SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245902. June 3, 2019.]
SILANDO Q. GOMEZ, HERMOGENES OMATANG, JR., JOSEPHINE S. AC-AC [DECEASED], REPRESENTED BY HER DAUGHTER, ALICIA A. MENDEZ, CONCHITA M. AC-AC [WITH WAIVER IN FAVOR OF URBANA A. CATACUTAN], ET AL., petitioners, vs.FLORENCIA D. REMOLLO, NONITA M. CADALLO, SALVADOR C. TORTAL, APOLLO R. CATALONIO,1ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245902 (Silando Q. Gomez, Hermogenes Omatang, Jr., Josephine S. Ac-ac [deceased], representedby her daughter, Alicia A. Mendez, Conchita M. Ac-ac [with waiver in favor of Urbana A. Catacutan],et al. v. Florencia D. Remollo, Nonita M. Cadallo, Salvador C. Tortal, Apollo R. Catalonio, et al.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 2 and AFFIRM the April 13, 2018 Decision 3 and the January 30, 2019 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 09533 for failure of petitioners Silando Q. Gomez, Hermogenes Omatang, Jr., Josephine S. Ac-ac (deceased), represented by her daughter, Alicia A. Mendez, Conchita M. Ac-ac (with waiver in favor of Urbana A. Catacutan), et al. (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the March 13, 2013 Order 5 of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in ADM. Case No. A-9999-07-BI-024-11, upholding petitioners' disqualification as agrarian reform beneficiaries of the subject landholding with Transfer Certificate Title No. T-802 (subject landholding).
As correctly ruled by the CA, the factual findings of administrative agencies charged with a specific field of expertise are accorded great weight and respect by the courts, and thus, are generally binding so long as they are supported by substantial evidence, 6 as in this case. Accordingly, considering that the issues raised in this petition are essentially factual in nature, which are thus binding upon this Court, they are not proper for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, where only questions of law are allowed. 7 In this regard, the Court clarifies, and thus, agrees that DAR v. PCPI8 did not categorically declare petitioners as the qualified beneficiaries of the subject landholding but merely clarified that being a non-tenant thereof does not, ipso facto, disqualify a person from being a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program beneficiary. Under Section 7 9 of Executive Order (EO) No. 129-A, 10 as well as Section 39, 11 Book IV of EO No. 292, 12 otherwise known as the "Administrative Code of 1987," the DAR Secretary is vested with the authority to review the findings and actions of his subordinates, especially when said findings are overcome by contrary evidence. Thus, the issuance of the collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award 13 in petitioners' names, among others, could still be assailed if there was evidence proving that the listed beneficiaries were not qualified, as in this case. Finally, considering that petitioners did not appeal the DAR's March 13, 2013 Order before the CA, as it was respondents Florencia D. Remollo, Nonita M. Cadallo, Salvador C. Tortal, Apollo R. Catalonio, et al., who assailed the same before the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, said findings and conclusion of the DAR had already become final and executory as against petitioners.
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also referred to as "Apollo R. Catalonia" and "Apollo R. Cataluna" in some parts of the rollo.
2.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 5-56.
3.Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 802-816. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Edward B. Contreras, concurring.
4.Id. at 975-976.
5.Id. at 880-932. Signed by DAR Secretary Virgilio R. De los Reyes.
6. See Cabral v. Adolfo, 794 Phil. 161, 172 (2016); and Alecha v. Atienza, 795 Phil. 126, 143 (2016). See also rollo (Vol. II), p. 813.
7. Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied)
8. See G.R. Nos. 168787 and 169271, 586 Phil. 69-83 (2008).
9. Section 7. Secretary of Agrarian Reform. — The authority and responsibility for the exercise of the mandate of the Department and the discharge of its powers and functions shall be vested in the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, hereinafter referred to as Secretary, who shall have supervision and control over the Department and shall be appointed by the President.
10. Entitled "MODIFYING ORDER NO. 129 REORGANIZING AND STRENGTHENING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," effective on July 26, 1987.
11. Section 39. Secretary's Authority. — (1) The Secretary shall have supervision and control over the bureaus, offices, and agencies under him, subject to the following guidelines:
(a) Initiative and freedom of action on the part of subordinate units shall be encouraged and promoted, rather than curtailed, and reasonable opportunity to act shall be afforded those units before control is exercised;
(b) With respect to functions involving discretion, experienced judgment or expertise vested by law upon a subordinate agency, control shall be exercised in accordance with said law; and
(c) With respect to any regulatory function of an agency subject to department control, the authority of the department shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 9 of this book.
12. Entitled "INSTITUTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987," approved on July 25, 1987.
13.Rollo (Vol. II), pp. 788-799.