Dear PAO,

X claims he already owns the land awarded to my uncle under the CARP Law. It appears that my uncle borrowed money from X because, at that time, my aunt was hospitalized. X wanted my uncle’s only property, which was awarded to him in 2015 as a farmer-beneficiary. So, because my uncle needed to pay for my aunt’s hospital bill, he was constrained to sign a deed of sale. My uncle now has money to pay X, but X refused and instead demanded my uncle vacate the land. X maintains that the property is already his by virtue of the deed of sale. X already owns a lot of properties in our province. We really do not know why X wants to accumulate more properties, especially when he knows that the subject land is my uncle’s only property. Is that sale valid?

Marlon

Dear Marlon,

Republic Act (RA) 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARP Law), was passed into law primarily to promote the protection of the rights and welfare of landless farmers and farmworkers.

One of the safeguards under the said law is the prohibition of conveyance of awarded lands within the period of 10 years, except for instances allowed therein. To be certain, Section 27 of RA 6657 provides:

“Section 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. – Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: provided, however, that the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.

” x x x” (Emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, if the property that was awarded to your uncle in 2015 is covered under CARP Law, then the supposed sale between him and X can be nullified as it was made within the 10-year proscribed period, provided that he is able to establish that X is not a qualified beneficiary and thus not falling within the exception mentioned under the law.

Should the contract between them be nullified, your uncle is nevertheless obliged to return the money that he obtained from X. While the deed of sale that he signed has no force and effect, being a void contract, he is still obliged to return what he has received pursuant to the provisions of Article 1416 of the New Civil Code, which compels a party to return what has been paid or delivered to him or her if it stems from an agreement which is void, as it is prohibited by law for the protection of the other party. As explained by the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Rodil v. Zalameda, in the case of Elizabeth Ong Lim v. Lazaro N. Cruz (GR 248650, March 15, 2023):

“Generally, the sale, transfer, or conveyance of awarded lands are prohibited within ten years from the award. There are only four exceptions when such may be allowed, that is, through hereditary succession, to the government, to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries.

“x x x

“To elaborate, Article 1416 of the Civil Code provides an exception to the pari delicto doctrine. Under this article, the plaintiff may recover what he paid or delivered pursuant to a void contract if the following requisites are met: (a) the contract is not illegal per se but merely prohibited; (b) the prohibition is for the plaintiff’s protection; and (c) public policy will be enhanced by his recovery. x x x” (Emphasis supplied)

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]