THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199217. June 7, 2017.]
SPOUSES RUFO VALENCIA AND AMPARO MAULION, petitioners,vs. HEIRS OF SIXTO MARELLA, JR., BIENVENIDO T. LONTOC, SIXTO RAMON L. MARELLA, AND MAMERTO V. OCAMPO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 7, 2017, which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"G.R. No. 199217 (Spouses Rufo Valencia and Amparo Maulion v. Heirs of Sixto Marella, Jr., Bienvenido T. Lontoc, Sixto Ramon L. Marella, and Mamerto V. Ocampo). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by spouses Rufo Valencia and Amparo Maulion (petitioners) seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals' (CA) August 12, 2011 Decision 2 and October 28, 2011 Resolution 3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 82837 (collectively, Assailed Decisions). The Assailed Decisions granted the petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court filed by the heirs of Sixto Marella, Jr. (Marella, Jr.), Bienvenido T. Lontoc, Sixto Ramon L. Marella, and Mamerto Ocampo (collectively, respondents) against the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Decision 4 dated November 24, 2003.
The case involves a parcel of land identified as Lot 3-0-18, Psd-27528 with an area of 14.9024 hectares, located at San Gabriel (now San Gregorio), Municipality of Talisay (now Laurel), Batangas. It is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-16030 registered in the name of Corazon Agoncillo (Corazon). In 1987, Corazon executed a Deed of Conveyance by way of Donation over a portion of the property consisting of 1.9 hectares in favor of respondent Marella, Jr. 5 In the same year, Corazon executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the rest of the property consisting of 13.024 hectares in favor of Bienvenido T. Lontoc, Mamerto V. Ocampo, and Sixto Ramon Marella, pro-indiviso. 6 Both instruments were acknowledged before a notary public on October 3, 1987, 7 but remained unregistered. 8
On June 10, 1988, Republic Act No. (RA) 6657 9 was enacted which placed public and private agricultural lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
After Corazon's death on October 4, 1994, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) sent a letter dated February 14, 1995 addressed to "Corazon Agoncillo, c/o Sixto Marella[, Jr.]" It was addressed to Marella, Jr.'s old office, giving notice that the property is covered by the agrarian reform program of RA 6657. The letter, however, was returned to sender, and the MARO did not send another letter of coverage. 10 Around December 1995, Marella, Jr. learned from the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) that the property is being placed under RA 6657. 11 On December 15, 1995, respondents wrote a protest-letter to the PARO requesting the recall of the coverage and the exemption of the property from CARL. 12 The PARO received the protest-letter on December 18, 1995. 13
On January 4, 5, and 8, 1996, while the protest on coverage was pending with the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Region IV, Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) were issued to: (1) petitioner Rufo H. Valencia; (2) Rosario A. Accio; (3) Numeriano A. Alcazar; (4) Yolanda A. Magpantay; (5) Enorio B. Alcazar; (6) Napoleon B. Alcazar; and (7) Graciano B. Aliling (collectively, the beneficiaries). 14
On April 18, 1996, respondents filed a petition for the lifting of the compulsory coverage on the property with the Office of the Regional Director, DAR Region IV. 15 While the petition was pending, the CLOAs of the beneficiaries were registered with the Registry of Deeds of Tanauan. 16 On June 28, 1996, titles were issued to the seven beneficiaries. TCT-CLOA No. 1380, in particular, was issued to petitioner Valencia. 17 However, the cancellation of Corazon's TCT No. T-16030 and the transfer and registration of title under TCT No. T-61710 in the name of the Republic of the Philippines happened on July 12, 1996, or eleven (11) days after titles were already issued to the beneficiaries. 18
On August 27, 1996, respondents filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) seven separate petitions for cancellation of TCT/CLOA, exemption and exclusion, and ejectment against the beneficiaries and the Registry of Deeds of Tanauan, Batangas. 19 Respondents prayed for: (1) the cancellation of the CLOAs and TCTs on the ground that they are void; (2) a declaration that the property is excluded or exempted from CARP; (3) a declaration that petitioners have misrepresented their qualifications as beneficiaries under the CARP; and (4) the ejectment of petitioners from the property. 20
In their petition, 21 respondents alleged that they are the absolute owners of the property by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Transfer and Conveyance of Real Estate Property by way of Donation and Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Corazon V. Agoncillo on October 3, 1987 (deeds of conveyance). 22 Respondents averred that the property is excluded from CARP coverage under Section 10 of RA 6657 because it is undeveloped and has a slope of 18%, as certified by the Chief of Land Management Service, Batangas Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 23
