THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 203441. July 9, 2014.]
NOLE C. ALCANTARA, ERIC D. ALEJADO, ELWIN O. AMADA, GASPAR P. BAIDIANGO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HON. GIL DELOS REYES, ET AL., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 9, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 203441 (Nole C. Alcantara, Eric D. Alejado, Elwin O. Amada, Gaspar P. Baidiango, et al. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, as represented by its Secretary, Hon. Gil Delos Reyes, et al.). — Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with a Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction for the Restoration of Status Quo. The petition seeks to enjoin the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to desist from proceeding with the installation of farmer-beneficiaries who had been granted with a Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1998.
Sometime in 2003, the DAR notified the Polo Coconut Plantation Co., Inc. (PCPCI) that its Polo Coconut Plantation (Polo Estate) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2304 and consisting of approximately 394.9020 hectares, had been placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 1
In the meantime, the DAR conducted identification and registration of qualified farmers-beneficiaries pursuant to Section 22 of RA 6657. Private respondents were among those identified and qualified as farmers-beneficiaries of the Polo Estate. 2
On January 29, 2004, the Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental cancelled TCT No. T-2304 in PCPCI's name and issued TCT No. T-36318 in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. 3 The following day, TCT No. T-36318 was in turn cancelled and replaced by TCT No. T-802 in the name of the private respondents as grantees of CLOA No. 0011438. 4
Aggrieved, PCPCI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals contending, among others, that the DAR acted with grave abuse of discretion in identifying the private respondents as they were not qualified to receive land under the CARL. 5 The appellate court granted the petition ruling inter alia that the DAR committed grave abuse of discretion as the private respondents were not tenants of PCPCI and so could not qualify as beneficiaries under the CARL. 6
Both the DAR and private respondents moved for reconsideration but were denied. 7 Hence, the DAR came before this Court on a petition for review entitled "Department of Agrarian Reform, represented by Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Stephen M. Leonidas v. Polo Coconut Plantation Co., Inc., et al." and docketed as G.R. No. 168787. 8 Similarly, private respondents filed a separate petition for review on certiorari entitled "Abarca et al. v. Polo Coconut Plantation Co., Inc. et al." docketed as G.R. No. 169271 contending that while they were neither farmers nor regular farmworkers of PCPCI, they were either seasonal or other farmworkers who are eligible to receive land under the CARL. 9 The two petitions for review were later consolidated.
On September 3, 2008, this Court issued a Decision on the consolidated petitions finding reversible error on the part of the appellate court. We held, among others, that Section 22 of RA 6657 allows the designation of eligible CARP beneficiaries besides the tenants of the landowners, 10viz.:
[Section 22 of RA 6657] enumerates who are qualified beneficiaries of the CARP. Determining whether or not one is eligible to receive land involves the administrative implementation of the program. For this reason, only the DAR Secretary can identify and select CARP beneficiaries. Thus, courts cannot substitute their judgment unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Section 22 of the CARL does not limit qualified beneficiaries to tenants of the landowners. Thus, the DAR cannot be deemed to have committed grave abuse of discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries were not tenants of PCPCI.
On the basis of the aforementioned Decision, the private respondent allegedly attempted to enter and take possession of the Polo Estate. 11 This prompted petitioners Nole Alcantara et al. to file with the DAR Regional Office a Petition for Inclusion and Exclusion of Farmer Beneficiaries dated March 6, 2009, docketed as DARRO Adm. Case Nos. A-0700-453-01 to 147-2009, challenging the inclusion of private respondents as beneficiaries and recipients of the CLOA. 12 Petitioners allege that they have preferential right to receive portions of the Polo Estate under Section 22 of RA 6657 considering that they are regular farmworkers of PCPCI, while the private respondents are only seasonal workers. 13CcAESI
Pending resolution of their Petition for Inclusion and Exclusion, petitioners also applied for the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order with the DAR Regional Office No. VII, seeking to prevent the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Tanjay, Negros Oriental from relocating and subdividing TCT No. T-802 among the private respondents. 14
On July 7, 2009, Director Rogelio T. Inson (Director Inson) of the DAR Regional Office No. VII issued a Cease and Desist Order proscribing private respondents from entering the subject property pending the resolution of the Petition for Inclusion and Exclusion.15
Acting on Petitioners' Petition for Inclusion and Exclusion, an independent body was created to implement the screening process and to determine the qualified farmer-beneficiaries of the Polo Estate. 16 Thereafter, Director Inson issued an Order dated March 12, 2010 17 declaring, inter alia, that:
