6upreme Court: L/tpublit of Tlbilippintj:fflanila
6upreme Court: L/tpublit of Tlbilippintj:fflanila
6upreme Court: L/tpublit of Tlbilippintj:fflanila
6upreme Court
:fflanila
TIDRD DIVISION
Present:
CAGUIOA, J., **
INTING,*** Acting Chairperson,
- versus - GAERLAN,
DIMAAMPAO, and
SINGH, JJ.
DECISION
INTING, J.:
In the Court's Reso lution dated September 19, 2022, Mar ietta Janeo Qu iros and Reynaldo Janeo
were dropped as party respo ndents on the ground of misjoinder of parties, pursuant to Section 11 ,
Rule 3, of the Rules ofCou11.
•• On official leave.
Per Special Order No. 2918-REVISED dated October 12, 2022.
Rollo, pp. 14-28 .
Id. at 60-74. Penned by Associate Justice Pab lito A. Perez and concurred in by Associate Justices
Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
Id. at 34-40.
Decision 2 G.R. No . 232755
reversed the Decision4 dated March 24, 2010 and the Resolution 5 dated
March 31, 2011 of the Office of the President (OP) in OP Case No. 08-
E- 190.
Antecedents
Id. at 138- 144. Signed by Dep uty Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Natividad G. Dizon.
Id. at 152-153 . Signed by Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.
6
Id. at 61.
7
Referred to as " Ladislao" in some parts of the r oflo (see id. at 123 , 162, 243 , 247-248 , 252 , 254).
8
Referred to as " Marieta Janeo Quiros" and " Marietta Janeo Sol" in some parts of the r ol/o.
9
Referred to as " Mercidita" in some parts of the rollo.
10
Referred to as "Marjorita J. Baltasar" in some parts of the r oflo .
11
Id . at 234.
12
Id . at 62.
13
The Team Leader of the investigation made the following observation: "That out of the nine (9)
surv iving heirs, the three priority [sic] were recommended by San Vicente Samahang Nayon
namely, Eme lita J. Sol, Merlita J. Ramos, and Marjorita J. Baltasar as number one[,] two[,] and
three[,] respectively, The number two and three recommendees waived their rights, interest and
participation in the said parcel of land covered by CLT No. 077984 in favor of Emelita J. Sol per
Decision 3 G.R. No. 232755
waiver of right executed last November 26, 1986, by the majority of the heirs and hereby concurs
with the recommendation." As culled from the DAR Order dated Ju ly 11 , 1988. Id . at 235.
14
Id. at 232 -233.
15
Id . at 233 .
16
See id. at 235.
17
Id. at 234-237.
18
Id. at 237.
19
Id. at 236.
20
Id. at 236-237.
21
See id. at 64.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 232755
OPs Ruling
27
Id. at 246-24 7.
28
ld . at247 .
29 Id.
30
Id. at 250-258. Signed by Regional Director Elmo A. Bafiares.
31
Id. at 22 1-227 . Signed by Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao.
32
Id . at 229-230 . Signed by Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman.
33
Id. at 204-220 .
3
➔ Id. at 138- 144.
3
' Id . at 142, citing Department of Agrarian Reform v. Cuenca, 482 Phil. 208, 211 (2004), which
ruled that: " A ll controversies on the imp lementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even
tho ugh they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts should be
resolved in favor of the DAR since the law has granted it special and original authority to hear and
adjudicate agrarian matters ."
36 Id.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 232755
The OP further ruled that even on the assumption that the heirs
were not able to agree as to who shall be the successor, petitioner Merlita
would still be preferred to succeed by reason of age as the eldest among
the siblings, who had not cultivated any landholding. The OP noted that
the two siblings older than petitioner Merlita already have their
respective landholdings and that she is older than respondent Emelita. 38
37
Id . at 144.
3s Id.
39
Id. at 145-1 50.
40
Id. at 152-1 53 .
41
Id. at 120- 134.
