SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 198751, August 19, 2015
FLOR CAÑAS-MANUEL, Petitioner, v. ANDRES D. EGANO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the February 18, 2011 Decision2 and August 31, 2011 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Cebu City, in CA-G.R. SP No. 03230.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Nullification of Coverage under CARP of the portion of lot 3595, situated in Brgy. Palarao, Leyte, Leyte, and Disqualification of its identified Farmer-Beneficiary filed by petitioners (referring to the respondent and his wife) is hereby GRANTED and Order is hereby issued;The petitioner moved to reconsider Dir. Morales's order but her motion was denied.7cralawrednad
1. DECLARING the award in favor of Flor Cañas Manuel and Salome Dellera Cañas of the farmlot embraced by CLOA No. 00091138 null and void ab initio;
2. DIRECTING the Operations Division of DARPO, Leyte, to conduct delineation survey to determine the specific area actually owned and cultivated by the herein petitioners and coordinate with the Bureau of Lands for the correction of the name of farmer-beneficiary in its approved subdivision plan;
3. ORDERING the MARO, DAR Municipal Office of Leyte, Leyte, to identify and document petitioners as the rightful farmer beneficiaries of such portion, subject of this petition;
4. ORDERING the Petitioners to coordinate with the Legal Division of DARPO, Leyte to file the proper petition with the Adjudication Board for the Cancellation of CLOA No. 00091138."6 (Emphasis supplied)
"The appeal is without merit. The cancellation of CLOA No. 00091138 under Original Certificate of Title No. 3324 was an offshoot of the Decision dated October 28, 2004, rendered by the Regional Director of Region VIII, in the case entitled "In Re: Petition for Nullification of Coverage and Disqualification of Farmer-Beneficiary," filed by petitioner (referring to the present respondent). As correctly stated by the Adjudicator a quo: "Thus, the declaration of Dir. Tiburcio A. Morales, Jr., regarding the disqualification of Flor Manuel Cafias and Salome D. Cafias as farmer-beneficiaries, is an exercise of an authority of the DAR Secretary that has been delegated to him. The cancellation of the subject CLOA is a necessary consequence of that declaration which binds this office, being an adjunct of the DAR. xxx And in the meantime that the off-mentioned Order of Dir. Tiburcio Morales, has not been vacated or ordered vacated by an appropriate authority, it is incumbent upon this Office to honor the same."12 (emphases supplied)The DARAB, likewise, denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration in a resolution13 dated October 9, 2007. The petitioner appealed her case to the CA through a Petition for Review filed under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
"As correctly enunciated by DAR Provincial Adjudicator Wilfredo M. Navarra, the objections of herein petitioner to the cancellation of the subject CLOA as the same is a violation of their right to due process, the illegality of the sale of the land, the irregularity of the certificate of finality, etc., cannot be entertained by the DARAB because these are questions related to the administrative implementation of agrarian laws which are beyond the DARAB's jurisdiction. DARAB has no appellate jurisdiction over acts of DAR Regional Directors, thus, petitioners (sic) should have addressed their concerns to the DAR Secretary. xxxIn its August 31, 2011 resolution, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner; hence, the petitioner's filing of the present petition for review on certiorari with this Court.xxx xxx xxx
xxx it is clear that the DARAB did not err in ruling against herein petitioner as it has no authority to grant the reliefs she has prayed for. Moreover, it cannot be argued that Section 1(f) of the Rules vests the DARAB with jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) and the administrative correction thereof, as it has been ruled that for the DARAB to exercise jurisdiction in such cases, there must be an agrarian dispute between the landowner and the tenant which is not so in the instant case."15 (Emphases supplied and citations omitted)
"From the foregoing, petitioners (referring to the respondent and his wife), acquired ownership over the 3,655.50 sq.m. portion of lot 3595 from Sps. Celedonio and Floriana Cafias, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. Field verification revealed that since February 6, 1993, petitioners took possession of such contested portion, introduced some permanent improvements thereon, and personally cultivated the same up to the present. This fact substantially support petitioners claim that the identification of Flor Cafias Manuel and Salome Dellera Cafias, as farmer beneficiaries of the aforesaid portion was erroneous, since they were not the actual cultivator (sic) of the same. Neither were said FB's be considered as rightful claimants and owners of said portion, because the same was sold to the herein petitioners by their deceased parents, xxx"24But, instead of ordering the cancellation of CLOA No. 00091138, Dir. Morales ordered the respondent to coordinate with the DARPO-Leyte Legal Division for the filing of the "proper petition" for cancellation with the Adjudication Board.
Section 6. Referral of cases. When a party erroneously files a case under Section 2 hereof before the DARAB, the receiving official shall refer the case to the proper DAR office for appropriate action within five (5) working days after determination that said case is within the jurisdiction of the Secretary. Likewise, when a party erroneously files a case under Section 3 hereof before any office other than the DARAB or its adjudicators, the receiving official shall, within five (5) working days, refer the case to the DARAB or its adjudicators, (Emphasis supplied)The next question for resolution is whether the PARAD correctly considered the respondent's case as an agrarian law implementation case cognizable by the DAR.
(d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.We have ruled that, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must be an agrarian dispute or tenancy relationship existing between the parties.36cralawrednad
It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee, (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-25.
2 Penned by CA Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Socorro B. Inting, concurring, id. at 58-66.
3 Id. at 91-92.
4 As per notarized Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property executed by Celedonio Q. Cañas (married to Floriana D. Cañas) and Mamerta A. Ibañez as vendors, and Andres Egano, as vendee; Annex 11 of the Petition, id. at 104
5 Id. at 96-99.
6 Id. at 97 and 99.
7 Id. at 8.
8 As provided under Section 238 of the 2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases.
9Rollo, pp. 6, 61.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 58.
