FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205321. July 24, 2019.]
SPOUSES ATTY. DOROTEO AND IGNACIA GONZALES, REPRESENTED BY THEIR DAUGHTER AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT BEATRIZ A. GONZALES, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF DAVAO CITY [PARO], REGION XI, REPRESENTED BY OIC PARO I ERNESTO B. TAN, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 24, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205321 (Spouses Atty. Doroteo and Ignacia Gonzales, represented by their daughter and attorney-in-fact Beatriz A. Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Davao City [PARO], Region XI, represented by OIC PARO I Ernesto B. Tan, et al.). — We affirm the Decision 1 dated April 18, 2012 and Resolution 2 dated December 10, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00901-MIN. The Decisions of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Regional Adjudicator and DARAB, as affirmed by the CA, that the procedure followed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in acquiring petitioners' property was in accordance with the law and rules and regulations of compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), are correct. Factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, should not be disturbed. 3
Petitioners Spouses Doroteo (Doroteo) and Ignacia Gonzales (collectively, Spouses Gonzales) were the registered owners of several parcels of land situated in Calinan District, Davao City. One of these properties was composed of 5.8455 hectares and with Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-108601. 4
On August 11, 1995, pursuant to Section 16, Chapter V of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, 5 Elizabeth Caparo, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Calinan District, Davao City, issued a notice of coverage to Doroteo informing him that his landholdings covered by TCT No. T-108601 and three other properties were covered by CARP and inviting him to a meeting on August 22, 1995 at the MARO office. The notice further stated that Doroteo had the right to select and retain an area in accordance with Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 which should be more or less contiguous and that failure to attend will mean that the identification of the retained area will be left to MARO. 6 CAIHTE
On August 31, 1995, Doroteo informed Ernesto B. Tan, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), that since more than one-half of the lands have an 18-degree slope, they are exempted from CARP coverage. Doroteo also claimed that his six children are all qualified beneficiaries of the farmlands. 7
In a letter dated October 30, 1995, the MARO informed Doroteo that it could not act on the request until he submits the necessary requirements required by law. The MARO attached the forms for the application for exemption/exclusion and other requirements. Doroteo received the letter on November 7, 1995. 8
Because Doroteo failed to submit the requirements, the MARO wrote him a letter on January 18, 1996 requesting that the requirements be submitted on or before February 15, 1996. 9
Doroteo still failed to submit the requirements. Thus, on July 30, 1997, the MARO gave Doroteo only until August 20, 1997 to submit the documents; otherwise, the MARO will determine the landholdings to be exempt from CARP and will proceed with the documentation of Doroteo's landholdings in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6657. 10
Since Doroteo still failed to submit the requirements, the MARO proceeded with the actual ocular inspection/field investigation of the properties stated in the notice of coverage. Field investigation report dated December 15, 1997 found that the entire 5.8445 hectares of the property covered by TCT No. T-108601 was below 18% slope, suitable for agriculture, and therefore, "recommended for acquisition and redistribution." 11
Subsequently, the MARO transmitted the claim folder of the agricultural land covered by TCT No. T-108601 to the PARO on December 17, 1997. On December 22, 1997, Doroteo received a copy of the field investigation report and he acknowledged receipt of it in his letter dated January 14, 1998. 12 Doroteo stated that he had an application for exemption submitted to the Regional Director, and if the proceedings will continue, he will file an administrative complaint. 13
Still, the process of acquisition continued, and on the basis of the PARO's determination, the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. T-108601 and TCT No. T-302186 was issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The Register of Deeds then issued TCT No. CL-3526 with corresponding cancellation of Certificate of Land-Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00513032, in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries private respondents Diosiminda Abella, Hilario Abella, Jr. and Romeo Oming. 14
On January 18, 1999, petitioners wrote the MARO saying that, they are applying for the retention and award to them and to their qualified children-beneficiaries the agricultural lands covered by TCT No. T-108601 and two other properties. They emphasized that their four qualified children-beneficiaries are entitled to three hectares each while the spouses are entitled to five hectares. 15
On January 22, 1999, Spouses Gonzales filed before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) a "Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Land-Ownership Award (CLOA) and/or the Non-issuance of the said CLOAs with Prayer for a Restraining Order or Injunction" against the PARO of Davao City, the Register of Deeds of Davao City, and the farmer-beneficiaries private respondents. 16
In their answer, respondents stated that the cancellation of TCT No. T-108601 was done in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 and the corresponding CLOA generated had already been issued to the farmer beneficiaries. On the allegation, that the MARO was still in the process of compiling the Application for Land Exemption Folder (ALEF), respondents countered that the said application was filed only on January 18, 1999 despite demands/request to file it as early as 1995. 17
After the submission of position papers, on July 25, 2000, Regional Adjudicator Norberto Sinsona (RARAD) dismissed the petition. 18 The RARAD ruled that petitioners were given ample time to submit the requirements but they failed to do so. Thus, the MARO of Calinan District, Davao City correctly proceeded with compulsory acquisition of the property, in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6657. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied. 19 DETACa
Meanwhile, on December 13, 2000, the DAR Regional Director acted on petitioners' application for retention. Of the three properties applied for retention, including the land covered by TCT No. T-108601, the DAR Regional Director approved the retention of five hectares of land covered by TCT No. T-7903. 20
