Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82824:56666&catid=1581&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:18:04+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 180134, March 05, 2014 - RAFAEL VALES, CECILIA VALES-VASQUEZ, AND YASMIN VALES-JACINTO, Petitioners, v. MA. LUZ CHORESCA GALINATO, ERNESTO CHORESCA, TEOFILO AMADO, LORNA PARIAN MEDIANERO, REBECCA PORCAL, AND VIVENCIO ORDOYO, Respondents.
RAFAEL VALES, CECILIA VALES-VASQUEZ, AND YASMIN VALES-JACINTO, Petitioners, v. MA. LUZ CHORESCA GALINATO, ERNESTO CHORESCA, TEOFILO AMADO, LORNA PARIAN MEDIANERO, REBECCA PORCAL, AND VIVENCIO ORDOYO, Respondents.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated July 25, 2007 and the Resolution3 dated September 27, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 01130 which affirmed the Order dated September 5, 20054 issued by the Office of the President (OP) in O.P. Case No. 03-J-607, and declared that petitioners Rafael Vales, Cecilia Vales-Vasquez, and Yasmin Vales-Jacinto (petitioners) have no right of retention over the landholding subject of this case.
Invoking the landowner’s retention rights provided under PD 27,11 petitioners filed, on December 23, 1975, a letter-request12 for the retention of the subject lands with the Office of the Agrarian Reform Team No. 06-24-185, which, however, was not acted upon.13 On March 31, 1980, they filed a petition14 before the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform-Region VI, praying that they be certified as owners of the subject lands which they have declared in their names for tax purposes as early as November 29, 1972.15 They further prayed that they be allowed to partition the subject lands with the end in view of obtaining titles for their respective shares. The petition, however, remained unresolved16 for nearly two (2) decades.
On January 12, 1998, petitioners filed a petition21 before the Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), docketed as Administrative Case No. A-0604-0014-98, asking for: (a) the resolution of the earlier petition dated March 31, 1980; (b) the exemption of the subject lands from the coverage of the OLT Program; and (c) the affirmation of petitioners’ right to retain seven (7) has. as provided under PD 27, which they requested way back in December 1975, but to no avail. Significantly, petitioners admitted in their petition that the subject sale was not registered and thus, the titles to the subject lands were not transferred to their names. This was supposedly due to the fact that the lands were tenanted, and that the Minister of Agrarian Reform refused to issue the required certification for purposes of registration.
In an Order22 dated August 16, 1999, the DAR Regional Director declared that ownership over the subject lands remained with Sps. Vales due to petitioners’ failure to effect the registration or even the annotation of the subject sale before October 21, 1972 as required under DAR Memorandum23 dated May 7, 1982 (May 7, 1982 DAR Memorandum). Hence, the sale did not bind the tenants concerned, and no retention rights were transferred to petitioners. Accordingly, the DAR Regional Director denied the petitions for exemption and retention, and affirmed the placing of the subject lands under the OLT Program of the government pursuant to PD 27, as well as the issuance of EPs in favor of the tenants.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied in an Order24 dated December 6, 1999, prompting their appeal before the DAR Secretary, docketed as Adm. Case No. A-9999-06-E-247-00.
In an Order25 dated December 11, 2002 (December 11, 2002 Order), the DAR Secretary reversed and set aside the orders of the DAR Regional Director, and thereby granted the petitions for exemption and retention, subject, however, to the provisions of LOI 474 dated October 21, 1976.26 The DAR Secretary ruled that petitioners were able to prove by substantial evidence that the tenants had knowledge of the subject sale in their favor and had even recognized petitioners as the new owners of the subject lands as they paid rentals to them.27 Hence, the sale was valid and binding on the tenants pursuant to the May 7, 1982 DAR Memorandum,28 thus removing the subject lands from the OLT Program coverage. However, in line with LOI 474, the DAR Secretary directed the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer to determine if petitioners own other agricultural lands of more than seven (7) has. or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.
