BERBOSO vs.

CA FACTS: Private respondents filed with the Bureau of Land Acquisition, Distribution and Development of the DAR, a joint request for the conversion of their parcel of land consisting of 48.2789 hectares of unirrigated riceland situated at Calvario, Iba, and Camalig, Meycauayan, Bulacan which was granted by DAR Secretary Estrella. Pursuant to the Order, private respondents effected the payment of the compensation due their agricultural tenants. However, petitioners, successors-in-interest of one of their original tenants, Macario Berboso, refused to vacate their landholdings. Private respondents filed with the DARAB a Petition for Confirmation of the Order of Conversion and for the Determination of the Amount of Disturbance Compensation. Private respondents executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property in favor of their co-respondent herein JKM of a parcel of land consisting of 40,296 square meters. The said parcels of land sold by private respondents Carloses to JKM are the subjects of the dispute between the private respondents Carloses and JKM, on one hand, and petitioners Berbosos, on the other. In its Decision dated 18 December 1989, the DARAB ordered private respondents Carloses to pay Emiliano Berboso the total amount of P112,644.00 equivalent to five years disturbance compensation. On 15 January 1990, Petitioners filed with the DARAB a Motion to Set Aside the 18 December 1989 Decision of the DARAB assailing therein the amount of disturbance compensation. He asserted that being tenants of the subject land, they should have been included also as parties in the Joint Motion filed in DARAB. Petitioners argued that, upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27, they are automatically deemed owners of the land in question. ISSUE: Whether Petitioners are automatically deemed owners of the land in question? LAW: Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 266 provides that: If the land is previously registered under the Torrens System, the Emancipation Patent and/or Grant, if filed with the Register of Deeds, shall constitute conclusive authority for him to enter a transfer certificate of title in accordance with such patent and/or grant: Provided, however, That the Register of Deeds, before cancelling the original of the certificate of title and issuing a new one in favor of the grantee, shall require the registered owner or the party in possession thereof to surrender for cancellation the owner's duplicate within a reasonable period; and Provided, further, That if the owner or party withholding such duplicate certificate shall refuse or fail to surrender the same within thirty (30) days from and after the date of receipt of the proper notice, the Register of Deeds shall be authorized to cancel the original as well as the owner's duplicate certificate of title and issue in lieu thereof a new one, with the corresponding owner's duplicate, in favor of the grantee.

RULING: NO. Presidential Decree No. 27 does not, however, automatically vest ownership of a piece of land to a tenant farmer. In the case at bar, there is nothing in the records which shows that the Registry of Deeds had required private respondent JKM, as the registered owner thereof, to surrender its titles for cancellation and for the issuance of new titles in favor of petitioners. There was no proper notice at all given by the Register of Deeds to private respondent JKM as regards the cancellation of its titles and the issuance of new ones in favor of petitioners. Indeed, the Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 266 was not observed. OPINION: The Supreme Court made justice to the landowners in this case who are also entitled to protection and denied the attempt to evade the law by the petitioners.