annotated thereon. The issuance of a new certificate with exactly abuse of discretion. Moreover, a fire engulfed the Tambunting estate
identical entries would mean that the aforesaid annotations had to be covering the disputed area of the land. The expropriation case was not
carried over to such new certificate. granted and the law that provided for such was declared
unconstitutional. The petitioner is contending that the execution of the
Petitioner being a mere transferee at the time the decision of the RTC decision must now involve the delivery of possession due to the fire.
of Pasig in Civil Case had become final and executory, it is bound by
ISSUE: Whether or not the execution of the decision must now involve
the said judgment which ordered the heirs of Emilio Gregorio to convey
the delivery of possession by the respondent to the petitioner due to
the lots in favor of private respondent and Trinidad. As such buyer of
the fire
one of the lots to be conveyed to private respondent pursuant to the
court’s decree with notice that said properties are in litigation,
HELD: Yes. When the decision of the trial court became final and
petitioner merely stepped into the shoes of its vendors who lost in the
executory, it becomes incumbent upon the respondent judge to issue
case. Such vested right acquired by the private respondent under the
the necessary writ for the execution of the same. There is, therefore,
final judgment in his favor may not be defeated by the subsequent
no basis for the respondent judge to deny the petitioner's motion to
issuance of another certificate of title to the heirs of Gregorio
avail of its option to appropriate the improvements made on its
respecting the same parcel of land. For it is well-settled that being an
property. Settled is the rule that after a judgment has become final, no
involuntary transaction, entry of the notice of lis pendens in the
additions can be made thereto, and nothing can be done therewith
primary entry book of the Register of Deeds is sufficient to constitute
except its execution, otherwise there would be no end to legal
registration and such entry is notice to all persons of such claim.
processes.

The repairs and improvements introduced by the said respondents

Manotok Realty v. Tecson | GR L-47475 | August 19, 1988 | J. after the complaint was filed cannot be considered to have been built
Gutierrez, Jr. in good faith, much less, justify the denial of the petitioner's option.
Since the improvements have been gutted by fire, and therefore, the
FACTS: In a complaint filed by the petitioner for recovery of basis for private respondent's right to retain the premises has already
possession against defendants, Court of First Instance of Manila ruled been extinguished without the fault of the petitioner, there is no other
declaring respondent Nilo Madlangawa a builder in good faith. The recourse for the private respondent but to vacate the premises and
Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court dismissed for lack of deliver the same to herein petitioner.
merit.
The petitioner filed with the trial court, presided over by respondent Heirs of Labanon v. Heirs of Labanon | GR 160711 | August 14,
Judge Tecson, a motion for the approval of petitioner's exercise of 2004 | J. Velasco, Jr.
option and for satisfaction of judgment, praying that the court issue an
order: a) approving the exercise of petitioner's option to appropriate FACTS: Constancio Labanon settled upon a piece of alienable and
the improvements introduced by the private respondent on the disposable public agricultural land situated in Kidapawan, Cotabato. He
property; b) thereafter, private respondent be ordered to deliver cultivated the said lot and introduced permanent improvements.
possession of the property in question to the petitioner. Constancio asked his brother, Maximo, who was better educated to file
a public land application under the express agreement that they will
However, since there is a pending case involving the expropriation of divide the said lot as soon as it would be feasible for them to do so.
the land in question it is better to suspend the current case until after During the time of the application it was Constancio who continued to
the outcome of the expropriation proceedings is done. After a denial of cultivate the said lot. The Homestead Application was approved and an
its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed the present petition
2
 Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

