FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 156482, September 17, 2008]
PEDRO GABRIEL, FERNANDO JAMIAS, ALFREDO NIEDO, MABINI JAMIAS, BRAULIO TANGO, MARIANO ECHAVARI, ISIDRO RECITES, BERNARDO BAQUIRIN, FERMIN JAMIAS, FRANCISCO NIEDO, GAVINO JAMIAS, JULIANO ORBILLO, ROSENDO NIEDO, PACITA A. QUIÑO, JESUS CACHO, REICARDO TAGANAS, BERNARDO PECIO, CELESTINO NIEDO, FRANCISCO TUBERA, JUAN NIEDO, CONSOLACIO DINGAL, SOFRONIO NIEDO, ROSALINDA JAMIAS & DOMINGO PARSASO, Petitioners, v. MURMURAY JAMIAS, INANAMA JAMIAS DE LARA, LIWAWA JAMIAS DE LOS REYES, LANGIT JAMIAS, DALISAY JAMIAS & ISAGANI JAMIAS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
NAMES | AREA/HAS. | TCT NO. | LOCATION/PANGASINAN |
| | | |
Inanama | 5.1826 | T-5920 | Bantog, Asingan |
Murmuray | 5.1826 | T-5919 | do |
| 1.0210 | T-5955 | do |
| 6.2036 | | |
Langit | 5.1826 | T-5923 | do |
| 0.9169 | T-5958 | do |
| 6.0995 | | |
Dalisay | 5.1826 | T-5922 | do |
| 1.5809 | T-5954 | do |
| 6.7635 | | |
Liwawa | 5.1826 | T-5925 | do |
| 2.2529 | T-5956 | do |
| 7.4355 | | |
Isagani | 5.1826 | T-5921 | do |
| 1.2381 | T-5935 | Libertad, Tayug |
| 7.6707 | | |
Delfina | 5.1826 | T-5924 | Bantog, Asingan |
| 1.6532 | T-1874/T-18703 | Amestad |
| 2.4521 | TD 15743-TD15744 | San Roque, San Nicolas |
| 1.5298 | TD 16442 | Legaspi, Tayug |
| 10.8177 | | |
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Order is hereby issued:The petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration6 of the aforesaid Order on the ground that the same was unsupported by the law and the facts and has been rendered moot and academic by the issuance of CLTs and, then later, of emancipation patents in their names.SO ORDERED.
- Granting and giving due course to the petition of Inanama, Murmuray, Langit, Dalisay, Liwawa and Isagani, all surnamed Jamias, to retain not more that seven (7) hectares each of their tenanted Riceland situated at Bant[o]g, Asingan, Pangasinan;
- Recalling and/or canceling the Certificates of Land Transfer covering portions of the retained areas issued to the tenants;
- The landowner shall maintain the tenants in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the landholding under leasehold;
- Directing the DAR District Officer of Urdaneta, Pangasinan to prepare and issue the Certificates of Agricultural Leasehold (CAL) in favor of the herein tenants;
- Authorizing the [respondents] to withdraw the lease rentals deposited by the tenants with the Land Bank, in his favor if there are any.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Order is hereby issued denying the instant Omnibus Motion for lack of merit and affirming the Order dated March 17, 1986 of this Department with the following modifications:Seeking the nullification of the two (2) aforementioned Orders of the DAR for allegedly having been executed with grave abuse of discretion considering that titles were already issued to them, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari 8 before the CA. In its decision dated April 21, 1992,9 the CA, ruling that the distribution of land titles to the petitioners was improper considering that the same was made during the pendency of respondents' petition/application for exemption/retention with the DAR, dismissed for lack of merit the petition for certiorari declaring that:SO ORDERED.
- The landholdings of Inanama, Murmuray, Langit and Dalisay all surnamed Jamias being less than seven (7) hectares each, are exempted from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer, while Delfina, Isagani and Liwawa, all surnamed Jamias, are entitled to retain not more than seven (7) hectares of their landholdings and the excess areas thereof should be covered under OLT.
