|
ZOSIMO OCTAVIO and JESUS
ALBONA (substituted by his wife, VIOLETA ALBONA), Petitioners, - versus - ENRICO R. PEROVANO,· Respondent. |
G.R. No. 172400
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, ynares-santiago,* CHICO-NAZARIO,** LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*** and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: June 23, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING,
J.:
Before us is the appeal of petitioners Zosimo Octavio
and Jesus Albona (deceased and substituted by his wife Violeta Albona) from the
Decision[1] dated
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
On
In his complaint, Enrico alleged he is the lawful and
registered owner of Lot No. 412 situated at the City of
In their Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Motion
to Dismiss,[7]
Zosimo, Jesus and Dolores denied Enrico’s allegations and argued that the land
was voluntarily offered for sale by Estefania Perovano, Enrico’s mother, to the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in 1992.
By reason of the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS), the landowner
(Estefania) placed the land under the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657,[8] otherwise known as
the “Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998.” They further alleged that immediately
thereafter, the processing of the VOS Claim Folder was initiated by the DAR
Municipal Office of Talisay, Negros Occidental; identification and registration
of qualified farmer-beneficiaries pursuant to Section 22[9] of Rep. Act No.
6657 was conducted by the DAR Municipal Office of Talisay; and Zosimo and Jesus
were among those identified and qualified as farmer-beneficiaries of the
land. The VOS Claim Folder was elevated
to the DAR Municipal Office for review and evaluation and when the processing
of the Claim Folder was completed, the latter was forwarded to the Land Bank of
the
On
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of the plaintiff. Defendants herein
are ordered:
1. To vacate Lot 412, Talisay Cadastre, subject of the
instant case, remove all improvements introduced thereon and stop further
cultivation of the land and to return possession of the same to the plaintiff;
2. Defendants Zosimo Octavio and Jesus Alb[o]na are
ordered to pay solidarily herein plaintiff Enrico Perovano the amount of thirty
two thousand pesos (P32,000.00) as yearly rental of the land from the
time of the filing of the complaint until plaintiff is restored to the
possession of the lot subject of this case.
3. Defendants herein Zosimo Octavio, Jesus Alb[o]na and
Dolores Gulmatico are ordered to pay or reimburse solidarily plaintiff the
amount of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) for attorney’s fees as well as
P500.00 per court appearance.
To pay the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[17]
Petitioners appealed to the RTC of Negros Occidental,
Branch 46, which, in a Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing considerations, this Court finds the Decision of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Talisay City, Negros Occidental, dated
December 29, 2000 to be supported by law and evidence, and finding no cogent
reason to disturb, modify, revise or reverse the same, said Decision is hereby AFFIRMED
in toto. With costs against the
defendants-appellants.
SO ORDERED.[18]
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision promulgated on
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.[19]
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioners raise the following issues for our
resolution:
I.
WHETHER OR
NOT THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING LOT 412 IS COVERED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN
REFORM PROGRAM, THUS THE CONVEYANCE OF THE SUBJECT LOT 412 BY ESTEFANIA [PEROVANO]
TO HER SON [ENRICO R. PEROVANO]; THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE CONTRACT BY ENRICO [PEROVANO]
IN FAVOR OF CARMELA VALLEY CORPORATION; AND OTHER SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS ARE
VOID.
II.
WHETHER OR
NOT THE CASE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE HEREIN PETITIONERS IS
TANTAMOUNT TO A CASE OF DISQUALIFICATION OF THE LATTER AS DULY INSTALLED FARMER
BENEFICIARIES OF THE SUBJECT
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION DATED APRIL 14, 2003 AND
THE RESOLUTION DATED JULY 3, 2003 OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
46, BACOLOD CITY FOR THE INSTANT CASE INVOLVES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP), WHICH IS AN AGRARIAN MATTER,
THEREBY DIVESTING THE REGULAR COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION.[20]
The issue boils down to whether or not the case is an
ejectment suit within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court or an
agrarian dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR.
Petitioners in their Memorandum[21] argue that the
subject Lot No. 412 of the Talisay Cadastre was subjected to a voluntary offer
to sell by no other than the previous owner, Estefania Perovano, on June 18,
1992; that on September 8, 1992, a Memorandum of Agreement was executed between
Estefania and the farmer-beneficiaries which included Zosimo and Jesus; the DAR
generated a CLOA and the previous title in the name of the previous owner was
canceled and thereafter the farmer-beneficiaries took possession of the same;
the former landowner had already received payment for the land from the
Republic of the Philippines through the Land Bank of the Philippines. Petitioners clarified that since farmer-beneficiaries
Arsenio Bene, Ricardo Orocio and Myrna Ayudante who were CLOA holders of the
subject Lot No. 412 abandoned the subject property after selling their rights
to the landowner, which acts are gross violations of Rep. Act No. 6657, they
were recommended for disqualification.
In their stead, Zosimo and Jesus were installed as farmer-beneficiaries. They point out that Regional Director Elmo A.
Bañares of DAR Region VI, in an Order[22] dated
On the other hand, respondent, in his Memorandum,[23] argue that the
existence or absence of an agrarian dispute is a question of fact which is not
proper for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Respondent likewise maintains that
petitioners herein are not CLOA holders and hence, they have no basis to state
that they are farmer-beneficiaries.
Further, no tenancy relationship exists between petitioners and
respondent. Being an ejectment case,
only the issue of possession is involved.