Original Certificate of Title over said lot was issued in favor of Maximo 2. No. Maximo Labanon maintained the title over the property while
Labanon. acknowledging the true ownership of Constancio Labanon over the
eastern portion of the land. The existence of an express trust
Maximo Labanon executed a document denominated as “Assignment cannot be doubted nor disputed. In the case at bar, Maximo never
of Rights and Ownership” to safeguard the ownership and interest of repudiated the express trust instituted between him and Constancio.
his brother Constancio Labanon. Later on, Maximo executed a sworn And after Maximo’s death, the trust could no longer be renounced;
statement reiterating his desire that his elder brother Constancio, his thus, respondents’ right to enforce the trust agreement can no
heirs and assigns shall own the eastern portion of the Lot. longer be restricted nor prejudiced by prescription. In addition,
petitioners can no longer question the validity of the positive
After the death of Constancio, his heirs executed an [e]xtra-judicial declaration of Maximo Labanon in the Assignment of Rights and
settlement of estate with simultaneous sale over the aforesaid eastern Ownership in favor of the late Constancio Labanon, as the
portion of the lot in favor of Alberto Makilang, the husband of Visitacion agreement was not impugned during the former’s lifetime and the
Labanon, one of the children of Constancio. Subsequently, the parcel recognition of his brother’s rights over the eastern portion of the lot
of land was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Alberto. The was further affirmed and confirmed in the subsequent Sworn
defendants heirs of Maximo caused to be cancelled from the records of Statement.
the defendant Provincial Assessor of Cotabato the aforesaid tax
Paz v. DENR, PEA, and Filinvest | GR 157367 | November 23,
declaration and the latter, without first verifying the legality of the
2011 | J. Bersamin
basis for said cancellation, cancelled the same. The heirs of Constancio
demanded the owner’s copy of the certificate of title covering the
FACTS: Petitioner Luciano Paz brought a petition for the cancellation of
aforesaid Lot to be surrendered to the Register of Deeds.
OCT, he averred that he was the owner of a parcels of land situated in
Parañaque City, Pasay City, Taguig City and San Pedro, Laguna,
ISSUES:
Alabang, Muntinlupa, Parañaque City and Las Piñas City; and that such
1. W/N the OCT issued the name of MAXIMO LABANON be
OCT was registered in the name of the Republic, that Filinvest
now considered indefeasible and conclusive; and
developed one of the lots into a subdivision based on their joint
venture agreement with the Government; that lot was further
2. W/N the Trust Agreement allegedly made by Constancio
subdivided, causing the cancellation of TCT and the issuance of TCTs
Labanon and Maximo Labanon prescribed
for the resulting individual subdivision lots in the names of the Republic
and Filinvest; and that the subdivision lots were then sold to third
HELD:
parties.
1. No. Section 32 of PD 1529 does not totally deprive a party of any
Filinvest moved to dismiss the petition for cancellation contending that
remedy to recover the property fraudulently registered in the name
the serious and controversial dispute spawned by the Petition for
of another. It merely precludes the reopening of the registration
cancellation of title is litigable in an ordinary action outside the special
proceedings for titles covered by the Torrens System, but does not
and limited jurisdiction of land registration courts. The petitioner
foreclose other remedies for the reconveyance of the property to its
countered that his petition for cancellation was not an initiatory
rightful owner. While it is true that Section 32 of PD 1529 provides
pleading that must comply with the regular rules of civil procedure but
that the decree of registration becomes incontrovertible after a
a mere incident of a past registration proceeding; that unlike in an
year, it does not altogether deprive an aggrieved party of a remedy
ordinary action, land registration was not commenced by complaint or
in law. The acceptability of the Torrens System would be impaired, if
petition, and did not require summons to bring the persons of the
it is utilized to perpetuate fraud against the real owners. The action
respondents within the jurisdiction of the trial court; and that a service
for Recovery of Ownership before the RTC is indeed the appropriate
of the petition sufficed to bring the respondents within the jurisdiction
remedy.
3
 Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