- Directing the issuance of Certificates of Land Transfer, if none has yet been issued, to the tenants within the excess areas of the landholdings of Delfina, Isagani and Liwawa.
- This Order shall serve as a basis for the cancellation/revocation before the proper court of the Emancipation Patents (EPs) issued to the tenants within the exempt/retained areas and which are already registered.
The mere distribution of land titles to petitioners consequently posed no legal impediment to the ultimate resolution of the pending petition of respondents for retention of portions of lands already previously distributed.Petitioners appealed the CA's April 21, 1992 Decision to this Court. However, in a Resolution dated September 20, 1995, the Court denied the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the CA had committed any reversible error in the questioned judgment. The Court's resolution subsequently became final and executory as shown in the Entry of Judgment dated February 5, 199610 issued by the Supreme Court Judicial Records Office.
WHEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by law and the Implementing guidelines thereof, Order is hereby issued:Pursuant to the aforecited Resolution, respondents separately filed on June 5, 1998 with the DARAB, Region I, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, their respective petitions12 for cancellation and recall of the emancipation patents covering the exempt/retained areas.
1) Directing the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) of Pangasinan or his duly authorized representatives to implement the Order dated March 17, 1986 as affirmed by the Order dated May 20, 1991 as to the segregation of the retention area and the documentation of the coverage relative to the excess on the landholdings of Delfina, Isagani and Liwawa, all surnamed Jamias; 2) Directing the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Asingan, Pangasinan to cause the execution of leasehold contracts between the [respondents] and the tenants within the retention area; 3) Directing the tenants within the retained areas to pay the lease rentals due to the [respondents], respectively; 4) Directing the [respondents] to file an action to (sic) the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) for the cancellation or recall of the Emancipation Patents covering the retained areas.
SO ORDERED. [Emphasis supplied]
WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:Reiterating the same arguments they earlier made with the DARAB Regional Office, the petitioners appealed to the DARAB, Central Office in Diliman, Quezon City.17SO ORDERED.
- Declaring the emancipation patents issued in the name of the [petitioners] in these seven (7) cases to be cancelled or null and void on the ground that the landholding is the retained area of the [respondents];
- Directing the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan and the DAR Chief of Operations to effect the cancellation of the Emancipation Patent issued to the [petitioners], the numbers of which are as follows:
x x x x- Ordering the Register of Deeds to reinstate or restore the titles of the [respondents] which are TCT Nos. 5919, 5955, 5924, 5920, 5925, 5956, 5923, 5922, 5954, 5921, and 5953 if the same have been cancelled; and
- Directing the tenants in the retained areas and the respective owners thereof to execute an Agricultural Leasehold Contract with the assistance of the MARO of Asingan, Pangasinan.