Some of the tenants and/or their relatives - namely, herein respondents Ma. Luz Choresca Galinato, Ernesto Choresca, Teofilo Amado, Lorna Parian Medianero, Rebecca Porcal and Vivencio Ordoyo (respondents) - filed a motion for reconsideration29 which was initially denied30 but subsequently granted by the DAR Secretary in an Order31 dated September 25, 2003 (September 25, 2003 Order).
In granting the motion and reversing his earlier decision, the DAR Secretary held that the tenants must be shown to have acquired actual knowledge of the subject sale prior to October 21, 1972 in order to grant validity thereto. However, it appears from the date of the earliest receipts evidencing the rental payments to petitioners that the tenants knew of the said sale only in 1977. As such, petitioners never became valid owners of the subject lands,32 thus warranting the denial of their petitions for exemption and retention.
Dissatisfied, petitioners elevated the matter to the OP.
Finding merit in the argument, the OP, in a Resolution36 dated April 6, 2004 (April 6, 2004 Resolution), reversed its earlier ruling, holding that upon the demise of Perfecto, his heirs, including herein petitioners, became co-owners of the subject lands by intestate succession with the inherent right to apply for exemption/retention. Considering, however, that the subject lands were conjugal in nature, Perfecto’s half of the entire 20.3168 hectare area was transferred by intestacy to petitioners and their mother, giving each heir about 2.5 has., which was within the seven-hectare (7-hectare) retention limit under PD 27.37 Consequently, the OP exempted the pro-indiviso shares of petitioners in the subject lands and ordered the cancellation of the EPs covering the same.
On respondents’ motion for reconsideration,38 the OP modified its April 6, 2004 Resolution in an Order39 dated August 19, 2004 (August 19, 2004 Order), declaring that petitioners should be considered as only one landowner with respect to their undivided portions and not as separate landowners pursuant to Article 340 of DAR Memorandum dated January 9, 1973 (January 9, 1973 DAR Memorandum). Consequently, it excluded from the coverage of the OLT Program only a 7-hectare portion of the subject lands as petitioners’ collective retention area and maintained the OLT Program coverage of the remaining portion.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal before the CA.
Unperturbed, petitioners moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied in a Resolution46 dated September 27, 2007, hence, this petition.
The essential issues in this case are whether or not: (a) the subject lands are exempt from OLT Program coverage; and (b) petitioners are entitled to avail of any retention right under existing agrarian laws.
Subsequently, or on June 10, 1998, Congress passed RA 6657 which modified the retention limits under PD 27. In particular, Section 651 of RA 6657 states that covered landowners are allowed to retain a portion of their tenanted agricultural land not exceeding an area of five (5) has. and, further thereto, provides that an additional three (3) has. may be awarded to each child of the landowner subject to certain qualifications. While landowners who have not yet exercised their rights of retention under PD 27 are entitled to the new retention rights provided by RA 6657, a landowner who filed an application under RA 6657 shall be subject to the limitations stated under LOI 474 as above stated.
Transfers of ownership of lands covered by a Torrens Certificate of Title duly executed prior to October 21, 1972 but not registered with the Register of Deeds concerned before said date in accordance with the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) shall not be considered a valid transfer of ownership insofar as the tenant-farmers are concerned and therefore the land shall be placed under [the OLT Program].
Transfer of ownership of unregistered lands (ownership may be evidenced by tax declaration, deeds of conveyance) executed prior to October 21, 1972, whether registered or not with the Register of Deeds concerned pursuant to Act No. 3344 may be considered a valid transfer/conveyance as between the parties subject to verification of the due execution of the conveyance/transfer in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.
Tersely put, the May 7, 1982 DAR Memorandum provides that tenants should (a) have actual knowledge of unregistered transfers of ownership of lands covered by Torrens Certificate of Titles prior to October 21, 1972, (b) have recognized the persons of the new owners, and (c) have been paying rentals/amortization to such new owners in order to validate the transfer and bind the tenants to the same.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the subject sale was not registered or even annotated on the certificates of title covering the subject lands. More importantly, the CA, which upheld the final rulings of the DAR Secretary and the OP, found that the tenants categorically belied having actual knowledge of the said sale, and that the tenants still recognized Sps. Vales as the landowners.52 In this regard, petitioners failed to show any justifiable reason to warrant a contrary finding.53 Thus, keeping in mind that the factual findings of the CA are generally accorded with finality absent any sufficient countervailing reason therefor,54 it may be concluded that petitioners failed to comply with the requirements stated under the May 7, 1982 DAR Memorandum. As a result, the subject sale could not be considered as valid, especially as against the tenants and/or their relatives - particularly, herein respondents. The subject lands were therefore correctly placed under the OLT Program of the government, which thereby warranted the denial of the petition for exemption.
