SECOND DIVISION
HEIRS OF FRANCISCO R.
TANTOCO, G.R. No. 149621
SR., MARIA R. TANTOCO, ZOSIMO
TANTOCO, MARGARITA R.
TANTOCO,
AND PACITA R. TANTOCO, Petitioners, Present:
PUNO,*
J., Chairperson,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,**
AZCUNA, and
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GARCIA, JJ.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD
(DARAB), AGRARIAN REFORM Promulgated:
BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION OF
CAVITE, REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR May 5, 2006
THE
THE DAR REGION IV DIRECTOR,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
AZCUNA,
J.:
Before this Court is a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the
annulment of the Decision, dated December 15, 2000, and Resolution, dated May
25, 2001, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54970 entitled “Heirs of Francisco
R. Tantoco, Sr. et al., vs. Hon. Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association
of San Francisco, Gen. Trias, Cavite,
et al.”
Petitioners seek the cancellation
of the collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) or TCT No.
CLOA-1424 issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to the Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA) of
The facts[1]
of the case are as follows:
Francisco R. Tantoco,
Sr., Marta R. Tantoco, Zosimo
Tantoco, Margarita R. Tantoco
and Pacita R. Tantoco owned
a vast tract of land with a total land area of 106.5128 hectares in
A portion
of said property consisting of 9.6455 hectares was declared exempt from the
coverage of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, hence the Certificates Land
Transfer (CLTs) that had been previously issued to
several people were cancelled in an Order issued by then Minister of Agrarian
Reform Heherson T. Alvarez.
On
Meanwhile, the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) had been considering the land in question for compulsory
acquisition pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as amended, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988.
On P500,000 per hectare or for a sum of P53,256,400.[2]
According to petitioners, they never heard anything from DAR thereafter.
It was only on P4,826,742.35.
On
In a letter
dated P4,826,742.35 for the subject property be
applied instead to their other irrigated
landholding consisting of 9.25
hectares in Brgy. Pasong Camachile, General Trias,
In view of petitioners’ rejection of
the offer, the DAR, through its Regional Director Percival C. Dalugdug, requested the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) on
July 22, 1993 to open a Trust Account in favor of petitioners for the amount of
FOUR MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX AND SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY-TWO AND
THIRTY-TWO CENTAVOS (P4,826,742.32) representing the assessed value of
the subject property. [5]
A
Certification was subsequently issued by the LBP Bonds Servicing Department on
July 27, 1993 stating that the sum of P4,826,742.35 in cash (P1,834,162.10)
and in bonds (P2,992,580.25) had been “reserved or earmarked” as
compensation for petitioners’ 99.3 hectares of land under the CARP’s VOS scheme.[6] The cash portion of P1,834, 162.10 was
placed with the Trust Department but no
release of payment in cash or in bonds had been effected.[7]
Thereafter, or on
private respondent Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA) of
Upon learning of the cancellation of
their TCT on the above property, petitioners filed an action for Cancellation
of TCT No. CLOA-1424, and the reinstatement of their TCT No. T-402203 before
the Adjudication Board for Region IV of the Department of Agrarian Reform on
Docketed as
DARAB Case No. IV-Ca-003-94, the petition alleged, inter alia,
that the land in question was covered by an ongoing industrial estate
development site per land use plan of the Municipality of General Trias, Cavite; that the land had
been planted with sugar and declared as such for taxation purposes under Tax
Declaration No. 12502-A; that in an Order dated September 1, 1986, of then
Minister of Agrarian Reform Heherson Alvarez, the
same land was declared outside the ambit of PD No. 27; and that the property is
within the portion of Cavite that had been declared
as an industrial zone in the CALABARZON area, hence, the value of real
properties included therein had greatly appreciated.[10]
Petitioners
alleged that as a result of the implementation of the CARL in June of 1988, and
coupled with the knowledge that the area had been declared part of the
industrial zone of Cavite, persons unknown to
petitioners began to claim to be tenants or farmholders