Respondents asserted that the compulsory coverage of the property under CARP was done without notice and due process. 24 They claimed that the CLOAs and TCTs in the name of the beneficiaries should be cancelled because they were issued without notice to respondents and without a ruling first made on their protest. 25 They averred that the beneficiaries are permanently disqualified to own lands under CARP for having entered the property prematurely. 26 DETACa
Respondents also alleged that the beneficiaries' CLOAs and TCTs were registered and issued, respectively, without prior compensation to respondents as owners of the property in violation of Section 9, Article III and Section 4, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, and Section 16 of RA 6657. 27
In their answer, the beneficiaries countered that the action to place the property under the coverage of CARP and its transfer in favor of respondents were done with due process of law and in the regular performance of duty. They maintained that a notice was sent to Corazon V. Agoncillo c/o Sixto Marella, Jr. on February 14, 1995. The beneficiaries also posited that the property was agricultural in nature and that the protest filed by respondents was already denied. They further argued that the donation and sale between Corazon and Marella, Jr. were considered ineffective for noncompliance with the registration requirements of Section 6 of RA 6657. 28
In a Joint Decision 29 dated October 7, 1998, the PARAD declared the beneficiaries' CLOAs void ab initio and ordered the Register of Deeds of Tanauan, Batangas to cancel the CLOAs and the TCTs. The PARAD found grounds to cancel the CLOAs because the acquisition of the property was done without due process of law and in violation of RA 6657 and its implementing rules. First, petitioners did not receive a Notice of Acquisition. 30Second, the CLOAs and TCTs were registered with the Register of Deeds in the name of the beneficiaries ahead of the registration of title under the name of the Republic of the Philippines. 31Third, the CLOAs were issued and registered with knowledge of the pendency of respondents' protest before the PARAD, and their petition for the lifting of the CARP coverage over the property before the Regional Director. 32 The PARAD found that the protest had not been resolved since its alleged denial was merely a recommendation of the legal officer. 33 The PARAD, however, dismissed respondents' petition for ejectment for lack of jurisdiction.
The DARAB reversed the PARAD and confirmed the validity of the CLOAs in its Decision 34 dated November 24, 2003. The DARAB did not discuss the merits of the case; it only ruled that respondents are not the real parties in interest since the deeds of conveyance are void pursuant to Section 6 of RA 6657. This section provides that transfers prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 which are not registered within three months from the effectivity of the law are invalid. The DARAB denied respondents' motion for reconsideration in a Resolution 35 dated February 18, 2004.
On appeal under Rule 43 with the CA, some of the beneficiaries entered into compromise agreements with respondents where the beneficiaries agreed to withdraw their application for CLOA in exchange for a portion of respondents' interest over the property. 36 The terms of these compromise agreements were approved and adopted in a Partial Decision 37 dated July 14, 2005 and a Joint Partial Judgment 38 dated July 4, 2006. As a result, the CA Decision dated August 12, 2011 only concerned the beneficiaries who did not enter into compromise with respondents, namely, petitioners and spouses Graciano Aliling and Felipa Castillo. 39
The CA reinstated the PARAD decision. 40 It found that respondents were deprived of due process in the compulsory acquisition and inclusion of the property in the CARP. 41 The notices required under DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 12, series of 1989, i.e., notice of coverage and letter of invitation to a conference/meeting and notice of acquisition, were not sent to respondents. Further, the procedure under Section 16 (e) of RA 6657 was not observed when the CLOAs were awarded and the TCTs were issued to the beneficiaries. The portions of the property were directly titled under the name of the beneficiaries instead of the Republic of the Philippines first. 42
The CA also held that in declaring the deeds of conveyance void, the DARAB resolved an issue not raised at the earliest opportunity. In the process, it violated respondents' rights against non-impairment of contracts and to due process. 43
Lastly, the CA affirmed the PARAB's finding that the beneficiaries are not de jure tenants within the property. This divested the DARAB of jurisdiction to entertain the suit for ejectment. 44
Only petitioners filed the present petition where they reiterated the arguments in their answer and raised the following issues:
I. Whether petitioners' CLOA and TCT should be cancelled:
a. Whether the acquisition proceedings over the property were valid and in accordance with law;
b. Whether the property is exempted from CARP coverage; and
II. Whether respondents' deeds of conveyance should be nullified
We deny the petition.
