Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53052:gr-183142-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:47:51+00:00

Document:
ROSITA A. MONTANEZ, Petitioner, v. PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATOR (PARAD), NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, GIL A. ALEGARIO, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR), as represented by the MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (MARO) OF LA CASTELLANA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL and PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, THE LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, MAURO T. ALFONSO, REMEGIO S. ALFONSO, MARIA AMAR, ANDREA T. AMBAHAN, ENRIQUE S. BARONG, JR., ENRIQUE B. BARONG, GEMMA CARREON, LORETO T. CARREON, SR., LORETO M. CARREON, JR., EDITHA CHAVEZ, SATURNINA A. CABRERA, PROMECIO M. LACHICA, ALLAN O. LACHICA, RAUL O. LACHICA, BUENA PARNICIO, CARLOS O. DE LOS REYES, ENRIQUE C. KANILOG, SR., ROMEO T. PARNICIO, ROSALINDA MURILLO, WILFREDO B. ORTEGA, FERNANDO M. PARDILLO, JR., JOCELYN SEMILLANO, ADELINA SAMSON, and CONCEPCION SEMILLANO, as represented by the LEGAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION, DAR, BACOLOD CITY, Respondents.
This Petition for Review under Rule 45 assails and seeks to set aside the Amended Decision1 dated April 18, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 00229, entitled Rosita A. Montanez v. Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), Negros Occidental, Gil A. Alegario, Department Of Agrarian Reform (DAR), as represented by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of La Castellana, et al.
On June 28, 2000, the DAR secured from the Negros Occidental Registry the cancellation of petitioner's TCT Nos. T-71583 and T-71582 and the issuance, in lieu thereof, of TCT Nos. T-2054817 and T-2054828 respectively, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines (Republic). On its face, TCT No. T-205481 identified the Republic and the petitioner as owners of 11.4654 hectares and 2.1758 hectares, respectively, of the registered land. In TCT No. 205482, the Republic and the petitioner are shown as owning 20.9603 and .9983 hectares, respectively.
Later on the same day, TCT No. CLOA (Certificate of Land Ownership Award) 84349 covering an area of 21.9586 hectares was issued, purportedly as a transfer from "TCT Nos. T-715831/T-205482." On the other hand, TCT No. CLOA-843510 for an area of 13.6412 hectares was issued, purportedly as a transfer from "TCT Nos. T-715832/T-205481." Evidently, such notations on the CLOAs were erroneous, the aggregate land area stated in the CLOAs being larger than what was reflected in the titles whence the CLOAs emanate. In any event, said CLOAs were registered in the name of, and delivered to, individual respondents as CARP beneficiaries.
Petitioner forthwith filed a Petition11 with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB) of Negros Occidental for the annulment/cancellation of TCT Nos. CLOA-8434, CLOA-8435, T-205481 and T-205482 on the ground of irregular and anomalous issuance thereof. The case was docketed as DARAB Case No. R-0605-1707-03.
By Decision12 dated October 18, 2004, Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Gil Alegario gave the petition a short shrift, stating that petitioner based "her action [for annulment/cancellation] on purely technical grounds" referring to the discrepancy between the area coverage stated in the CLOAs and that stated in the TCTs. These grounds, according to the PARAD, are beyond the ambit of, and are not among those enumerated in DAR Administrative Order No. 2,13 Series of 1994, for the cancellation of CLOAs and emancipation patents (EPs). PARAD Alegario, however, stated the observation that the aberration is correctible administratively and that the DAR has effectively acknowledged the fact of discrepancy by inscribing at the back of the CLOAs the condition that the CARP award is subject to "segregation and reconveyance."
Therefrom, petitioner went straight to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Section 54 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657,14 docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 00229. Public respondents sought the dismissal of this recourse on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. In the meantime, the CA, by Resolution15 of February 7, 2005, ordered the PARAD of Negros Occidental and other agrarian officers "to maintain a status quo including the non-enforcement of the PARAD decision in DARAB Case No. R-0605-1707-03 until further order from [the] Court."
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
The Decision dated October 18, 2004 issued by PARAD Gil A. Alegario in DARAB Case No. R-0605-1707-03 is hereby SET ASIDE.
WHEREFORE, prescinding from all of the foregoing considerations, public respondent DAR's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED, the Decision of this court dated 27 December 2005 is SET ASIDE and the present petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the status quo order issued by this Court on 7 February 2005 is revoked and rendered without force and effect.
Petitioner's Partial Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED insofar as the issue of the jurisdiction of public respondent PARAD over petitioner's complaint is concerned which is also in consonance with public respondent DAR's contention. Her prayer for this Court to declare as null the subject CLOAs and the land titles issued pursuant thereto is, however, DENIED.
Verily, x x x petitioner's proper recourse of public respondent PARAD's decision should have been to file an appeal with the DARAB and not a petition for certiorari with this Court. "Prior resort to these administrative bodies will not only satisfy the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, but may likewise prove advantageous to the parties as the proceedings will be conducted by experts and will not be limited by the technical rules of procedure and evidence."
Petitioner's failure to ask the CIR for a reconsideration' is another reason why the instant case should be dismissed. It is settled that the premature invocation of the court's intervention is fatal to one's cause of action. If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must first be exhausted before the courts power of judicial review can be sought. The party with an administrative remedy must not only initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in order to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide the matter itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court.