of the trial court. The RTC ruled in favor of Filinvest which was reversed description of each lot.
by the CA.
The RTC issued an Order setting the initial hearing of the case,
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner can reconvey the property in notifying all adjoining owners mentioned in the petition and no one
question in favor of him interposed any objection thereto. The original and the owner's
duplicate copies of the TCT were reconstituted in the name of
HELD: No. The filing of the petition would have the effect of reopening Dominador Santua. The Solicitor General opposed, filing a Notice of
the decree of registration, and could thereby impair the rights of Appeal.
innocent purchasers in good faith and for value. To reopen the decree
of registration was no longer permissible, considering that the one-year ISSUE: W/N tax declarations, survey plans, and technical descriptions
period to do so had long ago lapsed, and the properties covered by are sufficient bases for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed
OCT had already been subdivided into smaller lots whose ownership certificates of title.
had passed to third persons. Thusly, the petition tended to violate the
proviso in Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, to wit: HELD: No. A tax declaration is not a reliable source for the
reconstitution of a certificate of title. At most, the tax declaration can
xxx Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give only be prima facie evidence of possession or a claim of ownership,
the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, which however is not the issue in a reconstitution proceeding. A
and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall reconstitution of title does not pass upon the ownership of the land
impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for covered by the lost or destroyed title but merely determines whether a
value in good faith, or his heirs and assigns without his or their written reissuance of such title is proper.
consent. Where the owner’s duplicate certificate is not presented, a
similar petition may be filed as provided in the preceding section. As for the survey plans and technical descriptions, the Court has
previously dismissed the same as not the documents referred to in
Nor is it subject to dispute that the petition was not a mere Section 3(f) but merely additional documents that should accompany
continuation of a previous registration proceeding. The Petition for the petition for the reconstitution as required by law. Moreover, a
Review on Certiorari is denied. survey plan or technical description prepared at the instance of a party
cannot be considered in his favor, the same being self-serving.

Republic v. Santua | GR 155703 | September 8, 2008 | J. RECONSTITUTION OF A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE denotes RESTORATION
Nachura in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument
attesting the title of a person to the piece of land. It partakes of a land
FACTS: Dominador Santua filed with the RTC of Calapan a petition for registration proceeding. Thus, it must be granted upon clear proof that
judicial reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). Respondent the titles sought to be restored was indeed issued to the petitioner. In
alleged that he is the registered owner of certain parcels of land this regards, Section 3 of RA 26 enumerates the documents regarded
situated in Poblacion, Victoria however the original copy of the TCT was as valid and sufficient bases for reconstitution of a transfer certificate
destroyed by the fire that completely razed the Capitol Building then of title.
housing the Office of the Register of Deeds. The owner's duplicate copy
was lost while in respondent's possession. The respondent and his
family are in actual possession of the property and have been paying
taxes thereon; and there are no deeds affecting the property. Attached Manotok v. Barque | GR 162335 & 162605 | March 6, 2012 | J.
to the petition were a tax declaration, survey plan, and technical Villarama, Jr.

4
 Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

FACTS: The surviving heirs of the late Homer Barque, filed a petition the veracity of its recitals because the name of the registered owner
with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of the original copy of and date of issuance do not appear at all. No Register of Deeds had
TCT No. 210177 issued in the name of Homer L. Barque, which was testified and attested to the fact that the original of TCT No. 22813 was
destroyed in the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall, including the not under his/her custody, nor that said certificate of title in the name
Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, sometime in 1988. In of Severino Manotok existed in the files of the Registry of Deeds of
support of the petition, petitioners submitted the owner’s duplicate Caloocan or Quezon City.
copy of TCT No. 210177, real estate tax receipts, tax decla-rations and
the Plan FLS 3168 D covering the property. The claim of the Barques who, just like the Manahans, were unable to
produce an authentic and genuine sale certificate, must likewise fail.
The Manotoks filed their opposition to the Barques’ petition, claiming The Decision discussed extensively the findings of the CA that the
that the lot covered by the title sought to be reconstituted by the latter Barques’ documentary evidence were either spurious or irregularly
forms part of the land covered by the former’s own reconstituted title, procured, which even buttressed the earlier findings mentioned in the
TCT No. RT-22481, and alleging that TCT No. 210177 in the name of December 18, 2008 Resolution.
Homer L. Barque is spurious.
On the other hand, the belatedly submitted copy of Sale Certificate No.
The reconstitution was denied on grounds that the two lots covered by 511 by the Manahans was not among those official documents which
the Barques’ title appear to duplicate the lot covered by the Manotoks’ the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) offered as evidence, as in fact
own reconstituted title; and that the Barques’ plan, Fls-3168-D, is a no copy thereof can be found in the records of either the DENR-NCR or
spurious document. LMB. Moreover, the sudden emergence of this unauthenticated
document is suspicious, considering that Celzo who testified, as
On appeal, the LRA reversed the reconstituting officer and ordered that witness for both the OSG and the Manahans, categorically admitted
reconstitution of the Barques’ title be given due course, but only after that she never actually saw the application to purchase and alleged
the Manotoks’ own title has been cancelled upon order of a court of Sale Certificate No. 511 of the Manahans.
competent jurisdiction. The CA ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel
the Manotoks’ title. The latter filed these petitions to the SC.

