Estolas vs Mabalot, 381 SCRA 702
Criminal Case Digest:
Digested Cases
The Facts:
Sometime in May, 1978,
respondent passed on the subject land to the petitioner for the amount of
P5,800.00 and P200.00 worth of rice such was only a verbal mortgage; while
according to petitioner, a sale had taken place. According to Atty. Linda Peralta
investigation, the subject land was just a guarantee for the payment of a loan
incurred.
“Meanwhile, according to DAR
Regional Director Antonio M. Nuesa. In the said Order, the DAR found the act of
respondent in surrendering the subject land in favor of petitioner as
constituting abandonment.
“Thus, on
May 3, 1989, respondent appealed the case to the DAR
Central Office which, on August 28, 1990, issued an Order reversing the
assailed Order of DAR Regional
Director Antonio M. Nuesa and ordering the petitioner to return the subject
land to respondent. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on June
8, 1992.He filed an Appeal with the Office of the President which was dismissed
in a Decision dated August 29, 1994.Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of
the said Decision was also denied in an Order dated November 28, 1994.Likewise,
petitioner’s second Motion for Reconsideration was denied in an Order dated
July 5, 1995.”iv[4]
Issue: WON ,
respondent made a valid abandonment of the subject property?
The Court’s
Ruling:
The appellate court ruled that
the subject land had been acquired by respondent by virtue of Presidential
Decree (PD) No. 27.This law prohibits the transfer of the land except by
hereditary succession to the heirs or by other legal modes to the government.
Hence, the transfer of the subject land to petitioner is void; it should be
returned to respondent.