At the outset, let us be clear that jurisdiction over the subject matter of
an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the
law at the time the action is commenced, irrespective of whether the plaintiff
is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. It cannot be made to depend upon the defenses
set up in the answer or upon a motion to dismiss; otherwise, the question of
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant.[24]
A scrutiny of the material allegations in respondent’s complaint before the
MTCC shows that it involves possession de facto, the only issue involved
in ejectment proceedings. Enrico alleged
he is the lawful and registered owner of Lot No. 412 and that on or before the
first week of January 1999, petitioners Zosimo and Jesus, by threat,
intimidation, strategy and stealth, entered the premises of the land, plowed it
and started planting sugarcane.
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,[25] as amended by
Rep. Act No. 7691,[26] the MTC shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer. The Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure[27] governs the
remedial aspects of such suits.[28]
Under Section 50 of Rep. Act No. 6657, the DAR is 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.”[29] An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy
relating to, inter alia, tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture.[30] Under Section 3(d) of Rep. Act No. 6657, an
agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements,
whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to
agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers’ associations or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to
compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of
transfer of ownership from landowner to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian
reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. It refers to any controversy relating to, inter
alia, tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture.[31]
Petitioners argue that the subject landholding is covered by the CARP and thus the conveyance of
the lot by Estefania to her son Enrico after she voluntarily offered to sell
her property to the DAR is void. There
is no question that the land is covered by the CARP. Records show that DAR Secretary Nasser C.
Pangandaman issued an Order on
However, whether or
not petitioners are duly installed farmer-beneficiaries is a finding of fact.
It is well-settled that in a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. We have time and again ruled that the factual
findings of fact by administrative agencies are generally accorded great
respect, if not finality, by the courts because of the special knowledge and expertise
of administrative departments over matters falling under their jurisdiction.[32] As held by this Court in Sta. Rosa Realty
v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[33] the
identification of farmer-beneficiaries is best left to the discretion of the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, through its authorized offices, as this is a
matter involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, and
unless the Court finds that there was grave abuse of discretion committed by
the agency involved, which the Court finds absent in this case, it will not
substitute its judgment to that of the agency’s.[34]
Records show that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
promulgated on
It appears that complainants-appellants
(which included Zosimo and Jesus) were not among those three (3) non-CLOA
holders occupying portions of Lot Nos. 412
and 04 who were given one-hectare land each as disturbance compensation. Otherwise, they would have not filed this
case on
Thus, this Board is of the opinion that complainants-appellants
were not recognized as farmer-beneficiaries of the subject landholding. Their continued possession thereof was
through stealth. Even if they were
not identified as farmer-beneficiaries and not awarded any CLOA, they
arrogated unto themselves the portions of the subject landholding. As admitted by them in the hearing, they came
into the land on the premise that they are farmer-beneficiaries. Without waiting for an award of any CLOA,
complainants-appellants occupied the landholding. In the process, “expropriating” the property
of the landowner without due process of law, prejudicing the rights of the
landowner and the legitimate farmer-beneficiaries who were duly awarded with
CLOA.
The acts of the complainants-appellants
are similar to that of land grabbing.
The agrarian reform law is not enacted to give license to anybody to
grab somebody else’s land. Neither [is
it] enacted to protect the land grabbers or the squatters.[35] (Emphasis
supplied.)
Petitioners’ argument that the case involves an agrarian matter divesting
the regular courts of jurisdiction therefore has no merit. They are not farmer-beneficiaries but mere
usurpers of the land.
The MTCC properly ruled that:
x x x Defendants’
[petitioners herein] claim of ownership [as] farmer-beneficiaries is not
evidenced [by] any Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) for nothing is
shown that they are CLOA holders.
Likewise, it is clearly established that defendants herein Zosimo Octavio
and Jesus Alb[o]na remained at plaintiff’s
[L]ot 414 and did not reside on Lot 412 for they were residents of Lot
414 for more than 20 years to date as declared by them in their Joint
Affidavits executed on November 20, 2000 at Iloilo City.[36]
Clearly, therefore, the action is one for ejectment and the MTCC has
jurisdiction over it.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
||
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
||
A T T E S T A T I O N
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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
· Spelled as Pirovano in some parts of the records.
* Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 645 in place of Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales who is on official leave.
** Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 658.
*** Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 635 in view of the retirement of Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga.
[1] Rollo, pp. 42-50. Penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale, with Associate Justices Vicente L. Yap and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Records, p. 210.
[7] Rollo, pp. 121-133.
[8] Done and adopted on
[9] SEC. 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. – The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.
Provided, however, That the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents; And provided, further, That actual tenant -tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under this Program.
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC.
If, due to the landowner’s retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership of other lands available for distribution under this Act, at the option of the beneficiaries.
Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of privately-owned lands will be given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from the public domain.
[10] Rollo, pp. 122-123.
[11]
[12]
[13] 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).
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.
It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. It shall likewise have the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.
Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR; Provided, however, That when there are two or more representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among themselves to represent such party or group before any DAR proceeding.
Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be immediately executory.
[14] Rollo, p. 127.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Rimasug v. Martin, G.R. No. 160118,
[25] The Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, approved on
[26] An
Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Otherwise Known as the “Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980”, approved on
[27] Effective on
[28] Rivera v.
[29]
[30]
[31] Amurao v. Villalobos, G.R. No.
157491,
[32] Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142359, May 25, 2004, 429 SCRA 109, 130-131.
[33] G.R. Nos. 112526 & 118338,
[34]
[35] Rollo, p. 231.
[36]