ISSUE: Who is the legal owner of the Piedad Estate in Quezon City? Repulic v. Tuastumban | GR 173210 | April 24, 2009 | J. Tinga

HELD: The national government of The Repulic of the Philippines is the FACTS: The respondents filed a petition for reconstitution of the OCT
legal owner of the subject property. The Supreme Court denied with covering a lot in Talisay-Minglanilla Estate in the name of the Legal
finality all the motions for reconsideration filed by all parties in this Heirs of Sofia Lazo. Respondent claims she bought the property from
case. A valid certificate of sale issued to Severino the official document the said owners who are also her relatives, as evidenced by an
denominated as “Sale Certificate” clearly required both the signatures Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs with Waiver of Inheritance Rights and
of the Director of Lands who issued such sale certificate to an applicant Deed of Absolute Sale. She claims that since the time of purchase, she
settler/occupant and the Secretary of the Interior/Agriculture and has been occupying and possessing the land and paying the realty
Natural Resources indicating his approval of the sale. These forms had taxes thereon. The OCT which was in the possession of the Register of
been prepared and issued by the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands Deeds of the Province of Cebu was allegedly either lost or destroyed
under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, consistent with during World War II. The RTC found the petition to be sufficient in form
Act No. 1120. Manotok’s assignors cannot simply be presumed from and substance and set the hearing of the petition, notifying all
the execution of assignment documents in his favor. Neither can it be adjoining owners. The petition was not opposed by anyone. Thus, the
deduced from the alleged issuance of the half-torn TCT, itself a Register of Deed of Cebu ordered to reconstitute the lost OCT in the
doubtful document as its authenticity was not established, much less
5
 Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

name of the Legal Heirs of Sofia Lazo, the Republic through the FACTS: In the July 5, 2011 Decision, the Court denied the petition for
Solicitor General opposed. review filed by HLI and affirmed the assailed Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC) Resolutions with the modification that the
ISSUE: Whether the documents presented by respondent constitute original 6,296 qualified farmworker-beneficiaries of Hacienda Luisita
sufficient basis for the reconstitution of title (FWBs) shall have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI.

