SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 130196. February 26, 2001]

LUCIA MAPA VDA. DE DELA CRUZ, LEODIVINA DELA CRUZ, WILMA DELA CRUZ, DARLITO DELA CRUZ, JUANITA DELA CRUZ, RICARDO DELA CRUZ, ARSENIO DELA CRUZ, JUAN DELA CRUZ, and PACITA DELA CRUZ, petitioners, vs. ADJUTO ABILLE, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us is an appeal of the Decision[1] dated December 5, 1996 of the Court of Appeals[2] dismissing petitioners’ appeal from the judgment of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) denying their petition for issuance of an emancipation patent.

The facts are as follows:

Herminio Abille, now deceased, had a total landholding of 13.0561 hectares, located in Infanta, Pangasinan, comprising of 9.2903 hectares of riceland; 2.0000 hectares of cogonland; 1.7658 hectares of coconut land and .4660 hectare of residential land.[3]

Since 1968, Balbino dela Cruz was an agricultural tenant in the riceland tilling an area of 2.84 hectares.[4] He died on June 14, 1981. After his death, Balbino dela Cruz was, nevertheless, issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) No. 0-064711[5] dated October 25, 1981 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27.[6] The certificate was entered in the Registration Book of the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan. Tax Declaration No. 3 in the name of Herminio Abille was cancelled and Tax Declaration No. 1134 was issued in the name of Balbino dela Cruz.[7]

On April 3, 1987, Herminio Abille filed a petition for exemption under Operation Land Transfer (OLT) of his landholdings alleging, among others, that he was not notified of the coverage of his land under OLT; that he learned of its coverage only on March 25, 1987; that prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711, DAR did not notify him or his representative; that he has been deprived of his constitutional right to due process.[8]

On April 19, 1989, Regional Director Antonio M. Nuesa of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, Region I, San Fernando, La Union, issued an Order, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5-87, order is hereby issued:

1. Denying the petition for exemption, instead the right of retention of not more than seven (7) hectares is hereby granted;

2. Directing the petitioner to immediately select the retention area;

3. Canceling the Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the tenants on the retained area;

4. Directing the MARO of Infanta, Pangasinan to prepare Agricultural Leasehold Contracts between the petitioner and the tenants; and

5. Directing the MARO to implement this Order.

SO ORDERED.[9]

On July 24, 1989,[10] Herminio Abille selected the seven-hectare retention area, which included the area covered by CLT No. 0-064711 issued to Balbino dela Cruz; hence, said CLT was automatically cancelled.[11] After the finality and implementation of the said Order dated April 19, 1989, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Eugenio B. Bernardo wrote a letter to the Municipal Assessor of Infanta, Pangasinan requesting for the cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 1134 in the name of Balbino dela Cruz and the re-issuance of Tax Declaration No. 3 in favor of Herminio Abille.[12] On March 4, 1991, the Provincial Assessor of Pangasinan issued a Notice of Cancellation of Assessment, cancelling Tax Declaration No. 1134 in the name of Balbino dela Cruz for the reason that “subject property was decided by the DAR to be retained to Herminio Abille as per supporting documents attached.”[13]

On June 29, 1992, petitioners, who are the compulsory heirs of the late Balbino dela Cruz, filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform a petition for the issuance of emancipation patent. The petition was referred to the Regional Director, Region I, San Fernando, La Union, for appropriate action.[14]

In his Comment,[15] respondent Adjuto M. Abille, representing Herminio Abille, prayed for the dismissal of the petition for the issuance of emancipation patent on the ground that DAR Order dated April 19, 1989, ordering the cancellation of the Certificate of Land Transfer of the retained area, had become final and had been implemented by the Provincial Agrarian Officer of Pangasinan; hence, the petition had become moot and academic.

On October 21, 1992, Regional Director Eligio P. Pacis of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, Region I, San Fernando, La Union, issued an Order denying the petition for the issuance of an emancipation patent as CLT No. 0-064711 issued in favor of Balbino dela Cruz had already been cancelled by virtue of the Order dated April 19, 1989, which was supported by substantial evidence, and that said Order had long become final. The dispositive portion of the Order dated October 21, 1992 reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, by virtue of the authority vested in me by DAR Memo No. 5, Series of 1987, and other implementing Rules and Regulations, an Order is hereby issued:

1. Denying the instant Petition for the issuance of an Emancipation Patent (EP) filed by the Petitioners;

2. Affirming in toto the Order dated 19 April 1989, issued by then Director Nuesa;

3. Directing the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Pangasinan or his duly authorized representative to execute/implement this Order and Deputizing the Chief of PNP-Infanta to provide the necessary police assistance to the DAR Official concerned in the implementation of this Order.

SO ORDERED.[16]

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration praying that another Order be issued declaring as null and void the Order dated April 19, 1989, which was issued allegedly without giving them a day in court, hence, there was absence of due process of law, considering that Balbino dela Cruz was already deemed owner of the subject property as of October 21, 1972. They sought the reinstatement of CLT No. 0-064711 and the issuance of an emancipation patent in their favor as compulsory heirs of the late Balbino dela Cruz.