Petitioners appealed the RARAD's Decision to the DARAB Central Office which, in its Decision dated March 9, 2005, affirmed the Decision of the RARAD. 21 The DARAB also denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 22
Petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 43. They argued that: (1) the pending applications for retention and award to the children and for exemption are prejudicial questions which the DAR should have resolved first before it proceeded to award the subject land to the private respondents; and (2) they were deprived of the opportunity to contest the award made to the private respondents. 23
The CA denied the petition. 24 The CA ruled that the DAR's acquisition of the property was in accordance with the law and rules and regulations for compulsory acquisition under CARP. The CA noted that as early as August 11, 1995, the MARO sent petitioners the notice of coverage, invited them to several conferences and gave and extended petitioners' deadlines to submit their applications for retention and exemption, but petitioners still failed to comply with the requirements. The field investigation report which petitioners received was also sufficient notice to them. While the landowner has the right to choose his area of retention, as spelled out in Section 6, R.A. No. 6657, its exercise is subject to a certain period of time, i.e., 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice of coverage as provided under Administrative Order No. 11, series of 1990. There was no violation of due process since petitioners were given every opportunity to take part in the proceeding through various notices and invitations for conferences. They were also given the opportunity to submit their position paper at the RARAD and DARAB and to seek reconsideration from the decisions of the two administrative bodies. Last, petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies in immediately filing their petition before the CA. Pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994, they should have either sought reconsideration of the DAR Regional Director's determination of the beneficiaries or appealed to the DAR Secretary. 25
The CA also denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 26
In this petition, petitioners raise the following arguments: (1) the resolution of the application for retention, exemption, and award of the parcels of land to their children is a prejudicial question which should have been resolved first because if all the applications were approved, there would be nothing left to be distributed to other beneficiaries; 27 (2) the lapse of two years from the time that they were required to submit the requirements should not automatically cause the award of the landholdings to private respondents; 28 (3) petitioners were denied of their right to due process since their landholding was immediately placed under CARP coverage despite the pendency of their applications for retention, exemption and award to their children; 29 and (4) there is no violation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction since cases involving the cancellation of CLOAs registered with the Register of Deeds fall within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. 30
We deny the petition.
First, We rule that the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB properly took cognizance of the petition for cancellation of CLOA and/or the non-issuance of the said CLOAs with prayer for a restraining order or injunction.
Under the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, which was effective at the time petitioners filed their petition before the PARAD, the RARAD and the PARAD have concurrent original jurisdiction with the DARAB to hear, determine and adjudicate all agrarian cases and disputes, and incidents in connection therewith, arising within their assigned territorial jurisdiction. 31 aDSIHc
The DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the CARP under R.A. No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as amended by R.A. No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. This includes cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs and emancipation patents which are registered with the Land Registration Authority. 32
Second, We find that there was no prejudicial question to resolve prior to the award of the land covered by TCT No. T-108601 to private respondents. The CA, affirming the DARAB Decision, was correct in ruling that the procedure followed by the DAR in acquiring the property was in accordance with the law and rules and regulations for compulsory acquisition under CARP. 33
Petitioners already waived their right to choose the area of the farmland to be retained including the land covered by TCT No. T-108601. Availment of such right is subject to the observance of rules and procedures promulgated for the implementation of the CARP. DAR Administrative Order No. 11, series of 1990 on the Rules and Procedures Governing the Exercise of Retention Rights by Landowners and Award to Children under Section 6 of R.A. 6657 provides for a 60-day period from receipt of the Notice of Coverage within which the landowner must file the application for retention, thus:
III.
Application for Retention
xxx xxx xxx
D. Period within Which to Exercise the Right of Retention —
1. Under Compulsory Acquisition (CA) — The right of retention and the possibility of award to children, where applicable, must be availed of by the landowner within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of Notice of Coverage from the DAR that his landholding is subject to compulsory acquisition. Failure to respond within the specified period and after due notice would mean that the landowner waives his right to choose which area to retain.
xxx xxx xxx
Moreover, the landowner applying for retention must satisfy the following requirements:
C. Criteria/Requirements for Retention and Award
1. The land is a private agricultural land;
2. The area chosen for retention shall be compact and contiguous and shall be least prejudicial to the entire landholding and the majority of the farmers thereon;
3. The landowner must execute an affidavit as to the aggregate area of his landholding;
4. The landowner must submit a list of his children who were fifteen (15) years old or over as of June 15, 1988 and who have been actually cultivating or directly managing the farm since June 15, 1988. 34 ETHIDa
Petitioners received the notice of coverage on August 11, 1995. Petitioners filed their application for retention of their farmlands including the lot covered by TCT No. T-108601 with supporting documents only on January 18, 1999. 35 This is way beyond the 60-day period within which they should have filed the application for retention.
