|
ISABELITA
vda. DE DAYAO and HEIRS OF VICENTE DAYAO, Petitioners, - versus - HEIRS OF GAVINO ROBLES, namely PLACIDA vda. DE
ROBLES, TEODORA ROBLES MENDOZA, CRISPINA ROBLES-ABAGAT, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 174830
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio Morales, CHICO-NAZARIO,* NACHURA,** and LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,*** JJ. Promulgated: July 31, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari
seeking the reversal of the Decision[1] dated
The pertinent facts, culled from the records, are as follows:
Anacleto Dayao was the owner of parcels of land
located in Paombong, Hagonoy and Malolos, in the
On
|
IV.
TENANTED RICE AND/OR |
|||
|
OCT/TCT/TD No. |
NAME OF TENANT-FARMER |
LOCATION OF FARMHOLDINGS |
AREA (in
hectares) |
|
TCT No.18548 |
Juan
Alcoriza, Policarpio Alcoriza & Victorino Teodoro |
Dakila,
Malolos, Bulacan |
3.5001 |
|
CT No.
38 |
Perlito
Santos |
Kapitangan,
Paombong, [Bulacan] |
1.1000 |
|
TD No.
2762 |
Jose
Santiago |
San
Sebastian, [Hagonoy], [Bulacan] |
.4252 |
|
TD No.
2761 |
Jose
Santiago |
|
.9000 |
|
TD No.
2529 |
Gavino
Robles |
Sta.
Elena, Hagonoy, [Bulacan] |
.8425[8] |
Twenty years later or on
The DAR Order granting Vicente’s application for retention states:
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, ORDER is hereby issued:
1.
GRANTING the
Application for retention filed by the Heirs of Vicente O. Dayao, namely:
Basilia D. Tiongson, Delfin O. Dayao, Mario O. Dayao, and Teresa D. Contreras,
with respect to their father’s share more specifically described as:
TD No. LOCATION AREA
6341 Dakila, Malolos, Bulacan
3.5001 hectares
2529
661 Iba, Hagonoy, Bulacan .3828 hectares
TOTAL: 5.1[65]8 hectares
which shall be divided
among the aforementioned Heirs to the extent of their legal shares;
2. GRANTING the retention right of Isabelita O.
Dayao with respect to her own share, more specifically described as:
TD
No. LOCATION AREA
4389 Kapitangan,
Paombong, Bulacan 1.0923 hectares
8482 Sta. Elena, Hagonoy, Bulacan .8925 hectares
7353
7374
662 Iba, Hagonoy, Bulacan 1.2410 hectares
TOTAL: 4.6266 hectares
3. CANCELLING the CLTs issued to the tenants in
the retained area, and in lieu thereof, directing the MARO concerned to assist
the tenants in the execution of leasehold contracts with the landowners over
their respective tillages; and
4. ORDERING
the applicants to accordingly respect the security of tenure of their
tenants/lessees, and to leave them in their peaceful cultivation of the land.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Gavino
Robles, one of the tenant-farmers of the parcels of land which Vicente had applied
for, appealed the order granting Vicente’s application for retention.
On
WHEREFORE, [i]n [v]iew of [a]ll the [a]bove, Order is hereby
issued denying the instant appeal for utter lack of merit and affirming the
Order of DARRO, Region III dated 16 October 1996. The MARO of Hagonoy, Bulacan is hereby
ordered to assist herein movant-appellant to execute a leasehold contract with
the owner of the land at Sta. Elena, Hagonoy, Bulacan upon sufficient proof
from movant-appellant Gavino Robles that he is actually tenanting therein. Likewise, the PARO of Bulacan is hereby
ordered to initiate with the DARAB for the cancellation of any registered CLT
or EP generated or issued in favor of movant-appellant Gavino Robles over that
property at
SO ORDERED.[12]
Gavino
filed a motion for reconsideration of the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment appealed from is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.[13]
Gavino subsequently filed a petition for review before the Court of
Appeals.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the
petition for review and accordingly REVERSE and SET ASIDE the
Order dated
SO ORDERED.[14]
Petitioners herein Isabelita Dayao and the Heirs of Vicente Dayao filed a
motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals but it was denied in a Resolution
dated September 22, 2006.
Hence, the instant petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners raise the following issue for our resolution:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN
IT FAILED TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF PD 27 AND RELATED LAWS ON RETENTION RIGHTS
OF LANDOWNERS, VICENTE DAYAO AND ISABELITA DAYAO, THEREBY DENYING THE
PETITIONERS OF THEIR GUARANTEED RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW.[15]
The sole issue is: Did the Court
of Appeals err when it reversed the orders of the DAR and the Office of the
President granting petitioners’ application for retention?
At the onset, factual findings of administrative agencies charged with a
specific field of expertise are afforded great weight and respect by the
courts, and are generally binding and final so long as they are supported by
substantial evidence found in the records of the case. However, when these administrative bodies
base their conclusions on surmises, speculations or conjectures or when they
disregard or grossly misappreciate the evidence presented, we are permitted to
set aside their findings and make our own assessment of the submitted evidence.
Settled is the rule that factual questions are not the proper subject of
an appeal by certiorari, as a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited only
to questions of law. Moreover, it is settled
doctrine that the “errors” which may be reviewed by this Court in a petition
for certiorari are those of the Court of Appeals, and not directly those of the
trial court or the quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, or officer which rendered
the decision in the first instance. Finally,
it is settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally
accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported
by substantial evidence. The factual
findings of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who has acquired expertise in
specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without
justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed.[16]
Also well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of
facts. When supported by substantial
evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and
binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case
falls under any of the following recognized exceptions:
(1) When the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and
conjectures;
(2) When the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) Where
there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) When the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) When the
findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the
Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case
and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) When the
findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
(8) When the
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based;
(9) When the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners’ main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and
(10) When the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence
of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. [17]
We find that this case falls under the exceptions, since the findings of
fact of the DAR are contrary to that of the Court of Appeals warranting review
by this Court.
