FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 209194. April 20, 2015.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, petitioner,vs. DIEGO V. CARIT, SR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 20, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 209194 (Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Agrarian Reform v. Diego V. Carit, Sr.). After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the September 19, 2013 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 112873 for failure to show any reversible error committed by the CA in declaring: (a) the identification of Wenifreda Arpon-Balais (Wenifreda) as the agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) over the subject land to be erroneous; and (b) Diego V. Carit, Sr. (respondent) to be the rightful ARB.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent is the rightful ARB over the subject land considering his actual cultivation/possession thereof. The rule is that the farmer-tiller or actual occupant shall be given preference in the distribution of the lands occupied by him. 2 While the Department of Agrarian Reform's issuance of the Certificate of Land Ownership and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title covering the subject land carries with it a presumption of regularity, 3 when challenged by credibly convincing evidence, as here, it can no longer be treated as binding truth. Thus, their mere issuance does not put the ownership of the land beyond attack and scrutiny, and they may be corrected and cancelled for violation of agrarian laws and its implementing rules and regulations, 4 as in this case where the identified ARB, Wenifreda, was shown to be neither an agricultural lessee nor an actual tiller of the subject land.
SO ORDERED." cSEDTC
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 27-39. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring.
2. DAR Memorandum Circular No. 07-93 issued on May 26, 1993.
3. See Magno v. Heirs of Pablo Parulan, G.R. No. 183916, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 162, 170, citing Section 3 (m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.
4. Almagro v. Amaya, Sr., G.R. No. 179685, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 61, 79.