NICANOR T. SANTOS G.R.
No. 159654
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairman,
CARPIO,
- versus - CARPIO-MORALES, and
TINGA, JJ.
HON.
SECRETARY, DEPART- Promulgated:
MENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
DAR
ADJUDICATION BOARD February 28, 2006
&
MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN
REFORM
OFFICE (ANDREA F.
DALMACIO),
TUBA, BENGUET,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal by
certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the
reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision
in CA-G.R. SP No. 69267[1] which
dismissed for lack of merit the petition for mandamus filed by herein
petitioner Nicanor T. Santos Development Corporation against respondent
officials of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
The following factual antecedents are
matters of record.
Petitioner Nicanor T. Santos
Development Corporation is a domestic corporation which owns a large tract of
land known as the Santos Farm situated in
On June 22, 1992, Leo A. Salinas, then
the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Tuba, Benguet informed
petitioner through its counsel that a portion measuring 14 hectares of the
Santos Farm would be placed under the coverage of the comprehensive agrarian
reform program (CARP) for acquisition and distribution to prospective
beneficiaries.[2]
In
response to a letter from petitioner requesting exemption of the Santos Farm
from the coverage of the CARP, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution
(BALA) Director endorsed the matter to the DAR Regional Director for
investigation and report on
On
Petitioner
also wrote the DAR Secretary on
On
Instead,
petitioner filed a Protest on
Petitioner
also filed a Complaint dated
Aggrieved,
petitioner instituted a Petition for
Mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel the DAR, DARAB, and MARO to
act on its petition for exemption of the Santos Farm from the CARP coverage. The
Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision
on
Hence,
the present recourse imputing errors to the Court of Appeals quoted below:
I. The
Court of Appeals erred in finding that the petition for mandamus is not proper
for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.
II. The
Court of Appeals erred when it did not consider as null and void the notice of
coverage and subsequent acts of the DAR officials for failure to meet the
requirements under the administrative rules and regulations prescribing the
procedure for acquisition of private lands under the compulsory scheme of R.A. 6657
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program) is mandatory.[12]
The
assigned errors involve only the issue of whether or not the petition for
mandamus filed by petitioner with the Court of Appeals is proper in view of the
appellate court’s conclusion that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative
remedies.
Petitioner
insists that immediate judicial intervention is necessary in view of the
inaction on the part of the DAR officials despite several follow-ups in respect
to its petition for exemption. According to petitioner, as early as 1992, it
had already applied for exemption of the Santos Farm from CARP coverage.
Petitioner attached copies of endorsement letters from the DAR Secretary and
the BALA Director to prove that its application for exemption had been pending
as early as 1992.
The
records of the case, however, do not indicate that petitioner complied with the
administrative procedure for the application for exemption. Under Administrative
Order No. 13, series of 1990,[13]
the application must be initiated before the MARO by submitting ownership
documents and other muniments of title and other evidence to support the
application. The endorsement letters from the DAR Secretary and the BALA
Director only indicate that petitioner’s application for exemption was
channeled to the wrong offices. Hence, the application was referred to the DAR
Regional Director. The records do not show, however, that after the endorsement
letters came out, petitioner pursued its application with the proper DAR
office. Besides, the endorsement to the appropriate DAR office did not relieve
petitioner of its duty to initiate the proper formal application for exemption.
At the
time respondent MARO sent petitioner a Notice
of Coverage on
the
protest for the lifting of a Notice of
Coverage, the form of the protest, and the recourse a party may avail in
case of an adverse decision.[17]
The
records of the case, however, show that petitioner did not pursue its protest
in the manner required by the applicable administrative orders despite the advice
of the DAR Regional Director. Instead,
petitioner lodged its protest with the DAR Secretary and a complaint with the DARAB.
Undeniably, these remedies were not prescribed by the applicable administrative
orders. The letter dated
documentary
evidence as required by the A.O. More importantly, they were not filed with the
proper office.