on said land, when in truth and in fact, petitioners never had any tenant or farmworker at any time on their land, and neither did
petitioners give their consent for anyone to farm the same “which is suitable
for sugarcane, residential or industrial purposes and not for rice or corn or other
industrial products.[11]
Petitioners
added that due to the annoying persistence of DAR officials and employees who
kept on coming back to the residence of Francisco R. Tantoco,
Sr., in Quezon City, the latter was constrained to
offer to sell the subject land under the VOS scheme for P5 million originally
per hectare; that, thereafter, petitioners did not receive any reply from DAR,
hence, they paid the real property tax due on the land for 1994 on March 28,
1994; that, afterwards, their title to the land under TCT No. T-402203 dated
Finally,
petitioners claimed that some officials and employees of DAR Region IV, the
MARO of General Trias, Cavite,
the Land Bank of the Philippines, and the Register of Deeds of Cavite, with intent to gain, conspired with other private persons and several
members of ARBA to deprive petitioners of said land or its fair market value or
proceeds thereof, and committed the crime of falsification of public documents
by making it appear that the offer to sell was at P500,000 per hectare
instead of P5,000,000 per hectare; that the value of adjacent lands to
petitioners’ property were disregarded in determining just compensation; that
no notices were received and the alleged
receipts of notice were falsified; that no trust account was ever opened in
favor petitioners and neither payment in
cash or bond was ever made by DAR; that ARBA and its members are not actually
tilling the land for productive farming and have not paid LBP the assigned
valuation of the land; and, that the former are negotiating to sell the land to
land developers and industrial companies, among others, in the hope of making a windfall profit.
Thus, petitioners prayed for the
cancellation of the TCT No. CLOA-1424, and that TCT No-402203 in the name of
petitioners should be reinstated. They likewise prayed for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction to restrain ARBA from negotiating to sell the property
in question to any interested parties.
ARBA, in its Answer, denied the allegations
contained in the petition, maintaining that the farmer beneficiaries listed in
TCT No. CLOA-1424 are qualified beneficiaries as provided for in Section 22 of
RA No. 6657; that due process was observed in the documentation and
processing of the CARP coverage of
subject parcel of land in accordance
with DAR Administrative Orders and that the issuance of TCT No. CLOA-1424 was in
accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6657; and, that the subject property
is classified as agricultural land, hence, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, the land is considered to be within the
coverage of the CARL or R.A. No. 6657.
In its Supplemental Answer of
In addition, ARBA posited that the injunctive
relief prayed for in the petition is unnecessary because the property is
automatically subject to the prohibition against transfer under R.A. No. 6657
which prohibition is indicated in TCT No. CLOA-1424.
Incidentally,
petitioner Francisco R. Tantoco, Sr., died during the
course of the proceedings on
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1)
Declaring the subject property more particularly
described in Paragraph 5 of the Petition as properly covered under the VOS
(Voluntary Offer to Sell) scheme of the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) pursuant to the provisions of RA 6657, as amended,
without prejudice to the exercise by the Petitioners/co-owners of their
respective right of retention upon proper application therefor;
2)
Voiding and annulling TCT No. CLOA-1424 derived from
CLOA (Certificate of Land Ownership Award) No. 00193535 issued and registered
on August 27, 1995 and August 30, 1993, respectively, in the name of the
Respondent ARBA (Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association) and its 53 Farmers-members;
3)
Directing the Respondent Register of Deeds of
a)
effect the immediate cancellation of TCT No. CLOA-1424
mentioned in the preceding paragraph;
b)
revalidate and reinstate TCT No. T-402203 in the joint
names of Petitioners/co-owners, subject to its eventual coverage under CARP
after the Landowners’ retention areas have been properly determined/segregated
and/or expressly waived;
c)
annotate at the back of Petitioners’ title, their
lawyer’s lien thereon equivalent to five percent (5%) of the market value of
the subject property as and by way of an adverse claim.