Moreover, petitioners did not follow the procedure in pursuing its protest and in applying for the retention and exemption of their farmlands from CARP coverage.
Under Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994, all protests against CARP coverage shall be filed with the MARO or the PARO currently processing the claim folder. Once the written protest is filed, the MARO or PARO shall comment on said protest and submit the same to the Regional Director who shall rule on the same. 36
Under Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1990, the MARO shall receive the written application for exemption which shall include the following documents: (1) ownership documents and other muniments of title; and (2) evidence to support application and convince DAR that the area qualifies for exemption under Section 10, R.A. No. 6657 such as: copy of proclamation, topographic map, sketch map, area development plan, affidavit, certification from relevant government agency. 37
Here, petitioners' letters to the MARO cannot be considered as the application for exemption from CARP coverage since they were not accompanied by evidentiary documents to support their application. 38
Verily, petitioners cannot claim violation of their due process when they were remiss in the exercise of their rights as landowners. We approve the conclusions of the CA:
In this case, as early as August 11, 1995, the MARO had sent a notice of coverage to the petitioners informing them that portions of their landholdings were under CARP. As a matter of procedure, they were invited to several conferences for them to discuss and participate in the land acquisition initiated by the DAR. As can be gleaned from the series of letters from the MARO, the petitioners were given ultimatums or deadlines which were nonetheless extended a number of times. x x x Petitioners have allowed the periods to lapse. Petitioners cannot now cry lack of due process. The DAR has, in fact, been lenient in applying the rules.
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, the landowner may not unduly delay in exercising his right to choose which land he desires to retain. As long as the landowner is properly notified, DAR can choose in his behalf if he fails to seasonably exercise that right.
xxx xxx xxx
In other words, the petitioners were given every opportunity to take part in the proceeding through various notices and invitations for conferences. These are indications that they were afforded procedural process. They were also given the opportunity to submit Position Paper at the RARAD and DARAB and to seek reconsideration from the decisions of the two administrative bodies. It is only in the absence of opportunity to be heard when they claim deprivation of procedural due process. 39
WHEREFORE, We DENY the petition. The Decision dated April 18, 2012 and Resolution dated December 10, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00901-MIN are AFFIRMED. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., on official leave;Jardeleza, J., designatedas Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2680 dated July 12, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 25-46; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Melchor Q. C. Sadang and Pedro B. Corales.
2.Id. at 48-52; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, with concurrence of Associate Justices Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
3.Sugar Regulatory Administration v. Tormon, G.R. No. 195640, December 4, 2012, 686 SCRA 854, 867, citing Lumayna v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185001, September 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 163, 176-177.
4.Rollo, p. 26.
5. An Act Instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to Promote Social Justice and Industrialization, Providing the Mechanisms for its Implementation, and for Other Purposes.
6.Id. at 26-27.
7.Id. at 27.
8.Id.
9.Rollo, pp. 27-28.
10.Id. at 28.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Rollo, p. 29.
14.Id.
15.Rollo, p. 97-A.
16.Id. at 30.
17.Id. at 31.
18.Id.
19.Rollo, p. 34.
20.Id. at 11.
21.Id. at 36.
22.Id.
23.Rollo, p. 37.
24.Id. at 45.
25.Id. at 39-45.
26.Id. at 52.
27.Id. at 14.
28.Id. at 15.
29.Id. at 16.
30.Id. at 17-19.
31. DARAB New Rules of Procedure, Rule II, Section 2.
32. DARAB New Rules of Procedure, Rule II, Section 2.
33.Rollo, p. 38.
34. DAR Administrative Order No. 11, series of 1990, Part III (C).
35.Rollo, p. 97.
36. III. PROCEDURE
A. All protests under this Order shall be filed with the MARO or the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) that is currently processing the claim folder.
B. Once a written protest is filed, the MARO or PARO shall comment on said protest and submit the same to the RD who shall rule on the same.
C. In case any of the parties disagree with the RD's decision/resolution, the affected party may file a written motion for reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order. The filing of the motion for reconsideration shall stop the running of the period to appeal.
Thereafter, the RD shall rule on the motion for reconsideration and in the event that the motion is denied, the adverse party has the right to appeal within the remainder of the period to appeal, reckoned from the receipt of the resolution of denial. If the decision is reversed on reconsideration, the aggrieved party shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution of reversal within which to perfect an appeal therefrom, if no appeal has been duly perfected, the RD shall order execution.
37. Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1990, Part IV (A) (2).
38. See Nicanor T. Santos Development Corporation v. Secretary,Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 159654, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 569.
39. Rollo, pp. 39-42.