I
Petitioners' main defense against the cancellation of their CLOA and title is that the deeds of conveyance are void pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 6 of RA 6657 which states:
SEC. 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.
xxx xxx xxx
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of the Act shall be null and void: Provided, however,That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares. aDSIHc
This provision is, in turn, implemented by DAR AO No. 01, series of 1989, or the DAR Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions. DAR AO No. 1, series of 1989 set the deadline for the registration of transfers of agricultural land prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 —
II
Rules on Validity of Land Transactions
xxx xxx xxx
B. The following transactions are not valid:
1. Sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner prior to June 15, 1988, which are not registered on or before September 13, 1988, or those executed after June 15, 1988, covering an area in excess of the five-hectare retention limit in violation of R.A. 6657.
xxx xxx xxx
Finding merit in petitioners' argument, the DARAB granted their appeal and dismissed the petition for cancellation, exemption/exclusion, and ejectment on the ground that respondents are not the real parties in interest. The DARAB also declared the deeds of conveyance void for allegedly violating the last paragraph of Section 6 of RA 6657. We find, however, that in doing so, the DARAB prematurely declared the deeds of conveyance void and deprived respondents of their right to due process.
At the time the DARAB nullified the deeds of conveyance on November 24, 2003, DAR Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 02, series of 2001 or the "Guidelines on Annulment of Deeds of Conveyance of Lands Covered by the [CARP] Executed in Violation of Section 6, Paragraph 4 of [RA] No. 6657" was already in effect. The circular provides for the operating procedures for the annulment of deeds of conveyance executed in violation of RA 6657:
SEC. 4. Operating Procedures. — The procedures for annulment of deeds of conveyance executed in violation of RA 6657 are as follows:
a) The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) shall undertake the following:
1. Secure certified true copy of certificate of title of the subject landholding, deed of conveyance from the Register of Deeds (ROD), and Certificate of Aggregate Landholdings from the Assessor's Office;
2. Identify the names of the original landowner-transferor and the transferee and prepare a description of the land subject of illegal transfer; and
3. Submit a report on the illegal transaction, together with all relevant documents to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), through the Chief, Legal Division.
b) The Chief, Legal Division, of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office, shall have the following responsibilities:
1. Upon receipt of the MARO report, determine whether or not there was illegal transfer of agricultural lands pursuant to Sec. 6, par. 4 of RA 6657;
2. If there was illegal transfer, file a petition for annulment of the deed of conveyance in behalf of the PARO before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). The petition shall state the material facts constituting the violation and pray for the issuance of an order from the PARAD directing the ROD to cancel the deed of conveyance and the TCT generated as a result thereof. As legal basis therefor, the petition shall cite Section 50 of RA 6657 and Rule II, Section 1(c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure;
3. Represent the PARO in the hearings of the petition and ensure that the case is expeditiously resolved;
4. Upon finality of the decision granting annulment of the deed of conveyance, immediately secure a writ of execution to implement the same; ETHIDa
5. After the writ of execution has been served, secure from the ROD the documents necessary to facilitate land acquisition in the name of the original landowner. Thereafter, indorse the documents to the CARPO for Operations; and
6. In the event of an adverse decision or a denial of the petition, file a Notice of Appeal within the 15-day reglementary period with the DARAB, and, thereafter, transmit the records of the case to the Director, Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), for prosecution of the appeal.
c) The CARPO for Operations shall immediately initiate the acquisition and distribution of the lands subject of illegal transfer upon receipt of the duly-served writ of execution and other documents from the ROD. (Emphasis supplied.)