(a) Petition for the recall and cancellation of emancipation patents;Petitioners' assertion in their motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their petition that (a) the foregoing documents/pleadings were not material to the issues they raised and (b) anyway, the records of the case may be ordered elevated by the CA, cannot excuse them from failing to comply with a requirement of a petition for review under Rule 43. We reiterate here that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process as it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.25 Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with procedural rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.26 Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.27
(b) Appeal memorandum dated October 1, 1999 filed by Barolo Pablo, et. al;
(c) Petition to retain 7 hectares;
(d) Order dated March 17, 1986 of then Minister Estella;
(e) Omnibus motion for reconsideration filed on April 17, 1986;
(f) Petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals docketed as SP 25399;
(g) Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 21, 1992;
(h) Petition filed with the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 107043;
(i) Resolution dated September 20, 1995 of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 107043;
(j) Motion for the issuance of writ of execution;
(k) Order dated November 16, 1998;
(l) Motion to dismiss;
(m) Order dated November 16, 1998;
(n) Motion for reconsideration;
(o) Order dated January 7, 1999;
(p) Decision dated June 21, 1999; and
(q) Appeal memorandum filed with DARAB.24
x x x the present case for cancellation of the EPs is a mere off-shoot of the administrative petition for retention filed by the petitioners as early as 1981. That previous case culminated in a decision upholding petitioners' right of retention. The case at bar is for cancellation of the EPs. Hence, the present case is an incident flowing from the earlier decision of the administrative agency and affirmed judicially involving the same parties and relating to the same lands.As for petitioners' arguments regarding respondents' retention rights and the validity of the DAR's orders directing the filing of an action for cancellation of petitioners' emancipation patents, suffice it to state that these issues were already subject of the proceedings on the petition for retention filed by respondents in 1981. The DAR Orders of March 17, 1986 and May 20, 1991 which declared respondents' entitlement to retention rights over the subject land and directing the filing of the appropriate action for the cancellation of petitioners' emancipation patents have attained finality as shown by this Court's Entry of Judgment dated February 5, 1996. Indeed, the proceedings before the DARAB now being assailed here (i.e. respondents' petitions to cancel petitioners' emancipation patents) were merely in execution or implementation of the DAR Orders of March 17, 1986 and May 20, 1991 which have long since become final and executory. Indeed, this Court looks with disfavor upon the present attempt of petitioners to avoid execution of the said DAR Orders by litigating anew in this petition matters already previously passed upon with finality by the DAR and the appellate courts, including this Court.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 17-19.
2 The DARAB decision dated September 12, 2002 affirmed the Regional Adjudicator's decision declaring the cancellation of the Emancipation Patents issued in the names of the petitioners.
3Rollo, pp. 23-24.
4 P.D. No. 27 decreed the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferred to them the ownership of the land they till. It was promulgated on October 21, 1972.
5 Record, pp. 27-31.
6Rollo, pp. 48-53.
7Rollo, pp. 48-54.
8 Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 25399 entitled Mariano Echavaria et al. v. Benjamin T. Leong as Secretary of DAR and Inanama Jamias.
9Rollo, pp. 78-90.
10 Record, p. 182.
11Id., pp.172-175.
12 Docketed as DARAB Case Nos. 01-1661 to 01-1667 EP 99; Record, Folders DCN 9368-9374.
13 Record, pp. 116-117 and pp. 121-129.
14Rollo, pp. 64-66.
15Id., pp. 56-62.
16 Record, pp. 312-329.
17 The appeal was docketed as DARAB Case Nos. 9368-9374; Records, pp. 348-355.
18Rollo, pp. 34-44.
19Supra note 1.
20 Erroneously indicated as Paragraph (b) of Section 6 in the CA Resolution.
21Rollo, pp. 20-21.
22Supra note 2.
23 In full, this section reads:
Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
24Supra note 1.
25Marison C. Basuel v.Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), G.R. No. 143664, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 118, 123.
26Id., p. 126.
27Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633, 638.
28Hermoso v. C.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 140319, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 556, 562.
29 Section 1(f), Rule II of DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure.
30Ayo-Alburo v. Matobato, G. R. No. 155181, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 399, 409
31Supra note 28, p. 563.
32Supra note 17.
33 Grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs or CLOAs may include but not be limited to the following:
- Misuse or diversion of financial and support services extended to the ARB (Section 37 of R.A. No. 6657);
- Misuse of the land (Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657);
- Material misrepresentation of the ARB's basic qualification as provided under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws;
- Illegal conversion by the ARB (Cf. Section 73, Paragraph C and E of R.A. No. 6657);
- 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);
- 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;
- Failure of the ARBs to pay for at least three (3) annual amortizations to the LBP, except in cases of fortuitous events and force majeure (Section 26 of RA 6657);
- Neglect or abandonment of the awarded land continuously for a period of two (2) calendar years as determined by the Secretary or his authority represented (Section 22 0f RA 6657);
- The land is found to be expect/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
- Other grounds that will circumvent laws related to the implementation of agrarian reform program. (Emphasis supplied)