December 13, 1996
DAR OPINION NO. 132-96
MR. HERMINIGILDO BERON
c/o Elsa O. Macabulos
Pacita Commercial Center
San Pedro, Laguna
Dear Mr. Beron:
This has reference to your letter seeking opinion on the queries posed therein, to wit:
a) May the Order/Decision of the DAR Secretary be considered final despite an appeal by the landowner to the Court of Appeals?
b) Can the PARO suspend the processing of an Emancipation Patent despite the absence of an order to that effect from the court?
You state that you are a tenant of a parcel of land situated at Brgy. Landayan, San Pedro, Laguna; that said property has an area of 28,521 square meters for which Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) No. NS-120169 was issued to you on 11 September 1972; that several cases were filed against you by the landowner, but in all those cases your rights as an alleged tenant and the issuance of CLT were affirmed by no less than the Supreme Court; and sometime in 1993, a new case was again filed against you by the same landowner before the DAR Regional Director and the Office of DAR Secretary, and again your right as a tenant was affirmed, however, this case was appealed and pending resolution before the Court of Appeals.
Anent your first query, the answer is in the negative. Decisions of the DAR Secretary on purely agrarian administrative matters do not attain finality not withstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals the same is executory with the rendition of his decision on the matter. Such decisions of the DAR involving, among other things, tenancy rights and issuance of CLT's or cancellation of unregistered EPs/CLOAs are appealable to the Office of the President and/or to the Court of Appeals and even to the Supreme Court on questions of law. Stated otherwise, the decision of the DAR Secretary on administrative matters is not the end of the litigation because parties adversely affected by the decision can elevate the same to the Office of the President, Court of Appeals and even to the Supreme Court for proper review. This procedure is in recognition of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies which mandates the parties to exhaust all remedies available thereto. This is likewise intended to give administrative bodies the opportunity to rectify mistakes committed by them. In this regard, the pendency of the case before the Court of Appeals does not make the decision of the DAR Secretary final and executory pending resolution by the said appellate court.
Anent your second query, the answer is in the affirmative. A PARO can suspend the processing of an Emancipation Patent pending resolution/disposition by the courts as to the merits of the case and this rule holds true even if there is no order to that effect from the court. The suspension is predicated on the theory that premature processing of EPs in the name of a tenant is an implied determination of the issue of ownership as EPs represents ownership, what the law seeks to prevent in the deferment of issuance of EPs pending resolution of the case is the premature determination of the issue of ownership by the Department of Agrarian Reform brought about by the issuance of the appellate court on the matter is the same as the Department of Agrarian Reform.
We hope to have clarified matters with you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LORENZO R. REYES
OIC-Undersecretary
LAFMA
Copy furnished:
OSEC
Doc. No. 96090001
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
Sta. Cruz, Laguna