4)
Directing the local MARO (Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer) of General Trias,
a)
undertake another identification and screening process
and reallocate the remaining CARPable areas to
patented qualified ARBs
(Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries) in the area;
b)
generate individual CLOAS (Certificate of Land Ownership Awards) in favor
of such identified ARBs.
5) Denying
all other claims for lack of basis;
6) Without
pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.[14]
From the aforestated
decision, petitioners and respondent ARBA separately appealed to the DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB) in
The issues were summarized by DARAB as follows:
“1. Whether or not the property co-owned by
Petitioners under Title No. T-33404 located at San Francisco, General Trias, Cavite with an original
area of 106.5128 hectares was properly subjected to CARP coverage pursuant to
the provisions of RA 6657, as amended, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL);
2.
In the affirmative, whether or not fatal infirmities or
irregularities were committed in the valuation of the subject property and its
subsequent titling and award in favor of Respondent ARBA;
3.
Whether or not the Petitioners are entitled to the
ancillary remedy of injunction and other specific reliefs
sought viz: cancellation of TCT No. CLOA-1424 registered
in the name of Respondent ARBA on August 30, 1993 and reinstatement of TCT No.
402203 in favor of Petitioners; [and,]
4.
Whether or not the Petitioners and private
Respondent ARBA are entitled to their
separate claims for damages and attorney’s fees.”[15]
In resolving the controversy, DARAB
condensed the issues posed by the respective parties by addressing the
question: Can a Collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award validly
issued pursuant to a Voluntary Offer to Sell scheme acquisition of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) be cancelled on the petition of
the former owner on the mere suspicion that some of the names listed therein
are not really qualified farmer-beneficiaries?[16]
On
“WHEREFORE, premises considered,
judgment is hereby rendered:
1)
Affirming paragraphs 1, 5, and 6 (Nos. 1, 5 and 6) of
the dispositive portion of the decision dated
2)
Reversing paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 4 thereof;
3)
Affirming the validity, legality and efficacy of TCT-
CLOA No. 1424 issued to Respondent Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association of
San Francisco, Gen. Trias,
SO
ORDERED.”[17]
Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration which was denied
by DARAB for lack of merit in a Resolution, dated
Claiming that respondent DARAB acted
with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the aforementioned decision and
resolution, petitioners appealed the same to the Court of Appeals.
On
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED
and is accordingly DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”[19]
Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration
was likewise denied by the Court of Appeals in a resolution dated
Hence, this petition assigning the
following errors:
I
RESPONDENT
COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RENDERED THE QUESTIONED DECISION DATED DECEMBER 15,
2000, IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF LAW AND UNDISPUTED FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE
REGIONAL ADJUDICATOR IN HER DECISION DATED JUNE 17, 1997.
II
RESPONDENT
COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL ADJUDICATOR A
QUO DECLARING ALL PROCEEDINGS BY DAR VOID FOR FAILURE TO OBSERVE DUE PROCESS
CONSIDERING THAT RESPONDENTS BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE PROCEDURE FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE LANDS UNDER R.A. 6657, MORE PARTICULARLY, IN GIVING DUE
NOTICE TO THE PETITONERS AND TO PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC AREAS FOR EACH
LISTED FARMERS-BENEFICIARIES OF RESPONDENT ARBA.
III
RESPONDENT
COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT PETITIONERS WERE BRAZENLY
AND ILLEGALLY DEPRIVED OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, CONSIDERING
THAT PETITIONERS WERE NOT PAID JUST COMPENSATION BEFORE THEY WERE UNCEREMONIOUSLY
STRIPPED OF THEIR LANDHOLDING THROUGH THE DIRECT ISSUANCE OF TCT NO. CLOA -1424
TO RESPONDENT ARBA IN GROSS VIOLATION OF R.A. 6657.