The said motion for reconsideration was treated as an appeal and elevated to the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform who rendered a Decision on June 20, 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued dismissing the instant motion for lack of merit and the Order dated October 21, 1992 is hereby affirmed. The Regional Director is hereby ordered to prepare Certificates of Agricultural Leasehold (CALs) to the tenants in the retained area as lessees thereat.

SO ORDERED.[17]

In affirming the Order dated October 21, 1992, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform declared that:

After a careful re-evaluation of the records of the instant case this Office finds merit in the questioned Orders dated April 19, 1989 and October 21, 1992. When a CLT is issued in favor of a farmer-beneficiary the said beneficiary became the owner of only an inchoate right over the subject landholding thus, can still be cancelled administratively for justifiable reason. As stated in the Order dated April 19, 1989, the previous owner Hermino Abille owned an area of 13.0561 hectares, more or less of landholding and of which a portion of 9.2903 hectares is a riceland, an area of 2.0000 hectares is cogonal, 1.7658 hectare is a coconut land and .4660 hectare is a residential land. Of his riceland as provided for by PD No. 27, the said owner is granted the right to retain an area of not exceeding seven (7) hectares and the right to select and segregate the said area. The aforesaid CLT had already been cancelled since the area covered by it was among those retained area selected by the landowner as evidenced by a letter dated October 17, 1989 of PARO Eugenio B. Bernardo and the Notice of Cancellation of Assessment dated March 4, 1991 issued by the provincial Assessor. The landowner of the retained area has the right to choose the area which he wants to retain from his landholding. Section 6 of R.A. 6657 provides that “the right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner.”[18]

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the said Decision of the Secretary of DAR having been denied, they filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the said petition for review in a Decision promulgated on December 5, 1996.[19] Their motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated August 6, 1997.[20]

Hence, this petition seeking a review of the Decision dated December 5, 1996 of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioners argued that it was incorrect for the Court of Appeals to hold that they were accorded due process when the validity of the cancellation of Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711 was resolved in the Order dated April 19, 1989; and that their petition for issuance of an emancipation patent is a different proceeding from the petition filed by Herminio Abille wherein Regional Director Antonio Nuesa ordered the cancellation of their predecessor’s (Balbino dela Cruz) Certificate of Land Transfer; that in the said petition filed by Herminio Abille, they were not notified and given the opportunity to be heard. Petitioners maintained that they were denied due process so that the Order dated April 19, 1989 of Regional Director Nuesa cancelling the Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711 in the name of Balbino dela Cruz is null and void, and cannot be used to deny their petition for the issuance of an emancipation patent.

Citing P.D. No. 27, Locsin, et al. v. Valenzuela,[21] and Quiban v. Butalid,[22] petitioners also assert that they became the owners of the lands they till as of the date of effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972; that they have religiously paid the annual rent of the property to the late Herminio Abille, that is, continuously after October 21, 1972 until 1991 or for nineteen (19) years; that by virtue of P.D. No. 27 in relation to the second paragraph,[23] section 2 of Executive Order No. 228, the price of said property had been fully paid thereby entitling them to the issuance of an emancipation patent.

The petition is devoid of merit.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that although the petitioners were not given the opportunity to be heard when Regional Director Antonio Nuesa in his Order dated April 19, 1989 ordered the cancellation of Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711 on the retained area, nevertheless, in their petition for issuance of an emancipation patent, petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard as they raised in issue the validity of the cancellation of the said CLT, which was resolved by DAR Regional Director Eligio P. Pacis in his Order dated October 21, 1992,[24] and also in their (petitioners’) motion for reconsideration,[25] which was treated as an appeal by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform and resolved in his Order dated June 20, 1994.[26] The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of (emphasis supplied).[27] Further, the petition filed by landowner Herminio Abille, which was for exemption of his property from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer, cognizable by Region I Director Antonio M. Nuesa of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance,[28] did not require notice to petitioners. The subsequent Order dated April 19, 1989 of Regional Director Nuesa denying the petition for exemption and instead granting to Herminio Abille the right of retention of not more than seven (7) hectares, and to select the retention area, and cancelling the Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the tenants on the retained area, including CLT No. 0-064711, directing the MARO of Infanta, Pangasinan to prepare Agricultural Leasehold Contracts between the petitioner and the tenants, and directing the PARO to implement said Order, became final even before Herminio Abille selected on July 24, 1989[29] the 7 hectares retained area which includes the 2.84 hectares covered by Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711 in the name of Balbino dela Cruz. Nevertheless, petitioners were able to question the validity of said Order (cancelling CLT No. 0-064711) in their petition for issuance of emancipation patent, which was resolved by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform in his Decision dated June 20, 1994. Hence, petitioners were given an opportunity to be heard.