DAR MC No. 2, series of 2001, shows that when the cancellation of an illegal transfer under Section 6, par. 4 of RA 6657 is initiated through a petition for annulment of the deed of conveyance filed before the PARAD, the MARO and the PARO Legal Division Chief must first follow a specific process before filing the petition.
First, the MARO should collate the relevant documents showing the identity of the land (i.e., certified true copy of certificate of title of the subject landholding, description of the land subject of illegal transfer), the transaction or transfer of the land (i.e., deed of conveyance from the Register of Deeds), the basis for inferring that the transfer is in violation of Section 6, paragraph 4 of RA 6657 (i.e., certificate of aggregate landholdings from the Assessor's Office), and the identity of the parties to the transfer (i.e., identify the names of the original landowner-transferor and the transferee). Thereafter, the MARO will submit a report on the illegal transaction with the relevant documents to the Chief, Legal Division of the PARO. Upon submission of the report, the PARO Legal Division Chief will determine whether there was illegal transfer of agricultural lands pursuant to Section 6, paragraph 4 of RA 6657. Once the PARO Legal Division Chief determines that there was an illegal transfer of agricultural lands pursuant to Section 6, paragraph 4 of RA 6657, he shall file, in behalf of the PARO, a petition for annulment of the deed of conveyance before the PARAD. The petition shall state the material facts constituting the violation, pray for the issuance of an order from the PARAD directing the Register of Deeds to cancel the deed of conveyance and the title, and cite Section 50 of RA 6657 and Rule II, Section 1 (c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure. This petition shall be the subject of hearings before a decision is reached. Only upon finality of the decision in this proceedings will a writ of execution issue. Notably, it is the receipt of this writ of execution by the proper officer which triggers the initiation of the acquisition proceedings.
There is no logical reason why the above procedure should not apply in this case. The DARAB erred in cancelling the deeds on the sole ground that they were not registered within the time frame set by RA 6657. While the proviso in the last paragraph of Section 6 provides a deadline for registration of dispositions or transfers executed prior to RA 6657 to lend validity to them, the fact alone of being unregistered does not automatically render these dispositions or transfers void. A prior determination in the proper proceedings, as illustrated in DAR MC No. 2, series of 2001, will ensure that the conveyances involve land beyond the retention limit set in Section 6 of RA 6657. Also, such proceedings will give the parties to the conveyances the opportunity to raise defenses such as exemption from CARP coverage. Thus, before a transferee is deprived of a land, due process dictates that there must first be a validation from the DAR, through a final and executory decision, that the challenged transfer or disposition or transfer is illegal or unauthorized.
Due process must be observed in the annulment of allegedly illegal and unauthorized deeds of conveyances, regardless of whether they were executed before or after the effectivity of RA 6657. The need to observe administrative due process in the implementation of the CARP cannot be overemphasized for it involves the taking of private property. We have held, time and again, that the CARP was not intended to take private property without due process of law. 45 As it stands, the conveyances between Corazon and respondents remain valid.
Considering the foregoing, it was erroneous for the DARAB to immediately nullify the deeds of conveyance without conducting the requisite proceedings. Consequently, respondents remain as transferees of the property, with the legal personality to bring the present action before the PARAD.
II
The awards of land to qualified beneficiaries under the State's agrarian reform program are evidenced by Emancipation Patents (EPs), CLOAs, and other titles (e.g., Certificate of Land Title [CLT]). Specifically, a CLOA is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary under RA 6657. 46 Different requirements and procedures under the laws govern their issuances, while their cancellation is sanctioned by the rules and procedures issued by the DAR.