IV
RESPONDENT
COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RENDERED ITS QUESTIONED RESOLUTION DATED MAY 25,
2001, DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACTUAL
FINDINGS OF FACTS ON RECORD AND OF JURISPRUDENCE LAID DOWN BY THIS HONORABLE
SUPREME COURT IN G.R. NO. 127876 ENTITLED “ROXAS & CO., INC. VS. HON. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.” PROMULGATED ON
In
sum, the principal issue to be resolved is whether or not the CLOA that had
been issued by the DAR to ARBA may be cancelled based on the following grounds:
1.
The land in question is exempt from the coverage of
CARP by reason of its inclusion in the industrial zone of CALABARZON;
2. The DAR failed to conform strictly to the procedure for the acquisition of private agricultural lands laid down in RA 6657, hence, violating due process and consequently denying petitioners just compensation;
3.
ARBA and all its members have not paid the
amortizations for the landholdings awarded to them as required under RA 6657
and DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1993;
4.
All 53 members of ARBA manifested their intent to
negotiate for payment of disturbance compensation in exchange for the voluntary
surrender of their rights over the awarded property which is a prohibited
transaction under Section 73 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, and in gross violation
of DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994; and,
5.
The ARBs did not cultivate
the awarded property to make it productive in violation of Section 22[22]
of the Act.
At the
outset, petitioners claim that the subject property had been classified to be
within the industrial zone of General Trias,
On this,
the Court accords respect to the findings of the Regional Adjudicator who has the
primary jurisdiction and competence to establish the agricultural character of
the land in question which is properly within the coverage of CARP, thus:
“Even
the petitioners’ own evidence serves to buttress and affirm the inherent nature
and character of the subject property as an agricultural land…. The same ha[d]
been previously devoted to sugarcane production but at the time it was
considered for acquisition by the DAR under the VOS scheme, it was found to be
planted to various crops such as rice, corn and camote…. Petitioner Francisco R. Tantoco,
Sr. himself in his letter of intent
dated
x x x
“… The
inarguable [sic] fact remains that independent of such choice by the
petitioners to voluntarily offer the subject property, the same would still be
under the CARL which allows landowners a retention limit of only five (5)
hectares and an additional three (3) hectares for each qualified child who at
the time of the effectivity of the law is: 1) at
least 15 years of age; and, 2) actually tilling the land or directly managing
the farm.”[25]
As pointed
out, the property in question can be properly subjected to CARP. It was not
re-classified nor converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use with the
approval of the HLURB prior to the effectivity of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) on
Having
established that the land in question can be properly subjected to CARP, the
next question is whether the DAR officials, in acquiring said property,
performed their functions properly and strictly in accordance with the law.
A perusal of the records reveal that the
DAR officials or its employees failed to comply strictly with the guidelines
and operating procedures provided by law in acquiring the property subject to
CARP.