2
• See id. at 127 . The grounds for the petition for review were:
I . THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
FINDING OF THE HONORABLE SECRETARY AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF
THE DAR THAT RESPONDENT MER.LITA J. RAMOS HAS A BETTER RIGHT TO
SUCCEED TO THE AGRICULTURAL LANDHOLDING OF THE LATE
DEOGRACIAS JANEO.
2. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ORD ER OF THE
HONORABLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DAR REGION VI , ILOILO CITY, THAT
THE WAIVER OF RIGHTS IN FAVOR OF PETI T IONER EMELITA JANEO-SOL
HAS BEEN FRAUDULENTLY EXECUTED.
3 . THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ALSO ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS
OF MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 19, SERIES OF 1978, WITHOUT TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT THE DEED OF WAIVER OF RIGHTS IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER
EMELITA JANEO SOL.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 232755
CA s Ruling
The CA ruled that the DAR Secretary has no authority to order the
issuance of a new EP in favor of petitioner Merlita over the same
property covered by EP No. A-119356 and TCT No. EP-5840 issued in
favor of respondent Emelita. 45 It held that the registration of an EP and
the issuance of the c01Tesponding TCT by the Registry of Deeds in
respondent Emelita's favor divested the DAR Secretary of administrative
authority to summarily cancel that EP. 46 According to the CA, it is only
when an EP or a CLT is not yet registered with the Land Registration
Authority (LRA), or now the Register of Deeds, that the DAR Secretary
retains authority to cancel them in the exercise of his administrative
functions .47
43
Id . at 60-74.
44
Id . at72-73.
45
Id. at 71.
46
Id . at 66.
47 Id .
➔s Id .
Decision 8 G.R . No. 232755
Present Petition
Respondents Comment
Petitioners Reply
Issues
Our Ruling
61
Id. at 278-279.
62
Id. at 279.
63
Id . at 280.
64
Id. at 281.
65
Id . at 285-288.
66
Id . at 285 .
67
Id . at 286.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 232755
Executive Order No. (EO) 229, 68 signed on July 22, 1987, vests
on the DAR quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters, and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the DA. 69
68
Entitled "Providing the Mechanisms for the Implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program."
69
SECTION 17. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is hereby vested with quasi -
judicial powers 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 original jurisdiction of the DENR and the Depat1ment of Agriculture
(DA).
xxxx
7
° Cabral v. Court ofAppeals, 413 Phil. 469, 484 (200 I) .
71
Entitled "Modifying Order No . 129 Reorganizing and Strengthening the Department of Agrarian
Reform and for Other Purposes."
72
Section 13 of EO 129-A provides:
SECTION 13. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. - There is hereby created an Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board under the Office of the Secretary. The Board shall be composed of the
Secretary as Chairman, two (2) Undersecretaries as may be designated by the Secretary, the
Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs, and three (3) others to be appointed by the President upon
the recommendation of the Secretary as members. A Secretariat shall be constituted to support the
Board. The Board shall assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of
agrarian refom1 cases under Executive Order No . 229 and this Execut ive Order. These powers and
functions may be delegated to the regional offices of the Depat1ment in accordance with rules and
regulations to be promulgated by the Board.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 232755
Thereafter, the CARL was enacted and took effect on June 15,
1988. Section 50 of the CARL provides:
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
g) XX X
xxxx
SECTION 3. Definitions. - xx x
xxxx
74
Id. at 74-77, citing Heirs ofJulian de/a Cruz v. Heirs ofAlberto Cruz, 512 Phil. 389,404 (2005)
and Bagongahasa v. Romualdez, 661 Phil. 686, 695-696(2011 ).
Decision 17 G.R. No. 232755
75
Sutton v. Lim supra note 72 , at 75.
76
426 Phil. 319 (2002).
77
Id. at 329-330. See also Concha v. Rubio, 631 Phil. 21 , 40-41 (20 I 0) and Polo Plantation
Agrarian Reform Multipurpos e Cooperative v. Inson , G.R. No. 189162, January 30, 2019.
78
See the DAR Secretary's Order dated December I 0, 1997. Rollo, pp. 221 -227.