l. One hundred nine (109) of petitioners are included as beneficiaries because they were farmworkers of Polo Estate before the Notice of Coverage was served in PCPCI on May 23, 2003; 18
2. Sixty-two (62) of the petitioners as disqualified on the ground that they worked for PCPCI after the notice of coverage was sent, are not yet connected with PCPCI at the time of the beneficiary identification, did not appear during the investigation, are retired from service, or those whose work do not include cultivation of the land; 19
3. Thirty-Nine (39) existing CLOA holders as disqualified as beneficiaries because they were not connected with PCPCI; 20
4. Six (6) existing CLOA holders as disqualified as beneficiaries because they have already migrated to other places and, hence, are considered disinterested to occupy and cultivate their awarded lots; 21 and
5. One hundred two (102) existing CLOA holders to have maintained their status as qualified farmer beneficiaries. 22
Petitioners filed with the Office of the DAR Secretary a Notice of Appeal, which was eventually referred to the DAR Bureau of Agrarian Reform Legal Assistance. 23 At the time of the filing of this petition, the appeal is still pending resolution. 24
Notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, the DAR, in a Memorandum dated July 2, 2012, 25 ordered the installation of the one hundred two (102) existing CLOA holders in the Polo Estate. The memorandum stated:
The instruction to re-install the CLOA holders of the landholding previously owned by PCPI was deferred to give way to the proposed win-win solution offered by the latter. Several negotiations were undertaken and a Memorandum of Agreement drafted and revised about five (5) times with the former landowner and the CLOA holders. Interventions were likewise provided by Secretary Joel Rocamora of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) to come up with an agreement acceptable to both parties. However, the planned amicable settlement for the peaceful occupation and cultivation of the CLOA holders were unsuccessful hence failed to materialize.
In view thereof and in line with the legal mandate of the Department to distribute lands to the ARBs in the earliest practicable time and to put them in actual possession and cultivation thereof so as not to further delay the implementation of the program, you [PARO Stephen Leonidas, thru RD Rodolfo Inson] are hereby directed to immediately carry on the overdue installation/re-installation of the registered CLOA holders who were not among those disqualified/excluded in the Order of the Regional Director and subject to your determination to reserve an area proportionate to those CLOA holders and petitioners included but without prejudice [to] the resolution of the appeal in DARRO Adm. No. A-0700-453-01 to 453-147-2009 on FB Inclusion/Exclusion pending before the OSEC. Aside from the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. 168787 (Department of Agrarian Reform, represented by PARO Stephen M. Leonidas vs. Polo Coconut Plantation Company, Inc., et al.) declaring the coverage/CLOA valid, which has attained finality and in [view] of the absence of a restraining order from the latter, it is just right, legal and proper to place the subject CLOA holder to their CARP awarded lands for the following reasons, to wit:
1. The CLOA holders are the registered owners of the subject property. As registered title holders, they are putatively entitled to the rights of ownership under Section 24 of RA 6657, as amended;
2. The "Pahayag" signed by the leaders of the farmer groups: Wilbert Marimat for POPARMUCO-MARA and Demetrio Balbuena and Elias Ramos for POPARMUCO dated April 30, 2012 declaring their position that if ever installation shall be implemented, they agree that [in the] meantime, only those CLOA holders not disqualified by the Regional Director shall be put in the area and they will abide and respect whatever decision to be issued by the Secretary in the pending appeal for FB Inclusion and Exclusion.
Please review your plan of installation together with the PNP/military and the CLOA holders to be placed in the area and make all the necessary preparations for the smooth and non-violent possession of the said ARBs to their awarded lands as well as their undisturbed cultivation after their occupation. Make sure that a survey team shall be available to undertake the segregation survey to determine the boundaries of the carpable and exempted non-carpable areas thereat. 26
On July 27, 2012, the order for installation/re-installation of the private respondents CLOA holders was carried out allegedly without prior notice to petitioners. 27 Hence, contending that the installation/re-installation of the 2012 CLOA holders pre-empts the resolution of the appeal now pending before the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, petitioners are now before this Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent DAR and warning of the possibility of bloodshed resulting from any further installation of the private respondents in the Polo Estate. Petitioners, thus, pray for the restoration of the status quo prior to July 27, 2012 and the prohibition of respondent DAR from installing private respondents until after the final resolution of petitioner's appeal in DARRO Adm. Case Nos. A-0700-453-01 to 147-2009.