At the time of the filing of respondents' petition in 1996, the procedure governing the cancellation of CLOAs, EPs, and other titles can be found under DAR AO No. 2, series of 1994. The grounds are enumerated in Part IV, paragraph B of the AO, as follows: cSEDTC
B. Grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs or CLOAs may include but not limited to the following:
1. Misuse or diversion of financial and support services extended to the [Agrarian Reform Beneficiary (ARB)]; (Section 37 of R.A. No. 6657)
2. Misuse of the land; (Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657)
3. Material misrepresentation of the ARB's basic qualifications as provided under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other agrarian laws;
4. Illegal conversion by the ARB; (Cf. Section 73, Paragraph C and E of R.A. No. 6657)
5. Sale, transfer, lease, or other forms of conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any other usufructuary right over the land acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to circumvent the provisions of Section 73 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other agrarian laws. However, if the land has been acquired under P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228, ownership may be transferred after full payment of amortization by the beneficiary; (Sec. 6 of E.O. No. 228)
6. Default in the obligation to pay an aggregate of three (3) consecutive amortizations in case of voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme, except in cases of fortuitous events and force majeure;
7. Failure of the ARBs to pay for at least three (3) annual amortization to the LBP, except in cases of fortuitous events and force majeure; (Section 26 of R.A. 6657);
8. Neglect or abandonment of the awarded land continuously for a period of two (2) calendar years as determined by the Secretary or his authorized representative; (Section 22 of RA 6657)
9. The land is found to be exempt/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP coverage or to be part of the landowner's retained area as determined by the Secretary or his authorized representative; and
10. Other grounds that will circumvent laws related to the implementation of agrarian reform program.
By the very language of AO No. 2, series of 1994, the list is not exhaustive. In addition to the grounds listed above, there are cases where CLOAs, EPs and CLTs were nullified for being issued in violation of the landowner's right to due process.
In the early case of Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 47 we declared void the acquisition proceedings for failure to send the required notices under RA 6657 and pertinent DAR administrative issuances. However, in view of the pending application for conversion before the DAR, we refrained from nullifying the CLOAs and remanded the case to the DAR for "proper acquisition proceedings and determination of the petitioner's application for conversion." 48 We recognized the mandate of the DAR in approving applications for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural. 49
Nevertheless, in later cases, we proceeded to nullify both the proceedings, which were marred by lack of due process, and the awards and titles arising from the same.
In Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot v. Court of Appeals, 50 we ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel a TCT and a Tax Declaration for being issued without factual and legal basis. There, we found that not only did the DAR fail to give proper notice to the landowner, it also did not conduct an ocular inspection and investigation on the subject property. 51 We said that "any act committed by the DAR or any of its agencies that results from its failure to comply with the proper procedure for expropriation of land is a violation of constitutional due process and should be deemed arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and tainted with grave abuse of discretion." 52
We are aware of our ruling in Roxas & Co., Inc., where we held that a due process violation does not give this Court the power to nullify CLOAs already issued to farmer-beneficiaries before the DAR is given a chance to correct its lapses in the acquisition proceedings. We have, however, since qualified this ruling in Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste v. Land Bank of the Philippines53 where we held:
Manifesting her disagreement that this Court cannot nullify illegally issued CLOAs and should first ask the DAR to reverse and correct itself, Justice Ynares-Santiago, in her Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, stated that "[i]f the acts of DAR are patently illegal and the rights of Roxas & Co. violated, the wrong decisions of DAR should be reversed and set aside. It follows that the fruits of the wrongful acts, in this case the illegally issued CLOAs, must be declared null and void." She also noted that "[i]f CLOAs can under the DAR's own order be cancelled administratively, with more reason can the courts, especially the Supreme Court, do so when the matter is clearly in issue."
In the same vein, if the illegality in the issuance of the CLTs is patent, the Court must immediately take action and declare the issuance as null and void. There being no question that the CLTs in the instant case were "improperly issued, for which reason, their cancellation is warranted." The same holds true with respect to the EPs and certificates of title issued by virtue of the void CLTs, as there can be no valid transfer of title should the CLTs on which they were grounded are void. Cancellation of the EPs and OCTs are clearly warranted in the instant case since, aside from the violation of petitioners' right to due process of law, the subject property is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program. 54 SDAaTC
In the more recent case of Holy Trinity Realty & Development Corporation v. Dela Cruz, 55 we held that "[t]he procedures provided by Section 16 of [RA 6657] and its relevant DAR administrative issuances are to ensure compliance with the due process requirements of the law. The result of their noncompliance is to deprive the landowner of its constitutional right to due process." 56 Thus, we ruled that the EPs awarded to respondents should be nullified. We held that denial of due process to the petitioner sufficed to cast the impress of nullity on the official act thereby taken. A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally. All the resulting acts are also null and void. 57
Bearing these principles in mind, we agree with the CA that the CLOAs and the TCTs should be nullified for having been issued in patent violation of RA 6657 and its implementing rules, which effectively deprived respondents of their property without due process of law.