Given the above perspective, the CA acted correctly and certainly within its sound discretion when it denied, in its amended decision, petitioner's petition for certiorari to nullify the PARAD's decision. Under the grievance procedure set forth in the DARAB Rules of Procedure, PARAD Alegario's decision was appealable to the DARAB Proper. The CA's appellate task comes later to review the case disposition of the DARAB Proper when properly challenged.
SEC. 54. Certiorari. - Any decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari except as otherwise provided in this Act within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence.
While it is true that there is no tenancy relationship that was raised as an issue, the PARAD has the jurisdiction to hear, determine and adjudicate this case involving the cancellation and annulment of the subject CLOAs which were registered before the Register of Deeds of the Province of Negros Occidental.
While not determinative of the issue at hand, the decision of the DAR may initially be appealed to the Office of the President, while that of the DARAB Proper is appealable only to the court.
There is no question then that petitioner, in seeking recourse with the CA from the decision of the PARAD, failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The eventual dismissal by the CA of her petition on that ground stands on legal ground. To recall what we said in Paat, "the premature invocation of court's intervention is fatal to one's cause. x x x The case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action."
It is true that the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies admits of several exceptions. Not one, however, obtains under the premises. What comes close is the reason given originally by the CA and which petitioner made capital of that an appeal to the DARAB would be useless.
We are not persuaded. Other than its non-sequitur line that "petitioner had filed petitions for retention and inclusion of her farm workers as beneficiaries before the DAR" and that in an Order dated September 2, 2003, the "DAR Regional Director [has denied the petition] for utter lack of merit,"38 the CA had not explained with some measure of plausibility how it arrived at its conclusion on the futility of an appeal to the DARAB. Petitioner fares no better. Absent such explanation, the conclusion must be rejected as an arrant presumption. And it cannot be over-emphasized that the adverted Order of September 2, 20003 referred to in the CA's original decision denied petitioner's petitions for retention and inclusion, while, in the instant case, the main thrust of her petition is for the annulment of the CLOAs. There is, therefore, no logical basis for the conclusion that the DARAB, which counts the DAR Secretary as a member, would rule similarly in patently and completely different cases.
In all then, we find that petitioner had, without reason, let alone explanation, failed to exhaust administrative remedies provided by law. Such lapse, by weight of established jurisprudence, is fatal to her petition.
Due to petitioner's resort to an improper remedy, the filing of the petition before the CA did not toll the reglementary period for filing an appeal with the DARAB.39 As such, the decision of the PARAD should ordinarily be considered as final and executory. But the Court need not rub it in all the more by depriving petitioner of any remedy. The nature of the issues raised by petitioner before the PARAD' 'such as, but not limited to, the irregularity in the initial acquisition proceedings, the undue haste in the issuance of the TCT-CLOAs, and the consequent cloud that hangs over the CLOAs in question needs to be addressed. The PARAD no less admitted that the entries and annotations made in the CLOAs were erroneous and adverse to the interest of petitioner, who it seems has yet to receive just compensation for her two parcels of land. The inequity of barring petitioner from vindicating her right is rendered more acute in the face of the undisputed fact that the DAR has taken her property for CARP purposes ostensibly with their agents in the field not hewing strictly with the requirements of the law and whose negligence tainted the CLOAs thus issued. The purpose behind the passage of the CARP law would not be compromised should petitioner be allowed to pursue her case before the right forum. With this in mind, we remand the instant case to the DARAB for proper disposition of the issues raised by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The CA's April 18, 2008 Amended Decision in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 00229 is AFFIRMED. The case is remanded to the DARAB for the disposition of the issues raised by petitioner.
1 Rollo, pp. 67-75. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla (Chairperson) and concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Florito S. Macalino.
5 Id. at 128. Per Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition dated March 31, 2000.
13 Entitled "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."
14 The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, as amended.
12. Whether or not the petitioner shall be entitled to damages under the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
22 G.R. No. 111107, January 10, 1997, 266 SCRA 167.
23 G.R. No. 163445, December 18, 2007, 540 SCRA 536, 552.
24 Bautista v. Mag-isa Vda. De Villena, G. R. No. 152564, September 13, 2004, 438 SCRA 259.
26 Hermoso v. C.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 140319, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 556.
27 Bautista, supra note 24.
28 LBP v. Martinez, G.R. No. 169008, August 14, 2007, 530 SCRA 158, 168.
29 An almost similar provision is found in the DARAB New Rules of Procedure adopted on May 30, 1994.
30 SECTION 2. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Board. The Board shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, alter, or affirm resolutions, orders, and decisions of its Adjudicators.
No order of the Adjudicators on any issue, question, matter, or incident raised before them shall be elevated to the Board until the hearing shall have been terminated and the case decided on the merits.
1.3 paying an appeal fee of x x x (PhP700.00) to the DAR Cashier where the Office of the Adjudicator is situated or through postal money order, payable to the DAR Cashier where the Office of the Adjudicator is situated x x x.
32 SECTION 1. Appeal to the Court of Appeals. Any decision, order, resolution, award or ruling of the Board on any agrarian dispute or any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, interpretation of agrarian reform laws or rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, may be brought on appeal within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof, to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Rules of Court.
35 Hermoso, supra note 26.
37 Government Service Insurance System v. Cadiz, G.R. No. 154093, July 8, 2003, 405 SCRA 450, 456.
39 Aguila v. Baldovizo, G.R. No. 163186, February 28, 2007, 517 SCRA 91, 98.

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