12 As quoted in the CA's decision; id. at 61.
13Rollo, p. 58.
14Supra note 2.
15Rollo, p. 65.
16 Id. at 6-7, 16-17.
17 Section 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. — The following are prohibited:cralawlawlibrary18 AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, approved on June 10, 1988.
(a) The ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Act, of agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any person, natural or juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer- beneficiaries. (b) The forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons who are not qualified beneficiaries under this Act to avail themselves of the rights and benefits of the Agrarian Reform Program. (c) The conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any non-agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of this Act to his landholdings and to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them. (d) The willful prevention or obstruction by any person, association or entity of the implementation of the CARP. (e) The sale, transfer, conveyance or change of the nature of lands outside of urban centers and city limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity of this Act. The date of the registration of the deed of conveyance in the Register of Deeds with respect to titled lands and the date of the issuance of the tax declaration to the transferee of the property with respect to unregistered lands, as the case may be, shall be conclusive for the purpose of this Act. (f) The sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any other usufructuary right over the land he acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to circumvent the provisions of this Act. (Emphasis supplied)xxx
19Rollo, pp. 106-107.
20 Dated February 6, 2012, rollo, unpaged.
21 Respondent's comment, id., unpaged.
22 Dated February 17, 2012, rollo, unpaged.
23Supra note 6.
24Rollo, pp. 97-98.
25cralawred Supra note 15.
26 SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).xxxx
27 SEC. 17. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the Department of Agriculture (DA).xxxx
28 PROVIDING THE MECHANISMS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM, approved on July 22, 1987.
29Islanders CARP-Farmers Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v. Lapanday Agricultural and Devt. Corp., G.R. No. 159089, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 80, 85.
30 Section 2. ALI cases. These Rules shall govern all cases arising from or involving:cralawlawlibrary31 Also known as the "2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases," dated January 16, 2003.
2.1. Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the agrarian reform program and the initial issuance of Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs), including protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting such coverage; 2.2. Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification, or disqualification of potential/actual farmer- beneficiaries; 2.3. Subdivision surveys of land under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); 2.4. Recall, or cancellation of provisional lease rentals, Certificates of Land Transfers (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall or cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet registered with the Register of Deeds; 2.5. Exercise of the right of retention by landowner; 2.6. Application for exemption from coverage under Section 10 of RA 6657; 2.7. Application for exemption pursuant to Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44 (1990); 2.8. Exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for livestock, swine, and poultry raising; 2.9. Cases of exemption/exclusion of fishpond and prawn farms from the coverage of CARP pursuant to RA 7881; 2.10. Issuance of Certificate of Exemption for land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) found unsuitable for agricultural purposes; 2.11. Application for conversion of agricultural land to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses and purposes including protests or oppositions thereto; 2.12. Determination of the rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries to homelots; 2.13. Disposition of excess area of the tenant's/farmer-beneficiary's landholdings; 2.14. Increase in area of tillage of a tenant-farmer beneficiary; 2.15. Conflict of claims in landed estates administered by DAR and its predecessors; and 2.16. Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of the DAR. (emphases supplied). xxxx
32 Section 7, Rule II of the 2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases states that:cralawlawlibrary"Section 7. General Jurisdiction. The Regional Director shall exercise primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation cases except when a separate special rule vests primary jurisdiction in a different DAR Office."33Supra note 30.
34 SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original Jurisdiction. - The Adjudicator shall have primary and exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate the following cases:cralawlawlibrary35 Attached to the Rollo is a certified true copy of OCT No. OC-3324 pertaining to the award of a 3,895 sq.m.-lot in Barangay Palarao, Municipality of Leyte, Province of Leyte, to Flor Cañas-Manuel, et.al. under CLOA No. 0001138, issued on May 31, 1993, and registered with the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Leyte on June 30, 1993; rollo, p. 93.
1.1. The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation, and use of all agricultural lands covered by Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), and other related agrarian laws; 1.2. The preliminary administrative determination of reasonable and just compensation of lands acquired under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27 and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program; 1.3. The annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR or Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP); 1.4. Those cases involving the ejectment and dispossession of tenants and/or leaseholders; 1.5. Those cases involving the sale, alienation, pre-emption, and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARL or other agrarian laws; 1.6. Those involving the correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and subsequent issuances of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority; 1.7. Those cases involving the review of leasehold rentals; 1.8. Those cases involving the collection of amortizations on payments for lands awarded under PD No. 27, as amended, RA No. 3844, as amended, and RA No. 6657, as amended, xxx; 1.9. Those cases involving the annulment or rescission of lease contracts and deeds of sale, and the cancellation or amendment of titles pertaining to agricultural lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR and LBP, xxx; 1.10. Those cases involving boundary disputes over lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR and the LBP, xxx; 1.11. Those cases involving the determination of title to agricultural lands where the issue is raised in an agrarian dispute by any of the parties or a third person in connection with the possession thereof xxx; 1.12. Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of PD No. 946 xxx; and 1.13. Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of the DAR. (Emphasis supplied)xxxx
36 See Charles Bumagat, et al. v. Regalado Arribay, G.R. No. 194818, June 9, 2014; Del Monte Philippines, Inc. Employees Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative (DEARBC) v. Jesus Sangunay, et al., 656 Phil. 97 (2011); Heirs of Rafael Magpily v. De Jesus, 511 Phil. 14 (2005).