The petition is bereft of merit. TSHcIa
A common requisite for the issuance of either the writ of certiorari or prohibition is that the tribunal, board or officer against whom the writ is sought "acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." 28 Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer, is not authorized and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. 29 Without jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual, refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 30
In the case at bar, the petitioners have failed to meet this requisite for the proper invocation of either a Petition for Certiorari or Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Respondent DAR enforced the installation of the CLOA holders not otherwise disqualified in the March 12, 2010 Order pursuant to Section 24 of RA 6657, 31 which provides that CLOAs being titles brought under the operation of the Torrens System enjoy the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under the said Torrens System as provided under Presidential Decree No. 1529. As the CLOA is the document evidencing ownership of the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by DAR, 32 it gives the person(s) named therein the right of a landowner including the right to possess and use the land awarded. Section 24 states:
The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries shall commence from their receipt of a duly registered emancipation patent or certificate of land ownership award and their actual physical possession of the awarded land. Such award shall be completed in not more than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of registration of the title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the emancipation patents, the certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after one (1) year from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to the conditions, limitations and qualifications of this Act, the property registration decree, and other pertinent laws. The emancipation patents or the certificates of land ownership award being titles brought under the operation of the Torrens system, are conferred with the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under the said system, as provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended by Republic Act No. 6732.
It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to register the title of the land in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, after the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) has certified that the necessary deposit in the name of the landowner constituting full payment in cash or in bond with due notice to the landowner and the registration of the certificate of land ownership award issued to the beneficiaries, and to cancel previous titles pertaining thereto.
Identified and qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, based on Section 22 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, shall have usufructuary rights over the awarded land as soon as the DAR takes possession of such land, and such right shall not be diminished even pending the awarding of the emancipation patent or the certificate of land ownership award.
All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR. 33
Respondent DAR, therefore, did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in ordering the installation of private respondents named in the CLOA as it was intended only to ensure the exercise of private respondents' rights as CLOA holders and, therefore, owners of the land awarded.
Further, it is clear from the memorandum that respondent DAR took measures to ensure that the rights of petitioners will not be affected by the installation of the private respondents who retain their status as qualified CLOA holders. The DAR ordered the installation of private respondents "without prejudice [to] the resolution of the appeal in DARRO Adm. No. A-0700-453-01 to 453-147-2009 on FB Inclusion/Exclusion pending before the OSEC." It is also noticeable that the DAR ordered that the installation be executed with the participation of the PNP/military "for the smooth and non-violent possession of the said ARBs to their awarded lands as well as their undisturbed cultivation after their occupation." In fact, the record is bereft of any proof or even allegation that the actual physical installation of the qualified CLOA holders in the Polo Estate last July 27, 2012 resulted in bloodshed. The fear that the installation would result to chaos and violence and has prompted the present petition for certiorari and prohibition is clearly unfounded.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is DISMISSED and the installation of the CLOA holders not otherwise disqualified by Director Inson's Order dated March 12, 2010 is affirmed subject to the final resolution of the appeal in DARRO Adm. Case Nos. A-0700-453-01 to 147-2009. On this note, the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform is reminded of the indispensability of the prompt disposition of controversies pending before it in the agrarian reform program. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 12, 119, 170.
2. Id. at 171.
3. Id. at 12, 120, 171.
4. Id. at 12, 120, 171.
5. Id. at 13, 171.
6. Id. at 13, 171.
7. Id. at 13, 171.
8. Id. at 14, 171.
9. Id. at 14.
10. Id.
11. ld. at 14.
12. Id. at 10-11, 14, 172.
13. Id. at 14-15.
14. Id. at 15, 172.
15. Id. at 15, 123-126, 172.
16. Id. at 15.
17. Id. at 33-75, 128-136, 173.
18. Id. at 16, 65-66, 71, 173-174.
19. Id. at 16, 66-67, 71-73.
20. Id. at 67-68, 73.
21. Id. at 68, 73.
22. Id. at 73, 174-175.
23. Id. at 16, 175.
24. Id. at 16, 175.
25. Id. at 160-161. Memorandum from Undersecretary Narciso B. Nieto of the Fields Operations Office to PARO Stephen Leonidas (DARPO Negros Oriental), thru RD Rodolfo T. Inson (DARRO VII, Cebu City).
26. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
27. Rollo, pp. 10-11, 17, 122.
28. Sections 1 and 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
29. Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association, Inc. v. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 295; citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755, 785 (2003).
30. Id.
31. As amended by Section 9 of RA 9700.
32. Lebrudo v. Loyola, G.R. No. 181370, March 9, 2011.
33. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.