Anent the issue on retention, suffice it to state that Sps. Vales had no right to retain the subject lands considering that their aggregate landholdings, consisting of 58.6060 has.,55 exceeded the 24-hectare landholding limit as above-explained. Consequently, the subject lands would fall under the complete coverage of the OLT Program, without any right of retention on petitioners’ part, either under PD 27 or RA 6657, being mere successors-in-interest of Sps. Vales by virtue of intestate succession. In this respect, the denial of the petition for retention was likewise proper.
Finally, the Court finds no merit in petitioners’ claim that the December 11, 2002 Order of the DAR Secretary granting the petitions for exemption and retention had already attained finality and can no longer be reconsidered, reversed or modified, especially on a second motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading.56 In his September 25, 2003 Order, the DAR Secretary explained that a “palpable mistake”57 and “patent error”58 had been committed in determining the date of the filing of respondents’ motion for reconsideration, which upon review, was shown to have been timely filed, warranting reconsideration of his earlier order. Settled is the rule that issues of retention and non-coverage of a land under agrarian reform are within the domain of the DAR Secretary.59 By virtue of such special competence, he should be given an opportunity, even on a second motion for reconsideration, to rectify the errors he may have committed. The time-honored rule is that if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be had by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on the matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be priorly exhausted.60 Besides, rules of procedure are construed liberally in administrative proceedings as administrative bodies are not bound by the technicalities applicable to courts of law, hence, should not be used to override substantial justice,61 as in this case.
All told, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the denial of the tribunals a quo of the petitions for exemption and retention herein considered.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 25, 2007 and the Resolution dated September 27, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 01130 are hereby AFFIRMED.
* Designate Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 1644 dated February 25, 2014.
2 Id. at 8-19. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Pampio P. Abarintos and Stephen C. Cruz concurring.
15 Id. at 156. See also the tax declarations covering the subject landholding; id. at 75-79.
18 Id. (see dorsal portion). See also id. at 35.
22 Id. at 382-387. Issued by DAR OIC Regional Director Othelo C. Clement. CESO IV.
26 As will be explained in greater detail below, under LOI 474, all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven (7) has. or less belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven (7) has. in aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families were placed under the OLT Program of the government.
30 See Order dated May 26, 2003, penned by DAR Secretary Roberto M. Pagdanganan; id. at 184-186.
32 See id. at 194-196.
33 Id. at 207-215. Issued by then Assistant Executive Secretary Edwin R. Enrile.
36 Id. at 226-228. Issued by then Presidential Assistant Manuel C. Domingo.
41 Id. at 257-261. Issued by then Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita.
47Daez v. CA, 382 Phil. 742, 751 (2000).
To: The Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
WHEREAS, it is therefore necessary to cover said lands under the Land Transfer Program of the government to emancipate the tenant-farmers therein.
2. Landowners who may choose to be paid the cost of their lands by the Land Bank of the Philippines shall be paid in accordance with the mode of payment provided in Letter of Instructions No. 273 dated May 7, 1973.
51 SEC. 6. Retention Limits. - Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall the retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder; Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner; provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner; is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of position of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all registers of Deeds shall inform the DAR within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
54 See Ampo v. CA, G.R. No. 169091, February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 562, 570.
59Sta. Ana v. Sps. Carpo, 593 Phil. 108, 127 (2008).
60 See DAR v. Uy, 544 Phil. 308, 328 (2007), citing Land Car, Inc. v. Bachelor Express Inc, 462 Phil 796, 802 (2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.