We also agree with the Court of Appeals that Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0-064711 was validly cancelled. Said certificate was issued to petitioners’ predecessor, Balbino dela Cruz, before landowner Herminio Abille was informed of such issuance and that his landholding was subject to Operation Land Transfer. Subsequently, Herminio Abille, who was found to own riceland with an area of 9.2903 hectares, was granted the right to retain an area not exceeding seven (7) hectares, and the right to select and segregate such area under P.D. No. 27.[30] Thus the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that:

The landowner Herminio Abille having selected as part of his seven-hectare retention the area tilled by Balbino de la Cruz, covered by a certificate of land transfer in his name, the CLT was correctly cancelled.

To hold otherwise would be to deprive the owner Herminio Abille of his right of retention and to select the portion he wanted to retain.

The portion tilled by Balbino de la Cruz having been chosen by the owner Herminio Abille as part of his seven-hectare retention, petitioners as heirs of Balbino de la Cruz are not entitled to an emancipation patent over the same. Balbino de la Cruz was entitled to an agricultural leasehold contract to the area tilled by him and this is what petitioners inherited.[31]

In the case of Daez v. Court of Appeals, where the Certificates of Land Transfer of farmer beneficiaries over some four (4) hectares of riceland were issued without the landowner having been accorded her right to choose what to retain among her landholdings, we held that the Transfer Certificate of Title issued on the basis of Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the farmer-beneficiaries cannot operate to defeat the right of the heirs of the deceased landowner to retain the said riceland.[32] Even the issuance of an emancipation patent does not bar the landowner from retaining the area covered thereby.[33] Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1994[34] provides:

Emancipation patents or certificates of land ownership award issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. This includes cases of lands which are found to be exempted/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 of CARP coverage, or part of the landowner’s retained area. (Emphasis supplied.)

The earlier cases of Locsin, et al. v. Valenzuela, et al. and Quiban v. Butalid, which were cited by the petitioners, did not involve any issue of retention rights of the landowner, and hence, the said cases are not applicable to the case at bar.

Where there is no showing, as in the case at bar, that there was fraud, collusion, arbitrariness, illegality, imposition or mistake on the part of a department head, in rendering his questioned decisions or of a total lack of substantial evidence to support the same, such administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be interfered with.[35]

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The assailed Decision dated December 5, 1996 of the Court of Appeals, in CA G.R. SP No. 37338, upholding the judgment of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform denying the issuance of an emancipation patent to petitioners, is hereby AFFIRMED. With costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.

---

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo G. Montenegro and concurred in by Associate Justices Antonio M. Martinez and Celia Lipana-Reyes, Rollo, pp. 25-34, in CA-G.R. SP No. 37338 entitled “Lucia Mapa Vda. de dela Cruz, Leodivina, Wilma, Darlito, Juanita, Ricardo, Arsenio, Juan and Pacita, all surnamed dela Cruz, petitioners, v. Adjuto Abille, respondents.”

[2] Sixth Division.

[3] Court of Appeals (CA) Rollo, p. 44.

[4] Rollo, pp. 11, 26.

[5] CA Rollo, p. 34.

[6] Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenant from the Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor, signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos on October 21, 1972.

[7] CA Rollo, p. 35.

[8] CA Rollo, p. 44.

[9] CA Rollo, p. 45.

[10] Annex 5, CA Rollo, p. 46.

[11] Annex 6, CA Rollo, p. 47.

[12] Id.

[13] Annex 7, CA Rollo, p. 48.

[14] Annex D, CA Rollo, p. 36.

[15] Annex E, CA Rollo, pp. 37-40.

[16] Annex F, CA Rollo, p. 50.

[17] CA Rollo, p. 25.

[18] CA Rollo, pp. 24-25.

[19] Rollo, p. 34.

[20] CA Rollo, p. 107.

[21] 194 SCRA 194 (1991).

[22] 189 SCRA 107 (1990).

[23] Lease rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer beneficiary after October 21, 1972, shall be considered as advance payment for the land.

[24] Annex F, CA Rollo, p. 49.

[25] Annex G, CA Rollo, p. 51.

[26] Annex A, CA Rollo, p. 23.

[27] Sunset View Condominium Corp. v. NLRC, 228 SCRA 466, 472 (1993), citing Bautista v. Secretary of Labor and Employment , 196 SCRA 470 (1991).

[28] By virtue of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1987, authorizing regional offices to hear/investigate and resolve cases involving land covered by the comprehensive agrarian reform program including those arising from the implementation of Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27 and amendatory and related decrees, letters of instruction, rules and regulations, as well as conflicts of claims in landed estates and resettlement areas and such other lands as have been placed under the administration and disposition of this Department.

[29] Annex 5, CA Rollo, p. 46.

[30] See also DAR Memorandum dated July 10, 1975.

[31] Rollo, pp. 32-33.

[32] Daez v. CA, G.R. No. 133507, Feb. 17, 2000, p. 12.

[33] Id., p. 11.

[34] Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) Due to Unlawful Acts and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) and for other Causes, issued on March 7, 1994.

[35] Pearson, et al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 295 SCRA 27, 48 (1998), citing Lacuesta v. Herrera, 62 SCRA 123, citing Syquio v. Sta. Maria, 55 SCRA 736 and Nera v. Titong Jr., 56 SCRA 40.