116 OG No. 6, 831 (February 10, 2020); 847 Phil. 1
BERSAMIN, C.J.:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, decision is hereby rendered:The respondent appealed to the DARAB, which denied his appeal on April 1, 2005,[20] disposing as follows:
(1) Directing the Register of Deeds of Camiguin to cancel Original Certificate of Title no. EP-169 issued in the name of respondent Ismael Ladaga and to reinstate the title of ownership of the late Jose Dagondon if any; or for the municipal assessor to reinstate or re-issue the previous Tax Declaration covering said property in the name of the late Jose Dagondon;
(2) For the MARO of DAR, Mambajao, Camiguin to place the subject landholding under leasehold with petitioner as the lessor being the land Administrator and herein private respondent;
(3) For respondent Ismael Ladaga to account for and pay the petitioner the landowners' share of the harvest of the landholding reckoned from September 12, 2002 based on their previous sharing up until a leasehold contract shall have been executed;
(4) For the Land Bank of the Philippines (Camiguin Branch) to disburse and/or release the amount paid for by respondent Ismael Ladaga for the value of the subject landholding in favor of herein petitioner Paul Dagondon which is hereby constituted as reasonable rentals of the landholding.
All other claims are DENIED for lack of basis.
SO ORDERED.[19]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, instant appeal is dismissed and the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.The respondent appealed by petition for review to the CA, which stated the threshold issue to be "the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform to reverse and set aside the Order of his predecessor which already attained finality."[22]
SO ORDERED.[21]
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated April 1, 2005, of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in DARAB CASE No. 12583, and the Order dated February 21, 1995, of the former Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform Ernesto Garilao, exempting the 4,147 square meters of riceland from the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Emancipation Patent No. 010271 and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title No. EP-169 issued to Ismael Ladaga is hereby declared VALID and SUBSISTING.The petitioner moved to reconsider but the CA denied his motion on
SO ORDERED.[23]
The petitioner argues that the Estrella Order did not attain finality considering that it was based on MAR Ministry Circular No. 11 that was unenforceable because of lack of publication, as ruled by Secretary Garilao and enunciated in Association of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc. v. Seceretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343; that OLT coverage requires the landowner to have other agricultural lands with an aggregate area of more than seven hectares and for the landowner to derive adequate income from the other agricultural lands; that the subject property does not qualify for coverage under the OLT because the aggregate lands of the late Jose L. Dagondon did not produce adequate income; that the issuance, recall or cancellation of CLTs fell within Secretary Garilao's jurisdiction as the implementor of P.D. No. 27; that Secretary Garilao's order dated February 21, 1995 already attained finality when the respondent did not pursue further remedies; that the cancellation of the emancipation patent was a mere post-judgment incident and the necessary consequence of the finality of the order of Secretary Garilao, as affirmed by the OP; and that the DAR Secretary has the authority to order the cancellation of the emancipation patent upon a finding that its issuance violated agrarian laws.[26]
- The Decision of the Court of Appeals is based on the Estrella Order which is null and void.
- Secretary Garilao was not ousted of jurisdiction to review the Estrella Orders.
- The property is not subject of Operation Land Transfer (OLT).
- The DARAB-Central Decision dated April 1, 2005 and its June 30, 2006 Resolutions granted what is, in actuality, a motion for execution of a decision which has attained finality.
- The proper remedy of the respondent in assailing the grant of the petition for exemption should have been to appeal the decision in said case.
- The Emancipation Patent did not attain indefeasibility.[25]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Order is hereby issued:As can be seen, the CA overlooked that the matter concerning the exemption of the subject property from the coverage of P.D. No. 27 had been settled in the earlier case of the protest, and the ruling had attained finality even prior to the institution of the petitioner's action for the cancellation of the emancipation patent. The CA thus grossly erred in still reopening the matter of the exemption of the subject land from the coverage of P.D. No. 27 especially so because the petitioner's action for the cancellation of the emancipation patent had been commenced to implement the final decision in favor of the petitioner and in consonance with the express advice for that purpose given by Secretary Garilao.SO ORDERED. (Bold emphasis supplied)
- Affirming the Order of this Office dated 21 February 1995 and denying the instant Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit;
- Advising the petitioner to file the necessary action for the cancellation of the tenant's Emancipation Patent in a proper forum;
- Directing the petitioner to maintain the tenant in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the subject landholding under the leasehold system;
- Directing the preparation and issuance of a Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold (CAL) in favor of the tenant whose EP will be cancelled; and
- Declaring that as far as this Office is concerned, this case is considered closed.
There is no merit to appellant's claim that Secretary Garilao could no longer take cognizance of petitioner-appellee's letter of reconsideration because the Order sought to be reconsidered had allegedly attained finality. Appellant argues that petitioner-appellee elevated the matter after the lapse of almost six months or 174 days reckoned from 28 February 1986, the date of issuance of the Order up to 21 August 1986, the date of the letter of reconsideration. This claim is bereft of evidentiary support and is anchored on a wrong premise. In computing the finality of an order or decision, the reglementary period is not counted from the date of issuance of the order or decision, as what appellant did, but from the receipt of a copy of the order or decision by the party. Appellant failed to prove the date when petitioner-appellee received a copy of the Order of 28 February 1996 or the date when petitioner-appellee filed the letter of reconsideration.WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the February 25, 2009 decision and November 17, 2009 resolution promulgated by the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 01232-MIN; and REINSTATES the decision dated July 28, 2003 rendered by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office in Mambajao, Province of Camiguin.
It is legally presumed that official duty has been regularly performed in the absence of contrary evidence (Section 3[m], Rule 131 of the Rules of Court). There being no showing that the letter for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period, this Office is inclined to believe that Secretary Garilao had not been divested of authority and jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and act on the same. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must prevail. Such being the case, the action of Secretary Garilao should be accorded due respect and need not be disturbed.[30]