79
See Heirs of Julian dela Cruz v. Heirs ofAlberto Cruz, 512 Phil. 389 (2005)
Decision 18 G.R. No. 232755
The Court also finds that the CA erred in ruling that the Certificate
of Title issued in respondent Emelita's name has become
incontrovertible and indefeasible, and can no longer be altered, canceled
or modified, or subjected to any collateral attack after the expiration of
one year from the date of entry of the decree of registration, pursuant to
Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. 80
80
Entitled " Amend ing and Codifying the Laws Relative to Registration of Property and for Other
Purposes," approved on June 11, 1978.
81
Heirs of Cayetano Cascayan v. Sps. Guma!laoi, 812 Phil. I 08, 127 (2017) .
82
See rollo, p. 64.
83
815 Phil. 60 (2 017).
Decision 19 G.R. No. 232755
84
Id . at 85-86, citing Heirs of Clem ente Ermac v. Heirs of Vicente Ermac, 45 I Phil. 368, 376-377
(2003), Lacbayan v. Samay, J1'. , 661 Phil. 306, 317 (2011 ), and Mallilin, Jr v. Castillo, 389 Phil.
I 53 , 165 (2000) .
Decision 20 G.R. No. 232755
her name. 85 Upon petitioner Merlita's and her siblings' motion for
reconsideration/reinvestigation on the ground that fraud attended the
Waiver of Rights in favor of respondent Emelita, the DAR Secretary
revoked his earlier Order and remanded the case to the Regional Director
for further investigation. 86 The DAR's scrutiny of the Waiver of Rights
was necessary to validate the qualifications of the allocatee and to
resolve the issue as to who among the heirs of the deceased CARP
beneficiary should be the rightful successor to the subject landholding in
accordance with the provisions of MC 19, s. 1978. Corollary thereto, to
expedite the reallocation of lands left by deceased beneficiaries, all DAR
Regional Directors are authorized to confirm the selection of the sole
owner-cultivator made by the surviving heirs or, in appropriate cases, to
designate such sole owner-cultivator in accordance with existing rules
and regulations of the DAR. 87
85
Rollo, p. 23 7.
86
Id. at 241-242.
87
See Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1984, implementing Ministry Memorandum
C ircular No. 19, Series of 1978.
Pursuant to Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978, in case of
death of a farmer-beneficiary of P.O. No. 27, the surv iving heirs shall be free to choose
from among themselves one who shall have sole ownership and cultivation of the land.
Furthermore, in case of disagreement or failure of the heirs to detennine who shall be
the sole owner-cultivator within the period prescribed, designation of the successor shall
be made by the Ministry with the surviving spouse given first preference and in the
absence or due to the permanent incapacity of the surviving spouse, priority shall be
determined among the heirs according to age.
In order to expedite the reallocation of lands left by deceased beneficiaries, all
MAR Regional Directors are hereby authorized to confirm the se lection of the sole
owner-cultivator made by the surviving heirs or in appropriate cases, to designate such
sole owner-cultivator.
All requests for the issuance of a Certificate of Land Transfer and/or
Emancipation Patent in favor of the successor forwarded to MARCO shall be
accompanied with a copy of the Order issued by the Regional Director.
In the discharge of this authority, the guidelines contained in Ministry
Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978 shall be strictly observed.
88
Rollo, pp. 238-240.
89
Id . at 247.
Decision 21 G.R. No. 232755
The Court finds, however, that a remand of the case to the CA for
determination of the ·factual issues raised will only entail an unnecessary
delay in the termination of the case considering that the records have
been elevated to the Court in this Petition.
97
G.R. No. 22483 1, September 15, 2021.
98
Id. Citing DAR v. Oroville Development Corp. , 548 Phil. 51 , 58 (2007).
Decision G.R. No. 232755
SO ORDERED.
/
HENR . INTING
WE CONCUR:
. On official leave
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
A sociate Justice
,/
/
r_/
Decision 24 G.R. No . 232755
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court's Division.
HEN . INTING
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Third Division
(Per S.O. No. 2918-REVISED dated October 12, 2022)
CERTIFICATION