G.R. No.

135297 June 8, 2000

CORPUZ vs. GROSPE (CRUZ)

FACTS:
Petitioner Gavino Corpuz was a farmer-beneficiary under the OperationLand Transfer Program of the
Department of Agrarian Reform. He wasissued a Certificate of Land Transfer over two parcels of
agriculturalland. In order to pay for the hospitalization of his wife, he
mortgagedthe subject land in favor of Virginia de Leon. When the contractexpired, he again mortgaged i
t to respondent Hilaria Grospe for aperiod of four years. The parties executed a contract, which
allowedthe respondents to cultivate the land during the duration of themortgage or until December 05,
1990.Corpuz subsequently instituted a complaint which alleged that theGrospe's had entered the
disputed land by force and destroyed thepalay that he had planted on it. However according to the
Grospes,Corpuz had already executed a "waiver of rights' over the landholdingin favor of the spouses in
consideration of 54k.PARAB adjudicator Ernesto Tabar ruled that Corpuz abandoned andsurrendered
the landholding to the Samahang Nayon of Nueva
Ecija.Said Samahang Nayon even passed Resolution No. 16 and 27recommending the reallocation of said
lots to the Grospes, who werethe most qualified farmers-beneficiaries. DARAB and CA affirmed
thedecision

ISSUES:
1.Whether or not the 'waiver of rights' is contrary to agrarian law
2. Whether or not Corpuz had abandoned his landholding
3. Whether or not Corpuz had voluntarily surrendered his landholding

HELD:
1. Yes. The sale or transfer of rights over a property covered by acertificate of land transfer is void
except when the alienation is
madein favor of the government or through hereditary succession. Thisruling is intended to prevent a
reversion to the old feudal system inwhich the landowners reacquire vast tract of land thus, negating
thegovernment's program of freeing the tenant from the bondage of thesoil.

2. No. Corpuz’ surrendered of possession did not amount to anabandonment because there was an oblig
ation on the part of theGrospe's to return the possession of the landholding upon full payment of the
loan. There was no clear, absolute or irrevocable intention toabandon.

3. Yes. Corpuz' intention to surrender the landholding was clear

andunequivocal. He signed his concurrence to the Samahang NayonResolutions. His voluntary surrender
to the samahang nayon qualifiesas a surrender or transfer to the government because such actionforms
part of the mechanism for the disposition and reallocation of of farmholdings of tenant farmers who
refuse to become beneficiaries of pd 27.