HELD: No. the following must be present for an order for reconstitution Upon separate motions of the parties for reconsideration, the Court, by
to issue: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) Resolution of November 22, 2011, recalled and set aside the option
that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to thus granted to the original FWBs to remain as stockholders of HLI,
warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) while maintaining that all the benefits and homelots received by all the
that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an FWBs shall be respected with no obligation to refund or return them.
interest therein; (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time
it was lost and destroyed; and (e) that the description, area and Hacienda Luisita and the Central Azucarera de Tarlac were sold by the
boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those Spanish owners of Tabacalera to Tadeco. The Central Bank of
contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title. the Philippines assisted Tadeco in obtaining a dollar loan from
a US bank. Also, the GSIS extended them a loan. The martial law
The respondent merely relied on the CENRO certification which is administration filed a suit before the Manila RTC against Tadeco, et al.,
however not the authenticated copy of the decree of registration or for them to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the then Ministry of Agrarian
patent required by law. The certification plainly states only that the lot Reform (MAR) so that the land can be distributed to farmers at cost.
is patented in the name of the Legal Heirs of Sofia Lazo. It is not even Tadeco alleged that Hacienda Luisita does not have tenants and not
a copy of the decree of registration or patent itself but a mere covered by existing agrarian reform legislations. The Manila RTC
certification of the issuance of such patent. Also, she has not rendered judgment ordering Tadeco to surrender Hacienda Luisita to
established the issuance or existence of the certificate of title covering the MAR.
the subject lot nor of the other documents that would prove the
existence, execution and contents of the certificate of title sought to be
reconstituted. During the administration of President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, the
Office of the Solicitor General moved to withdraw the government’s
The fact that no opposition is filed by a private party or by the Republic case against Tadeco, et al. Tadeco organized a spin-off corporation
of the Philippines will not relieve respondent, as petitioner in the (HLI) as vehicle to facilitate stock acquisition by the farmworkers.
petition for reconstitution, of his burden of proving not only the loss or Tadeco conveyed to HLI the agricultural land portion and other farm-
destruction of the title sought to be reconstituted but also that at the related properties of Hacienda Luisita in exchange for HLI shares of
time the said title was lost or destroyed, he or his predecessor-in– stock.
interest was the registered owner thereof. The Republic is not
estopped from assailing the decision granting the petition if, on the Some of the then farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) complement of
basis of the law and the evidence on record, such petition has no Hacienda Luisita signified in a referendum their acceptance of the
merit. proposed HLI’s Stock Distribution Option Plan (SODP). The SDOA was
formally entered into by Tadeco, HLI, and qualified FWBs. This attested
to by then DAR Secretary Philip Juico.
Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform | GR HLI applied for the conversion of 500 hectares of land of the hacienda
171101 | April 24, 2012 | J. Velasco, Jr. from agricultural to industrial use, which was approved by the DAR. In
exchange for subscription of 12,000,000 shares of stocks of
6
 Land Titles and Deeds Case Digests annabee

Centennary, ceded 300 hectares of the converted area to the latter. otherwise, all these rhetoric about agrarian reform will be
Subsequently, Centennary sold the entire 300 hectares to Luisita rendered for naught. The agrarian reform program is founded on
Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), which used it in developing an the right of farmers and regular farm workers, who are landless, to
industrial complex. It was resolved that the subject lands be forthwith own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of
placed under the compulsory coverage or mandated land acquisition other farm workers, to receive a share of the fruits thereof, as
scheme of the CARP. stated in the Constitution.

ISSUES:
1. W/N just compensation for the homelots be given to the FWBs
2. W/N the qualified FWBs have control over the agricultural lands

HELD:
1. The issue on just compensation and the grounds HLI and Mallari,
et al. rely upon in support of their respective stance on the matter
had been previously raised by them in their first motion for
reconsideration and fully passed upon by the Court in its
November 22, 2011 Resolution. Considering that the issue on just
compensation has already been passed upon and denied by the
Court in its November 22, 2011 Resolution, a subsequent motion
touching on the same issue undeniably partakes of a second
motion for reconsideration, hence, a prohibited pleading. However,
if such issue is again entertained by the Court, the end goal of
equitably distributing ownership of land is, therefore, undeniable.
And since it is only upon the approval of the SDP that the
agricultural lands actually came under CARP coverage, such
approval operates and takes the place of a notice of coverage
ordinarily issued under compulsory acquisition. Moreover,
precisely because due regard is given to the rights of landowners
to just compensation, the law on stock distribution option
acknowledges that landowners can require payment for the shares
of stock corresponding to the value of the agricultural lands in
relation to the outstanding capital stock of the corporation.

2. Yes. The Court agrees that the option given to the qualified FWBs
whether to remain as stockholders of HLI or opt for land
distribution is neither iniquitous nor prejudicial to the FWBs.
Nonetheless, the Court is not unmindful of the policy on agrarian
reform that control over the agricultural land must always be in
the hands of the farmers. Contrary to the stance of HLI, both the
Constitution and RA 6657 intended the farmers, individually or
collectively, to have control over the agricultural lands of HLI;
7