Accordingly, we shall now focus on the findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals, which categorically held as follows:
One of the earliest issues
that the petitioners’ predecessor – Gavino Robles – raised was the question of
who applied for retention. Gavino
pointed to… – the Small Landowner’s Undertaking, Application for Retention and
Affidavit – that Vicente filed on January 31, 1976 to claim that Vicente was
the sole applicant. Isabelita’s name
surfaced in the records of the case only through an Extrajudicial Settlement
that Vicente filed in 1981 showing how he and his sister Isabelita were
dividing up the estate of their deceased father (and presumably of their mother
We find from our review
that the above ruling is not supported by the records before us. The petition’s Annex “A”, to be sure,
contains no indication that there is an applicant other than Vicente. Our examination of the records in fact shows
that Vicente categorically claimed ownership of the lands he listed, with the
qualification that “All the mentioned properties with the exception of TCT No.
T-51369 are still in the names of the former owners”. It likewise significantly appears that he
only included his share of the Minalin, Pampanga ricelands (with areas of
2.3030 and 3.6998 respectively out of the total 24 hectares that had been
placed under OLT) in his sworn declaration.
This, in our view, confirms that he filed the application only in his
own behalf.
We likewise examined the
1981 extrajudicial settlement, copy of which was attached as Annex “1” to the
respondents’ comment to the petition.
While this notarized deed did mention Vicente was the “representative of
my co-owner Isabelita Dayao”, there was no mention that Isabelita was joining
him as applicant for retention or that the deed was submitted for purposes of
their application for retention. Thus,
it requires a good stretch of the imagination to say – as the DAR did – that
Isabelita had joined Vicente in the latter’s application for retention.
x x x
x
We disagree with the DAR
and the OP’s conclusions as we believe that Vicente failed to comply with the
requirements for retention. He is not
entitled to retention because he failed to list all his properties in his
application and in the 1981 extrajudicial settlement he subsequently
submitted. We base this conclusion on
our reading that the legal significance and materiality of Gavino’s
submissions, consisting of the 1959 extrajudicial settlement and the various
certifications issued by the Municipal Assessors of the different cities and
municipalities of Bulacan, cannot be ignored and should have been properly
appreciated and given due weight by the DAR and by the Office of the President.
The 1959 extrajudicial
settlement provides a summary of Anacleto’s properties that
To illustrate the extent of
the properties still in [Anacleto’s] name, in
In the Municipality of Hagonoy,
the Office of the Treasurer issued a certification that several lands in the
different barangays of the municipality, with an aggregate of 81,223 square
meters (8.1223 hectares), were still declared in [Anacleto’s] name as of 1974.
Out of these total landholdings in Hagonoy, the 18,728 square meter land
in San Miguel, Hagonoy and the 22,862 square meter land in San Agustin, Hagonoy
were similarly not accounted for in Vicente’s application. In addition, the Office of the Municipal
Assessor of Hagonoy issued a certification that Anacleto owned a parcel of land
measuring 15,448 square meters (1.5448 hectares) in Abulalas and that several
parcels of land in the different barangays of the municipality, with an
aggregate area of 18,420 square meters (1.842 hectares), are claimed either by
Trinidad or Anacleto although these lands are now declared in Gavino’s
name. Vicente likewise did not declare
these lands in his application, although the
In Paombong, the Office of
the Municipal Assessor issued a certification that Anacleto was the previous
owner of a parcel of land measuring 11,634 square meters (1.1634 hectares)
located in Barangay Pinalagdan (in 1997, this land was already declared in the
name of Gabriel Sapitan) and that
Since
no other heirs were indicated in the records and since all these lands already belonged to Anacleto’s heirs after
his death in 1934, Vicente had been less than forthright in the application for
retention that the DAR passed upon. His
application therefore should have been disapproved for its patent
incompleteness that left the DAR with no certain way of knowing, given
Vicente’s silence, how and why he should be entitled to retention. Both the DAR on motion for reconsideration
and the Office of the President should have made this conclusion as they had
the benefit of Gavino’s critical submissions. DAR Region III, for its part, is no less
responsible for what happened in light of its unusually lengthy inaction, and
its failure to inquire deeper given two extrajudicial settlements that
substantially differed in their listed properties. In sum, we hold that both
the DAR and the OP misappreciated material evidence and thus made the wrong
considerations when they approved Vicente’s application for retention.[18]
After careful perusal of the records, we find that the abovementioned
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are accurate and well documented. We therefore sustain its findings that
Isabelita Dayao did not apply for retention, and Vicente’s application for
retention failed to comply with the legal requirements for retention, such
application being “insufficient, incomplete and lacking in forthrightness.” Indeed, the DAR had no basis for granting
Vicente’s application for retention.
Hence, the Court of Appeals committed no error in granting Gavino
Robles’ petition below.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition of petitioners Dayaos is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
||
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO Associate Justice |
||
A T T E S T A T I O N
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
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 658.
** Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 665.
*** Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 635.
[1] Rollo, pp. 38-62. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] CA rollo, pp. 27-28.
[7] Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenant’s from the Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor, done on October 21, 1972.
[8] CA rollo, p. 28.
[9] Rollo, pp. 72-74.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Sebastian v. Morales, G.R. No.
141116,
[17] Ontimare, Jr. v. Elep, G.R. No.
159224,
[18] Rollo, pp. 49-61.