As a
general rule, before a party may be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of the
courts of justice, he is expected to have exhausted all means of
administrative redress.[18] In
the instant case, it is beyond
dispute
that petitioner failed to resort to proper administrative recourse in resisting
the Notice of Coverage issued
by respondent MARO. Unsuccessful in its attempt to oppose the Notice of Coverage when it lodged its
protest with the incorrect administrative offices, petitioner resorted to a judicial
remedy. The petition for mandamus, which it filed, however, was correctly
denied by the Court of Appeals. Truly, a petition for mandamus is premature if
there are administrative remedies available to petitioner.[19]
It is
settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a
ministerial duty, this being its main objective. It does not lie to require
anyone to fulfill a discretionary duty. It is essential to the issuance of a
writ of mandamus that petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing
demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the
act required. It never issues in doubtful cases. While it may not be necessary that the
duty be absolutely expressed, it must
nevertheless
be clear. The writ will not issue to compel an
official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to
do, or give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. The
writ neither confers powers nor imposes duties. It is simply a command to
exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.[20]
Petitioner
anchors the instant petition on the exceptions to the rule on exhausting
administrative remedies. It is true that there are instances when judicial
action may be resorted to immediately. Among these exceptions are: (1) when the
question raised is purely legal; (2) when the administrative body is in
estoppel; (3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; (4) when there is
urgent need for judicial intervention; (5) when the respondent acted in
disregard of due process; (6) when the respondent is a department secretary
whose acts, as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed
approval of the latter; (7) when irreparable damage will be suffered; (8) when
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (9) when strong public
interest is involved; (10) when the subject of the controversy is private land;
and (11) in quo warranto proceedings.[21]
Specifically,
petitioner contends that it has no plain, adequate and speedy remedy except to
file the petition for mandamus. According to petitioner,
the PARO should
not have dismissed
its
Complaint
dated
The
Court is not persuaded. The Court cannot sanction petitioner’s trivial regard
of procedural rules. Rules of procedure may be relaxed if their strict
enforcement will bring about failure of justice. However, this principle does
not apply when it will allow petitioner to benefit from its unjustified
violations of procedural rules.
Petitioner
also would have the Court nullify the Notice
of Coverage on the ground that the same was issued without complying
with the procedural requirements under DAR A.O. No. 12, series of 1989, and its
subsequent amendments, namely, A.O. No. 9, series of 1990, and DAR A.O. No. 1,
series of 1993. These AOs outline the procedural steps to be undertaken before such
notice of coverage may issue.
Suffice
it to say that a petition for mandamus is not the proper remedy to assail the Notice of Coverage. The
administrative rules of the DAR also provide for the appellate procedure to
contest decisions and issuances of the MARO. The mandatory recourse to the
administrative appeals process before any judicial remedy is invoked likewise falls
within the ambit of the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
WHEREFORE,
the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED and the Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69267 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by J. Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
and concurred in by JJ. Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, Chairman, and
Regalado E. Maambong; rollo, pp. 58-69.
[13]IV. OPERATING PROCEDURES
A. MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN
REFORM OFFICER (MARO)
1. On his own initiative
or upon representations by farmers/occupants, take initial steps to cover an
area under CARP, particularly by issuing a Notice of Coverage (Ex-Form No. 1)
to the owner or administrator of the property informing him that the area has been
suitable for CARP coverage.
2. Accept written
application (Ex-Form No. 2). Said application shall be accompanied by the
following:
- ownership documents
and other muniments of title
- evidence to support
application and convince DAR that the area qualifies for exemption under
Section 10, RA 6657 such as: copy of proclamation, topographic map, sketch map,
area development plan, affidavit, certification from relevant government
agency, etc.
3. Upon receipt of the
application, conduct with the assistance of the BARC an investigation of the
land to determine, among others, the ownership, legal status, and type and area
of the land sought to be exempted (Ex-Form No. 3).
4. Ascertain whether or
not the land is actually, directly and exclusively used and necessary for the
purpose stated in the application.
