558 Phil. 379
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
[T]he matter of identification of farmer-beneficiaries had in fact been finally determined by the DAR. What is put at issue is the alleged error committed by the DAR Regional Director in disqualifying herein plaintiff Mariano Dao-ayan, and the alleged denial of due process in the course of the administrative proceedings. Records will show however that even as plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in the administrative proceedings was denied, he could have raised the matter to the office of the DAR Secretary, being the ultimate arbiter in such administrative proceedings. As it is, the resolution of the DAR Regional Director has already become final and executory. It must be impressed at this juncture, that both the law and the DARAB procedures deny this Board the authority to determine the identification and qualification of would be CARP beneficiaries. It is an undertaking assigned to the DAR as an administrative agency, and where its resolutions and orders are assailed, the same must be ventilated according to hierarchical ladder up to the DAR Secretary.And the DARAB affirmed the dismissal as did the Court of Appeals.
On the other hand, even as co-plaintiff Marjun Dao-ayan postulates himself to be the real potential- beneficiary being the alleged actual tillers of the land, his right to such a claim is considered to have been waived or abandoned as he could have intervened in said administrative proceedings or questioned its resolution being the alleged actual tiller, but he did not but [sic] chose to be identified by this Board which as aforesaid cannot without affront to the primary authority of the DAR to so identify.
In fine, co-plaintiff Marjun Dao-ayan who by his own admission was only entrusted to the land by his father, cannot have a better right than his father who was already officially disqualified.[9] (Underscoring supplied)
. . . [T]he matter of identification of farmer-beneficiaries with respect to the subject land was already resolved by the Regional Director, which resolution had already become final and executory when Petitioners failed to appeal the same to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Section 22 of Administrative Order. 6, Series of 2000 explicitly provides:In their present petition, petitioners raise two issues, viz:SECTION 22. Finality. - Unless an appeal is perfected, the decision or order of the R[egional] D[irector] or approving authority shall become final and executory after the lapse of fifteen {15} days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties or their counsels or duly authorized representatives. In all cases, the parties and their counsels shall be furnished with a copy of the decision or order.A fortiori the Regional Director DARAB[sic]-Region 10 had already ruled that MARIANO is disqualified from becoming a farmer-beneficiary in the resolution he issued which granted the petition for disqualification filed by ALARFA against MARIANO.
Anent the 2nd assigned error, Petitioners claim that the DARAB Central Office wrongfully ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over instant case because the action filed by them is for cancellation of the CLOA which falls within the jurisdiction of the DARAB under Section 1, Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure.
x x x x
. . . The Regional Director, who is vested with jurisdiction over cases concerning identification of farmer-beneficiaries, had correctly ruled on said issues by granting the CLOA in favor of ALARFA. However, Petitioners, instead of appealing the Regional Director's resolution granting the CLOA to ALARFA, filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of the CLOA, supra, before the DARAB-Region 10 on 22 June 1998, which, as ruled by the DARAB Central Office, was more than a year following the issuance of the resolution, when the same has already become final and executory.[10] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, vests the DAR with primary jurisdiction on agrarian reform matters and clothes it with quasi-judicial powers as follows:
- Whether or not the DARAB Regional Adjudicator has jurisdiction over the annulment of registered cloas.
- Whether or not the decision of the DAR Regional director disqualifying PETITIONERS and the Awarding of the cloa to RESPONDENT alarfa has already become final and executory such that it may no longer be questioned in further proceedings.
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).Section 49 of the same law confers rule-making powers upon the DAR, viz:
It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding before it.
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
Rules and Regulations. - The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and regulations whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act. . . .In accordance with its rule-making power, the DAR issued rules to govern proceedings before the DARAB.
x x x xSection 2 of DAR Administrative Order No. 06-00 enumerates the cases over which the DAR Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction:
(f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;
x x x x
Matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of Republic Act. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR. (Emphasis and underscoring added)
Cases Covered. - These Rules shall govern cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary which shall include the following:In Padunan v. DARAB[11] which involved Emancipation Patents, this Court, passing on these sets of rules, held that prior to registration with the Register of Deeds, cases involving the issuance, recall or cancellation of CLOAs or EPs are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and that, corollarily, cases involving the issuance, correction or cancellation of CLOAs or EPs which have been registered with the Register of Deeds are within the jurisdiction of the DARAB.(a) Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), including protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage;Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet registered with the Register of Deeds; (Emphasis and underscoring added)
(b) Identification, qualification or disqualification of potential farmer-beneficiaries;
(c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP;
(d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall or cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or
BOOK VIIThe records, however, show that beyond the mere assertions of ALARFA and the DARAB, there is no proof that petitioners were given notice of the proceedings before the DAR Regional Director. Thus, the counting of the 15-day prescriptive period commenced upon the registration of the CLOA on October 28, 1997 with the Register of Deeds, which is considered constructive notice as against the whole world,[12] or on December 12, 1997, the date petitioners filed a motion to stay execution of the DAR Regional Director's resolution granting the CLOA to ALARFA.[13] No
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
x x x x
Chapter 3 - ADJUDICATION
x x x x
SEC. 15. Finality of Order. - The decision of the agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected. One motion for reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the running of the said period. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)