Section 16 of RA 6657 outlines the procedure to be observed in the acquisition of private agricultural lands:
SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Section 16 (a) of RA 6657 requires that after identification of the land, landowners, and farmer beneficiaries, the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. We have previously held that the law leaves much to be desired as to how the identification process must be made. Thus, DAR issued administrative orders to fill in the gaps in the procedure. 58 The pertinent DAR administrative order in this regard is DAR AO No. 12, series of 1989, as amended by DAR AO No. 9, series of 1990, and DAR AO No. 1, series of 1993. In Roxas & Co., Inc., we explained how DAR AO No. 1, series of 1993 modified the identification process of the land by requiring a Notice of Coverage to the landowner:
DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993, modified the identification process and increased the number of government agencies involved in the identification and delineation of the land subject to acquisition. This time, the Notice of Coverage is sent to the landowner before the conduct of the field investigation and the sending must comply with specific requirements. Representatives of the DAR Municipal Office (DARMO) must send the Notice of Coverage to the landowner by "personal delivery with proof of service, or by registered mail with return card," informing him that his property is under CARP coverage and that if he desires to avail of his right of retention, he may choose which area he shall retain. The Notice of Coverage shall also invite the landowner to attend the field investigation to be scheduled at least two weeks from notice. The field investigation is for the purpose of identifying the landholding and determining its suitability for agriculture and its productivity. A copy of the Notice of Coverage shall be posted for at least one week on the bulletin board of the municipal and barangay halls where the property is located. The date of the field investigation shall also be sent by the DAR Municipal Office to representatives of the LBP, BARC, DENR and prospective farmer beneficiaries. The field investigation shall be conducted on the date set with the participation of the landowner and the various representatives. If the landowner and other representatives are absent, the field investigation shall proceed, provided they were duly notified thereof. Should there be a variance between the findings of the DAR and the LBP as to whether the land be placed under agrarian reform, the land's suitability to agriculture, the degree or development of the slope, etc., the conflict shall be resolved by a composite team of the DAR, LBP, DENR and DA which shall jointly conduct further investigation. The team's findings shall be binding on both DAR and LBP. After the field investigation, the DAR Municipal Office shall prepare the Field Investigation Report and Land Use Map, a copy of which shall be furnished the landowner "by personal delivery with proof of service or registered mail with return card." Another copy of the Report and Map shall likewise be posted for at least one week in the municipal or barangay halls where the property is located. acEHCD
Clearly then, the notice requirements under the CARL are not confined to the Notice of Acquisition set forth in Section 16 of the law. They also include the Notice of Coverage first laid down in DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989 and subsequently amended in DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. This Notice of Coverage does not merely notify the landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his retention right; it also notifies him, pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990, that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to discuss the results of the field investigation, the land valuation and other pertinent matters. Under DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993, the Notice of Coverage also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the other representatives may be present.59 (Emphasis supplied.)
It may be understandable in this case that the Notice of Coverage was not addressed or sent to respondents, considering that the deeds of conveyance were unregistered at the time of acquisition. However, it remains an undisputed fact that the Notice of Coverage addressed to "Corazon Agoncillo c/o Sixto Marella[,] Jr." was returned to sender and marked "unclaimed." 60 It is safe to deduce, therefore, that be it Corazon or the respondents, no landowner was duly notified of the acquisition proceedings. In the process, there was a clear violation of the right to attend the field investigation conducted to identify the land and determine its suitability for agriculture. It can be fairly assumed that the field investigation was conducted without their knowledge and participation, in contravention of the requirements of DAR AO No. 1, series of 1999.