5. Prepare Report of
findings and recommendations (Ex-Form No. 3).
6. Compile all relevant
documents to form the Application for Land Exemption Folder (ALEF); and
7. Transmit the ALEF to
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (Ex-Form No. 4).
8. Perform the duties
and functions enumerated above within 30 days from receipt of the application.
B. PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN
REFORM OFFICER (PARO)
1. Review and evaluate
the ALEF and indicate his comments, findings and recommendations;
2. If ALEF documentation
is found in order, forward the same to the Regional Director; otherwise return
the ALEF to MARO for further action (Ex-Form No. 4); and
3. Perform the duties
and functions enumerated above within ten (10) working days from receipt of the
ALEF from the MARO.
C. REGIONAL DIRECTOR
(RD)
1. Approve or disapprove
applications for exemption from CARP coverage of lands five (5) hectares and
below.
2. Upon his approval,
furnish a copy of the Certificate of Exemption to the Undersecretaries for
Field Operations and Legal Affairs, Management Information Service (MIS),
Office of the Secretary (attention: BALA), and the PARO concerned.
3. For lands exceeding
five (5) hectares, evaluate the report and recommendation of the PARO and MARO
and forward the ALEF to the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) together
with his own recommendation.
4. Perform the duties
and functions enumerated above within ten (10) working days from receipt of the
ALEF from the PARO.
D. BUREAU OF AGRARIAN
LEGAL ASSISTANCE (BALA)
1. Review the ALEF and,
if warranted, prepare the Certificate of Exemption. If the application is for
disapproval, prepare the directive to the PARO to cause the coverage of the
land under CARP, subject to the guidelines on land acquisition and
distribution.
2. Forward to the
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs the pertinent documents for his appropriate
action.
3. Perform the duties
and functions enumerated above within 10 days from receipt of the ALEF from the
Regional Director.
4. Upon receipt of the
signed documents approving or disapproving the application for exemption,
furnish a copy of the same to the Undersecretary for Field Operations, MIS,
Regional Director, and PARO.
E. UNDERSECRETARY FOR
LEGAL AFFAIRS
1. Review all ALEF’s
from BALA and approve or disapprove applications for exemption of lands not
exceeding fifty (50) hectares.
2. For applications
covering areas exceeding fifty (50) hectares, forward the ALEF to the Office of
the Secretary, indicating his recommendation thereon.
3. Perform the duties
and functions enumerated above within 10 working days from receipt of the ALEF
from the BALA.
F. OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY
The Secretary shall
approve or disapprove applications for exemption from CARP coverage for lands
exceeding fifty (50) hectares.
[14]Entitled “Authorizing All Regional
Directors (RDs) to Hear and Decide All Protests Involving Coverage Under R.A.
No. 6657 or P.D. No. 27 and Defining the Appeal Process From the RDs to the
Secretary.” Issued on
[15]Entitled “Rules of Procedure for Agrarian
Law Implementation (ALI) Cases.” Issued on august 30, 2000.
[17]SEC. 12. Commencement of Actions-
All applications, petitions or complaints involving ALI cases shall be in
writing and under oath following the prescribed form, if any, and filed by the
affected party or his duly authorized representative before the office
designated to receive the same in accordance with applicable rules and
regulations. The documentary evidence required or relevant to the resolution of
the action shall be simultaneously filed with the petition or application.
SEC. 13. Period to File Actions –
Petitions for lifting of notice of coverage shall be filed within thirty (30)
days from receipt of the Notice of Coverage by the affected party. xxx Failure
by the affected party to file the protest or petition within the thirty
(30)-day period shall be deemed a waiver of his right thereto. If the action is
filed after the expiration of the thirty (30)-day period, the protest or
petition shall no longer be entertained or shall be summarily dismissed by the
MARO or the PARO except in the following instances: xxx
[19]Gualberto Castro v. Ricardo Gloria, 415
Phil. 645 (2001).
[21]Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, supra note 18 at 10.