523 Phil. 257
AZCUNA, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:From the aforestated decision, petitioners and respondent ARBA separately appealed to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Quezon City. Said appeals were consolidated and docketed as DARAB Case No. 6385.
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 Cavite to: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, Cavite and PARO (Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer) of Cavite to: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]
"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);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]
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]
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: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 September 6, 1999, as no new matters were "adduced by the movants which will warrant a reversal of the Board's decision."[18]
1) Affirming paragraphs 1, 5, and 6 (Nos. 1, 5 and 6) of the dispositive portion of the decision dated June 17, 1997 of the Honorable Adjudicator a quo but;
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, Cavite.
SO ORDERED."[17]
"WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED and is accordingly DISMISSED for lack of merit.Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by the Court of Appeals in a resolution dated May 25, 2001.[20]
SO ORDERED."[19]
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: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 DECEMBER 17, 1999.[21]
At the outset, petitioners claim that the subject property had been classified to be within the industrial zone of General Trias, Cavite even before the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 in 1988, therefore, it should be outside the coverage of CARP.[23]
- The land in question is exempt from the coverage of CARP by reason of its inclusion in the industrial zone of CALABARZON;
- 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;
- 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;
- 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,
- The ARBs did not cultivate the awarded property to make it productive in violation of Section 22[22] of the Act.
"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 May 8, 1989 declared that the land offered for acquisition under [the] VOS was productive and suitable [for] agricultural production.... It seems rather peculiar that after all these years when the subject property had already been awarded and distributed to its intended beneficiaries, it is only now that petitioners are belatedly heard to sing a different tune by claiming that the same had always been industrial. Petitioners apparently relied on the flip-flopping certifications of one Engr. Alfredo M. Tan II of the HLURB - Region IV who could not seem to make up his mind as to the exact zoning location of the subject property. On July 10, 1990, he certified that the subject property is "within the Agricultural Zone based on the Municipality's approved Zoning Ordinance under HSRC Resolution No. 42-A-3 dated 09 February 1981". After the lapse of several years or on January 10, 1995 to be precise, in a dramatic turn-around, he suddenly became vague and tentative. He then proceeded to certify that the same property "appears to be within the Industrial Area based on HSRC (now HLURB) Approved Land Use Map of General Trias per HSRC Resolution No. R-42-A-3 dated February 11, 1981."(Vide, Exhibit "R"). A more classic display of bureaucratic ineptitude and incompetence is hard to find and simply boggles the mind. Thus, no weight of credence at all can be attributed to either certification due to the vacillating tenor used which is not even worth the paper it is written on. Petitioners' heavy reliance on such an irresolute document is rather pathetic and certainly misplaced. Resolution Nos. 105 and 125 enacted by the local Sangguniang Panlalawigan on March 25, 1988 and September 8, 1988, respectively" are similarly rejected since there is no showing that the same were duly approved by the HLURB (Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board) or its preceding competent authorities prior to June 15, 1988 which is the date of effectivity of the CARL and cut-off period for automatic reclassifications or rezoning of agricultural lands that no longer require any DAR conversion clearance or authority. (Emphasis supplied) Still, owners of such agricultural lands which have been previously reclassified or rezoned to non-agricultural uses by LGUs (Local Government Units) and approved by the HLURB before June 15, 1988 are nonetheless required to secure exemption clearances from the DAR based on Section 3 (c) of RA 6657, as amended, and DOJ (Department of Justice) Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 (Vide, Dar Administrative Order No. 12, series of 1994 in relation to Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994). As stated in the aforecited DOJ Opinion, "the legal requirement for the DAR clearance in cases of land use conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural uses applies only to conversions made on or after June 15, 1988, the date of the agrarian reform law's effectivity. Prior thereto, the powers of the HLURB and the Department of Finance to [re-categorize] lands for land use and taxation purposes, respectively, were exclusive. It is noted that the definition of "agricultural land" in RA 6657 excludes lands which have previously been classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial and industrial areas. Viewed against this context, the subject property cannot be considered [as] falling within the category of reclassified lands as envisioned in Section 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended, and so specified in the aforementioned DOJ Opinion. (Emphasis supplied) Neither can petitioners hope [to] find any relief from the Order of then Minister Heherson T. Alvarez dated September 1, 1986 since it merely exempts the subject property from OLT (Operation land Transfer) coverage pursuant to PD 27 which embraces tenanted rice and corn lands only. If at all, the said Order even serves to bolster the agricultural nature of the subject property because of its long history as sugar land. Sugarcane production is certainly an agricultural activity by any norm or standard. The law defines the term as referring to the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees including the harvesting of such farm products and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical". The scope and coverage of the CARL is so broad and all-embracing as to include all lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced.[24]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 June 15, 1988.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 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 Philippines, in contravention to Section 16(e) of R.A. No. 6657 which states:
"(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.
"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 June 14, 1993, offered to compensate petitioners for their property in the total amount of 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]
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 Philippines does not constitute payment under the law. Trust account deposits are not cash or LBP bonds. The replacement of the trust account with cash or LBP bonds did not ipso facto cure the lack of compensation; for essentially, the determination of this compensation was marred by lack of due process. In fact, in the entire acquisition proceedings, respondent DAR disregarded the basic requirement of administrative due process. Under these circumstances, the issuance of the CLOA's to farmer beneficiaries necessitated immediate judicial action on the part of the petitioner.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]
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 Philippines is charged with the initial responsibility of determining the value of the lands placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking.[35] Through notice sent to the landowner pursuant to [Section] 16(a) of R.A. No. 6657, the DAR makes an offer. In case the landowner rejects the offer, a summary administrative proceeding is held[36] and afterward the provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD), or the central (DARAB) adjudicator, as the case may be, depending on the value of the land, fixes the price to be paid for the land. If the landowner does not agree to the price fixed, he may bring the matter to the RTC acting as [a] Special Agrarian Court. This in essence is the procedure for the determination of compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657."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 June 15, 1988, but on the payment of just compensation.
1) Misuse or diversion of financial support services extended to the ARBs (Section 37 of R.A. No. 6657);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:
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."
"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 March 23, 1993 (Vide, TSN of same date). Such neglect can only toll the death knell for erring ARBs who also have been remiss in the payment of the annual amortization due which should have commenced within one year from the date of CLOA registration on August 30, 1993 (Vide, DAR Administrative Order NO. 6, series of 1993). In an undated instrument captioned as "Authorization" entered into sometime in 1993 (Vide, Annex "A", Petitioners' Ex-Parte Manifestation, etc. dated June 13, 1997, all the 53 FB-awardees manifested their intent to negotiate for payment of disturbance compensation in exchange for the voluntary surrender of their rights[42] which is a prohibited transaction under Section 73 of RA 6657, as amended, and DAR Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994. Not only that. Strangely enough, in the protracted hearings that were conducted in this case, not one CLOA Beneficiary/ARBA member was presented to at least defend himself orally or by means of countervailing documentary evidence."[43]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]