Firstly, there were certain inconsistencies
in the manner of selection by the DAR of the CARP beneficiaries who are members
of ARBA. As found by the Regional Adjudicator:
“As to the screening and identification of qualified potential CARP [b]eneficiaries, DAR field personnel are presumed to be properly guided by existing law and implementing rules and regulations (Vide, Section 22 of R.A. 6657, as amended; DAR Administrative Order No. 10, series of 1990). Redistribution of CARPable lands to the intended [b]eneficiaries may be done collectively or individually, whatever is economically feasible. In the instant case, however, all the 42 ARBs (Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries)/Applicants opted for individual ownership and the corresponding VOCF (Voluntary Offer Claim Folder) apparently processed as such (Vide, Exhibits “26 UU” to “26 DDD”). But surprisingly, in some inexplicable manner, the assailed CLOA (Certificate of Land Ownership Award) that was finally generated turned out to be collective in favor of the [r]espondent ARBA which failed to show notwithstanding the assurances of its counsel (Vide, TSN, Hearing of February 23, 1995, pp. 18-19) that it is duly registered with the appropriate government and non-government agencies. Moreover, the collective title suddenly sprouted 53 names when only 43 duly applied as [p]otential CARP [b]eneficiaries (Vide, CARP Form No. 3; Exhibits 26 EEE” to “26–UUU”; Exhibits “V-57” to “V-99.” What is even more mysterious is that among the 53 ARBs listed in the aforementioned CLOA, only 29 accomplished the required application forms and 30 signed the corresponding APFUS. There is thus no basis for the MARO Certification of August 19, 1993 declaring all the 53 named FBs therein as having met all the qualifications for Potential Beneficiaries under Section 22 of RA 6657 (Vide, Exhibits “27” to “27-F”). Such unfounded action by the said official can only be described as whimsical and capricious. A re-screening is therefore imperative in order to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice especially on the part of those who applied and were excluded in the final award for no apparent reason at all. Upon the other hand, the MARO Claim Folder Transmittal Memo to the PARO dated May 15, 1991 carried a total of 42 signatories in the corresponding Application to Purchase and Farmers Undertaking (Vide, CARP Form No. 4, Exhibits “26-UU” to “26-DD”, Exhibits “V-47” to “V-56” inclusive). When called to the witness stand, the local MARO and PARO could not adequately explain or justify the existence of such discrepancies (Vide, TSN Hearing of February 23, 1995 pp. 62-64; 89-92) which can only give rise to the speculation that verification and validation was done arbitrarily or in a haphazard manner. In thus committing a substantial deviation from the procedural mandate of the law Respondent DAR official in effect tolerated the insidious actuations of his subordinates who acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The resultant CLOA therefore and its derivative TCT is fatally flawed for having been issued without jurisdiction. The same does not even reflect the fractional share of each ARB as required in DAR Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1993.[26]
Secondly, the TCT No. CLOA-1424 was directly issued by the DAR in the
name of ARBA without: (a) payment of just compensation; and, (b) initial
transfer of title to the land in the name of the Republic of the
“(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 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. (Emphasis
supplied) The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land
to the qualified beneficiaries.”
As already mentioned, the DAR
immediately issued the CLOA to ARBA without first registering the property with
the Registry of Deeds in favor of the Philippine Government. This
administrative irregularity was made even worse by the fact that petitioners
were not given just compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite before
the property can be taken away from its owners.
The case of
Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[27]
illustrates that a transfer of ownership over a property within the
coverage of CARP can only be effected when just compensation has been given to
the owners, thus:
“Respondent
DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to farmer beneficiaries over portions of
petitioners’ land without just compensation to petitioner. A Certificate of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary
under R.A. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Law of 1988. Before this may be
awarded to a farmer beneficiary, the land must first be acquired by the State
from the landowner and ownership transferred to the former. The transfer of
possession and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned upon the
receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by DAR
of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the
landowner. There was no receipt by petitioner of any compensation for any of
the lands acquired by the government.”
In the instant case, the
Notice of Land Valuation that was sent by the DAR to petitioners on P4,826,742.35 based on the valuation made by the LBP. Said
amount was rejected by petitioners, prompting the DAR to open a Trust Account
in the aforestated amount with the LBP in favor of
petitioners. Pursuant to this, the LBP certified that the amount of P4,826,742.35
had been “reserved/earmarked” to cover the value of the subject property. This,
however, did not operate to effect payment for petitioners’ property in
question as the law requires payment of just compensation in cash or Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) bonds, not by trust account.[28]
This is in
line with the pronouncement made by this Court in the case of Land Bank of
the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[29]
wherein it upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals in “ordering the LBP to
immediately deposit – not merely ‘earmark,’ ‘reserve’ or ‘deposit in trust’ –
with an accessible bank designated by respondent DAR in the names of the
following petitioners the following amounts in cash and in government financial
instruments….”[30]
A similar ruling was articulated by the Court in
the aforementioned case of Roxas v. Court
of Appeals,[31]
to wit:
The
kind of compensation to be paid the landowner is also specific. The law
provides that the deposit must be made only in “cash” or “LBP” bonds.
