PALERO, RUDILYN CASE DIGEST #12
Borromeo v. Mina, G.R. No. 193747, June 5, 2013
FACTS
Juan Mina, respondent, is the registered owner of a 1.1057-hectare parcel of
agricultural land, in Brgy. Magsaysay, Naguilian, Isabela, denominated as Lot No. 5378
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. EP-43526. It appears that his title
is based on an emancipation patent issued by the DAR on May 2, 1990. Petitioner,
Joselito Borromeo filed before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) of Isabela,
seeking that (a) his landholding over the subject property (subject landholding) be
exempted from the coverage of the government’s Operation Land Transfer (OLT)
program under Presidential Decree No. 271 and (b) his emancipation patent over the
subject property be consequently revoked and canceled. He alleged that he purchased
the aforesaid property from its previous owner, Serafin M. Garcia, as evidenced by a
deed of sale notarized on February 19, 1982. For various reasons, however, he was not
able to effect the transfer of title in his name. Subsequently, to his surprise, he learned
that an emancipation patent was issued in Mina’s favor without any notice to him. He
maintained that his total agricultural landholdings were only 3.3635 hectares and thus,
within the landowner's retention limits under both PD 27 and Republic Act No. 6647,
otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988." Hence, he
claimed that the subject landholding should have been excluded from the coverage of
the government’s OLT program. Aggrieved, he filed before the DAR Regional Director
(Isabela). The DAR Regional Director ruled that Borromeo is the real owner of the
property and had the right to impugn its coverage from the government’s OLT program.
Considering that the subject property was erroneously identified as owned by Cipriano
Borromeo, coupled with the fact that Borromeo total agricultural landholdings was way
below the retention limits prescribed under existing agrarian laws, he declared the
subject landholding to be exempt from OLT coverage.
ISSUE/S RULING
RTC (DAR Secretary) Whether the DAR Regional The DAR Secretary
Director is correct in affirmed in toto the DAR
declaring that Borromeo is Regional Director’s ruling
the real owner of the
property and had the right
to impugn its coverage
from the government’s OLT
program
CA Whether the sale is valid It doubted Borromeo’s
and so is the ownership claim of ownership based
PALERO, RUDILYN CASE DIGEST #12
on the 1982 deed of sale
due to the inconsistent
allegations regarding the
dates of its notarization
divergently stated in the
two (2) PARO Petitions,
this alongside the fact that
a copy of the same was
not even attached to the
records of the case for its
examination. It further
found that the sale was null
and void for being a
prohibited transaction
under PD 27 which forbids
the transfers or alienation
of covered agricultural
lands after October 21,
1972 except to the tenant-
beneficiaries thereof, of
which petitioner was not. It
also held that Borromeo
cannot mount any
collateral attack against
respondent’s title to the
subject property as the
same is prohibited under
Section 48 of the
Presidential Decree No.
1529 (PD 1529), otherwise
known as the "Property
Registration Decree.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner can change his theory regarding the date of sale which was
not even raise the same factual issue on appeal before the Court.
RULING
No, settled is the rule that a party who adopts a certain theory upon which the case is
tried and decided by the lower courts or tribunals will not be permitted to change his
theory on appeal, not because of the strict application of procedural rules, but as a
matter of fairness. Basic considerations of due process dictate that theories, issues and
arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court would not ordinarily be
considered by a reviewing court, except when their factual bases would not require
PALERO, RUDILYN CASE DIGEST #12
presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable him to
properly meet the issue raised, such as when the factual bases of such novel theory,
issue or argument is (a) subject of judicial notice; or (b) had already been judicially
admitted, which do not obtain in this case. Records show that petitioner changed his
theory on appeal with respect to two (2) matters: First, the actual basis of his ownership
rights over the subject property, wherein he now claims that his ownership was actually
based on a certain oral sale in 1976 which was merely formalized by the 1982 deed of
sale. Second, the status of respondent as tenant of the subject property, which he never
questioned during the earlier stages of the proceedings before the DAR but presently
disputes before the Court. Clearly, the factual bases of the foregoing theories require
the presentation of proof as neither of them had been judicially admitted by respondent
nor subject of judicial notice. Therefore, the Court cannot entertain the petitioner's novel
arguments raised in the instant petition.