It also appears that no Notice of Acquisition was ever sent by the MARO. Neither were the Notices of Coverage and Acquisition posted in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. 61 There was also no showing that a copy of the Field Investigation Report and Land Use Map was furnished to Corazon or respondents after the field investigation, whether by personal delivery with proof of service or registered mail with return card. The copy of the Report and Map was likewise not shown to be posted for at least one week in the municipal or barangay halls where the property is located.
Further, petitioners' CLOA and TCT should be nullified because they were issued without just compensation to respondents. We held in Holy Trinity that the taking of property under RA 6657 is also an exercise of eminent domain which entitles the landowner to the payment of just compensation. Full payment must precede the transfer of the title to the Republic of the Philippines and the intended beneficiaries —
The Court has carefully explained in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals that the taking under the CARL is an exercise of police power as well as of eminent domain. The taking of the landholding by the State effectively results in the surrender by the landowner of its title and physical possession to the beneficiaries. Hence, compensation should be given to the landowner prior to the taking. This is the clear-cut directive of Section 16 (e) of Republic Act No. 6657 which mandates the DAR to take immediate possession of the land only after full payment and to thereafter request the Register of Deeds to transfer title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, and later on to the intended beneficiaries.
However, there was no evidence of payment prior to the cancellation of the petitioner's TCTs submitted here. The requirement of prior payment was found in Republic Act No. 6657 and Presidential Decree No. 27, under which full payment by the intended beneficiary was a condition prior to the award of an EP. x x x 62
Here, the determination of compensation for the property was aborted by the lack of due process in the acquisition proceedings. Neither Corazon nor the respondents were given the opportunity to accept or reject the offer because they never received the Notice of Coverage, which would have included the offer of the compensation. Further, there was no evidence that steps were taken to determine the valuation of the land. The allegation in the petition and testimony of respondent Sixto Marella, Jr. that no such payment was ever received by him or Corazon (with him as administrator of her estate) remained uncontroverted since no evidence was presented to prove that payment was made. 63 As a result, respondents' property was taken without just compensation, contrary to Section 9, Article III 64 and Section 4, Article XIII 65 of the 1987 Constitution.
Finally, the noncompliance with the procedure in Section 16 (e) of RA 6657 is also fatal. The procedure mandates that the land must first be titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines before its distribution to the beneficiaries. As correctly found by the PARAD and CA, the TCTs of the beneficiaries were registered with the Register of Deeds on June 28, 1996, 66 while the cancellation of Corazon's TCT No. T-16030 and the transfer and registration of title under TCT No. T-61710 in the name of the Republic of the Philippines happened on July 12, 1996. 67 Clearly, the mandatory procedure stated in Section 16 (e), RA 6657 was violated. We quote the findings by the PARAD:
Second, the CLOAs and Transfer Certificates of Title were registered with the Register of Deeds in the name of the private respondent on June 28, 1996 or eleven (11) days prior to the registration of Transfer Certificate Title No. 61710 in the name of the Republic of the Philippines on July 12, 1996. This is violative of Section 16 (e) which mandates that redistribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries can be done only after the transfer of ownership to the Republic of the Philippines. The procedure for acquisition of private lands under [RA 6657] is mandatory and must be strictly followed as indicated by the word "shall." 68
Such abbreviated proceeding only affirms the DAR's tendency in this case to take shortcuts in the issuance of the CLOAs over the property. This, however, the DAR should refrain from. While zealous in its cause, the DAR should not disregard the procedure laid out in RA 6657 and its implementing issuances. After all, the CARP is not intended to oppress landowners, but is envisioned to achieve a just distribution of all agricultural lands.
In sum, we hold that the DAR's patent disregard of the provisions of RA 6657 and its own pertinent implementing issuances in the acquisition of the property is violative of respondents' constitutional rights. This warrants the cancellation of petitioners' CLOA and TCT and the reinstatement of TCT No. T-16030 in Corazon's name.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds is ORDERED to cancel TCT-CLOA No. 1380 and to reinstate TCT No. T-16030 in the name of Corazon Agoncillo. The Landbank of the Philippines is also ORDERED to return amortization payments, if any, to Spouses Rufo Valencia and Amparo Maulion. SDHTEC
No costs."