Respondent DAR’s opening of trust account deposits in
petitioner’s name with the Land Bank of the
In the
implementation of the CARP, the Special Agrarian Courts which are the
Regional Trial Courts, are given original and exclusive jurisdiction over two
categories of cases, to wit: (1) all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners; and, (2) the prosecution of all criminal offenses
under R.A. No. 6657.[32]
What agrarian adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a
preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to the landowners,
leaving to the courts the ultimate power to decide the question.[33]
The New Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, which was adopted on
Section 11. Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. -- The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination and payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.
The procedure
for the determination of the compensation for the landowners under the land
reform program was likewise outlined by this Court in Republic v. Court of
Appeals:[34]
“Thus,
under the law, the Land Bank of the
Also, Section
17 of R.A. No. 6657 provides guidance on land valuation, to wit:
“Section
17. Determination of Just
Compensation – In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of
the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and
income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and assessments
made by the government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic
benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers
and by the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or
loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall
be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.”
Simply put,
just compensation is the fair market value or the price which a buyer will pay
without coercion and a seller will accept without compulsion.[37]
Evidently, the law recognizes that the land’s exact value, or the just
compensation to be given the landowner, cannot just be assumed; it must be
determined with certainty before the land titles are transferred.[38]
Expropriation of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 take place, not on the effectivity of the Act on
The
determination of just compensation under Section 16(d)[39]
of R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law, is not final or conclusive -- unless both the
landowner and the tenant-farmer accept the valuation of the property by the
DAR, and the parties may bring the dispute to court in order to determine the
appropriate amount of compensation, a task unmistakably within the prerogative
of the court.[40]
Hence,
petitioners’ recourse in this case is to bring the matter to the Regional Trial
Court acting as a
As to the other grounds posited by petitioners for the
cancellation of the CLOA issued to ARBA, Section IV-B of DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of
1994 enumerates some of the grounds for the cancellation of registered CLOAs, namely:
1) Misuse or
diversion of financial support services extended to the ARBs
(Section 37 of R.A. No. 6657);
2) Misuse of the land (Section 22 of R.A. No.
6657);
3) Material
misrepresentation of the ARBs basic qualification as
provided under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other agrarian
laws;
4) Illegal conversion by the ARB (Section
73, Paragraph C and E of R.A. No. 6657);
5) Sale,
transfer, lease or other form 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 (Section 6 of E.O. No. 228);
6) Default in the obligation to pay an
aggregate of three (3) consecutive amortization
in case of voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme, except in
cases of fortuitous events and force majeure (Section
26 of R.A. No. 6657);
7) Failure of the ARBs
to pay at least three (3) annual amortization to the LBP, except in cases of
fortuitous events and force majeure; (Section 26 of
R.A. No. 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 representatives (Section
22 of R.A. No. 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.”
Petitioners ascribe
the specific prohibited acts stated in Nos.
5, 7 and 8 of the above Administrative Order to ARBA and its
member-beneficiaries which the Regional Adjudicator confirmed, thus:
“What is worse is that except for
certain sporadic plantings, the land has been generally left to lie fallow and
uncultivated even with the award of the CLOA in Respondent ARBA’s
favor as revealed by the ocular inspection conducted on
Based on the above, it is clear
that the ARBA and its members have committed acts to justify the revocation of
the collective CLOA that had been issued by the DAR to the latter. The doctrine
of primary jurisdiction, however, does not warrant a court to arrogate unto
itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is
initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[44]
The failure of the DAR to comply with
the requisites prescribed by law in the acquisition proceedings does not give
this Court the power to nullify the CLOA that had been issued to ARBA. To
assume the power is to short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet
to run its regular course. DAR must be given a chance to correct its
administrative and procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings.[45]
It is also worth noting at this
juncture that the resolution of this case by the Department of Agrarian Reform
is to the best advantage of petitioners since it is in a better position to
resolve agrarian disputes, being the administrative agency possessing the
necessary expertise on the matter and vested with primary jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform controversies. Further, the
proceedings therein are summary and the department is not bound by technical
rules of procedure and evidence, to the end that agrarian reform disputes and
other issues will be adjudicated in a just, expeditious and inexpensive action
or proceeding.[46]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
petition is GRANTED and the Decision dated
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
(On Leave)
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
Acting
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Acting Chairperson’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
* On Leave.
