SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232028. August 30, 2017.]
MARCIA E. RAMOS, DR. RAUL E. RAMOS, ASG RENAN E. RAMOS, LEA E. RAMOS, ROBERTO E. RAMOS, DR. ROMEO E. RAMOS, DR. RAMON E. RAMOS, DR. RENE E. RAMOS, AND RUBY E. RAMOS, petitioners, vs.THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF DAR CABANATUAN CITY AND THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF DAR CABANATUAN CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 August 2017which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 232028 (Marcia E. Ramos, Dr. Raul E. Ramos, ASG Renan E. Ramos, Lea E. Ramos, Roberto E. Ramos, Dr. Romeo E. Ramos, Dr. Ramon E. Ramos, Dr. Rene E. Ramos, and Ruby E. Ramos v. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of DAR Cabanatuan City and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of DAR Cabanatuan City)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 30, 2017 Decision 1 and May 18, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146471 for failure of petitioners Marcia A. Ramos, Dr. Raul E. Ramos, ASG Renan E. Ramos, Lea E. Ramos, Roberto E. Ramos, Dr. Romeo E. Ramos, Dr. Ramon E. Ramos, Dr. Rene E. Ramos, and Ruby E. Ramos (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the May 16, 2016 Order of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which refused to accord the status of preferred beneficiaries and correspondingly denied the right of retention to petitioners Raul, Renan, Lea, Roberto, Romeo, Ramon, Rene, and Ruby, all surnamed Ramos (Ramos children), as children of the landowner, petitioner Marcia E. Ramos.
As correctly observed by the CA, other than their bare and self-serving claim, petitioners failed to establish that the Ramos children are directly managing the cultivation of the subject landholding as required under Section 6 3 of Republic Act No. 6657, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988," as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2006. 5 In administrative proceedings, the burden is on the complainant to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his or her complaint, 6 failing in which the complaint will be dismissed for lack of merit. 7 Neither does the Court find merit on petitioners' claim of denial of due process since administrative due process does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Due process requirement is satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy either through oral arguments or through pleadings, or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, 8 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 40-49. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan concurring.
2.Id. at 65-66.
3. Section 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: provided, that landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: provided, further, that original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"; approved on June 10, 1988.
5. Entitled "REVISED GUIDELINES ON AWARD TO CHILDREN OF LANDOWNERS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 6 AND 22 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657"; approved on September 6, 2006.
6. See Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569, 585 (2005).
7. See Monticalbo v. Judge Maraya, Jr., 664 Phil. 1, 10 (2011).
8. See SPO1Acuzar v. Jorolan, 631 Phil. 514, 525 (2010).