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-27.
2.Id. at 28-53; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Agnes Reyes-Carpio.
3.Id. at 4-55.
4.Id. at 77-91.
5.Id. at 29.
6.Id.
7.Rollo, p. 31.
8.Id. at 42-43.
9. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL).
10.Rollo, p. 31; CA rollo, p. 99.
11.Rollo, p. 32.
12.Id.; CA rollo, p. 105.
13.Rollo, p. 32.
14.Id.
15.Id.; CA rollo, pp. 107-109.
16.Rollo, pp. 32-33.
17.Id. at 33.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Rollo, p. 95.
21. Petition for Cancellation of CLOA/TCT, Exemption and Exclusion, and Ejectment against Spouses Rufo Valencia and Amparo Maulion, id. at 92-96.
22.Id. at 92-93.
23.Id. at 93.
24.Id. at 93-94.
25.Id. at 94.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Rollo, p. 34.
29.Id. at 60-76. The dispositive portion of which states:
Wherefore, for all of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered DECLARING THE CLOAs issued to private respondents as NULL AND VOIDab initio, therefore has no force and effect and DISMISSING, the Petition for Ejectment for lack of jurisdiction, accordingly the following orders are issued:
1]. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Tanauan, Batangas to cancel the following Certificates of Land Ownership Award and Transfer of Certificates of Titles:
|
CLOA No. |
TCT No. |
|
00305448 |
CLOA — 1380 |
|
00305449 |
CLOA — 1381 |
|
00305450 |
CLOA — 1382 |
|
00305451 |
CLOA — 1383 |
|
00305452 |
CLOA — 1384 |
|
00305453 |
CLOA — 1385 |
|
00305454 |
CLOA — 1386 |
2]. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Tanauan, Batangas to restore Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-16030 registered in the name of Corazon Agoncillo.
3]. Ordering the Land Bank of the Philippines to return amortization payments if any to the private respondents.
4]. Ordering private respondents to pay the petitioners as reasonable compensation for the use of the land computed at Twenty Five Percent (25%) of the net harvest reckoned from the time respondents occupied the land.
NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED.
30.Id. at 67.
31.Id. at 69-70.
32.Id. at 71.
33.Id. at 70.
34.Id. at 77-91.
35. CA rollo, pp. 40-41.
36.Rollo, pp. 38-39.
37. CA rollo, pp. 324-333.
38.Id. at 438-450.
39.Rollo, p. 40.
40. The dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted only insofar as the remaining private respondents (spouses Graciano Aliling and Felipa Castillo and spouses Rufo H. Valencia and Amparo Maulion) are concerned. Accordingly, the Decision dated November 24, 2003 and Resolution dated February 18, 2004 of the DARAB are reversed and set aside, and the Joint Decision dated October 7, 1998 of the PARAD is reinstated.
SO ORDERED.
41.Rollo, p. 44.
42.Id. at 44-45.
43.Id. at 43.
44.Id. at 52.
45.Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. v. Alcaide, G.R. No. 167952, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 600, 612.
46. RA 6657, Sec. 24.
47. G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 106.
48.Id. at 155.
49.Id. at 151-152.
50. G.R. No. 170346, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 202.
51.Id. at 212-213.
52.Id. at 213.
53. G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 352.
54.Id. at 388.
55. G.R. No. 200454, October 22, 2014, 739 SCRA 229.
56.Id. at 267.
57.Id. at 269.
58. See Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 47.
59.Id. at 140-142.
60. CA rollo, p. 99.
61.Id. at 68.
62.Supra note 55 at 267-268.
63. CA rollo, p. 83.
64. CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
65. CONSTITUTION, Art. XIII, Sec. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. (Italics supplied.)
66. CA rollo, pp. 115-116, 122-123, 129-130, 136-137, 143-144, 150-151, 157-158.
67.Id. at 101-102.
68.Rollo, pp. 69-70.