** Acting Chairperson.
[1] Rollo, pp. 46-53; CA Rollo, pp.
43-55.
[2] Rollo, p. 165; CA Rollo, p. 138.
[3]
[4] Exhibit
“J” of Petition, Rollo, p. 118.
[5] Exhibit
“K” of Petition, Rollo, p 120; CA Rollo,
p. 140.
[6] Exhibit
“M” of Petition Rollo, p.122.
[7] Exhibit
“P” of Petition, Rollo, p. 125.
[8] Exhibit
“O” of Petition, Rollo, p. 124.
[9] CA
Rollo, pp. 310-346.
[10]
[11] CA
Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[12]
[13] Francisco
H. Tantoco, Sr. was duly substituted by his surviving
heirs as petitioners, namely, Gracia Guzman Tantoco, Msgr. Francisco
G. Tantoco, Jr., Alfredo Victor G. Tantoco, Jose Maria G. Tantoco,
Antonio Angel G. Tantoco, Teodoro
Juan G. Tantoco, Gracia
Marie T. Trinidad and the children of the late Cynthia T. Medina per Order dated September 29, 1995, Rollo, Annex “G” of Petition.
[14] CA
Rollo, pp. 370-372.
[15]
[16] CA
Rollo, p. 43.
[17]
[18]
[19] Rollo, p. 63.
[20]
[21] Rollo, pp. 20-21.
[22] Section
22 of R.A. No. 6657 states: “…A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be
his willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as
productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the
record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of
negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit
his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the
performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC.” (Emphasis supplied)
[23] Lands
already classified and identified as commercial, industrial or residential
before
[24] CA
Rollo, pp. 359-362.
[25]
[26] CA
Rollo, pp. 366-367.
[27] G.R.
No. 127876.
[28] Sta.
Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112526,
October 12, 2001, 367 SCRA 175.
[29] G.R.
No. 118712,
[30] The
transitory provisions of the DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1996,
however, provides: “All trust accounts issued pursuant to Administrative Order
No. 1, S. 1993 covering landholdings not yet transferred in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines as of July 5, 1996 shall immediately be converted
to deposit accounts in the name of the landowners concerned x x x.”
[31] Supra,
note 27.
[32] Republic
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122256, October 30, 1996, 263 SCRA 758; Escaño, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101932,
January 24, 2000, 323 SCRA 63.
[33] Republic
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122256,
[34] G.R.
No. 122256,
[35] Sec.
1, E.O. No. 405,
[36] Sec.
15(d), R.A. No. 6657.
[37] DAR
Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 1998, Section 1-C.
[38]
[39] Section
16(d) of R.A. No. 6657 states: “In case of rejection or failure to reply, the
DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the
compensation for the land by 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 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.”
[40] Sigre v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 109568,
[41] National
Power Corp. v. Court of Appeals, No. L-56378,
[42] CA
Rollo, pp. 384-390.
[43]
[44] First
Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 117680, February 9, 1996, 253 SCRA 552, 558; Machete v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 109093, November 20, 1995, 250 SCRA 176, 182; Vidad
v. Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 42,
G.R. No. 98084, October 18, 1993, 227
SCRA 271, 276.
[45] Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra.
[46] Quismundo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
95664,