[O.P. Case No. 96-I-6607.  March 6, 1998.]

IN RE: PETITION FOR COVERAGE UNDER OLT OF CERTAIN LANDHOLDINGS SITUATED AT UMINGAN, PANGASINAN.

FEDERICO ARQUINES, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. EMILIA INFANTADO, respondent-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

          This refers to the appeal of Emilia Infantado, thru counsel, from the Order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), dated July 12, 1996, the dispositive portion of which reads:

          "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for coverage of the subject landholdings not under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) but under CARP is hereby granted, subject to the fight of Mrs. Emilia lnfantado to retain five (5) hectares of her landholdings.

          "SO ORDERED."

          The present controversy arose from a petition filed before the DAR by appellees Federico Arquines, Cresencio Oaing, Artemio Ladines, Rodrigo Santiago, Alfredo Padapat, Francisco Almojera, Alfredo Benitez, Emeterio Sonaco, Alfredo Arquines, Herminigildo Mauri, Lito Sildera, Fernando Gonzales and Nestor Gonzales, for coverage under Operation Land Transfer (OLT) of certain landholdings in Umingan, Pangasinan. They alleged that they have been in continuous possession and cultivation of this land owned by spouses Fidel (now deceased) and Emilia Infantado from 1978 up to the present. Further, they claimed that the produce of the land were shared with the Infantados since 1978. They prayed that the landholding be place under OLT pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657.

          Together with the joint resolution of the Samahang Nayon of Caurdanetaan and Nancalabasaan and the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee resolution of Caurdanetaan, all in Umingan, Pangasinan, the petition was favorably indorsed by Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Amado B. Adviento to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office. A similar petition for OLT, in behalf of the farmers-appellees, was also filed by Atty. Domiciano L. Placido, Legal Service Chief of DAR Region I.

          Finding merit in the said petitions, DAR Regional Director Antonio M. Nuesa issued an Order, dated August 22, 1990, directing the MARO for Umingan, Pangasinan, to place under OLT the landholdings of the Infantados, consisting an aggregate area of 43.1445 hectares, including their newly identified landholding in Barangay Nancalabasaan, consisting of 15 hectares, more as less, and to distribute/allocate the same to the appellees.

          Four different cases involving the same parties and landholdings were also brought before the courts and the DAR Adjudication Board (or DARAB), to wit:

1.         Fidel and Emilia Infantado vs. Federico Arquines; Artemio Ladines, et al., Intervenors (Civil Case No. T-1715);

2.         Emilia and Fidel Infantado vs. Sebrino-Sildera and Alfredo Padapat (Civil Case No. 271-R);

3.         Federico Arquines, et al. vs. Emilia Infantado (DARAB Case No. 01-288-EP'90); and

4.         Emilia Infantado vs. Rodolfo Sildera and Alfredo Padapat (DARAB Case No. 262).

          In Civil Case No. T-1715, the court ruled, among other things, that Federico Arquines is a bonafide tenant of the Infantados, while in Civil Case No. 271-R, the complaint for ejectment was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Both DARAB Case Nos. 01-288-EP'90 and 262 were forwarded to the DAR for further proceedings and consolidation with the case at bar.

          Meanwhile, BALA Director Ruben Joel Puertollano directed the DAR Regional Director for Region I to conduct investigation on the landholdings of the Infantandos with emphasis on the following:

1.         Identify of the landholdings involved in the string of cases brought before the courts, DARAB and the DAR;

2.         The existing crops on the landholdings; and

3.         The total aggregate area of the Infantados' landholdings.

          In the Investigation Report of MARO Para-Legal Officer Alejandro T. Bajesta, it was revealed that:

1.         The subject matter in Civil Case No. 271-R and DARAB Case No. 262 involved two and one-half (2.5) hectares of agricultural land in Barangay Nancalabasaan, Umingan, Pangasinan. This same landholding is embraced on the twelve (12) hectares of agricultural land involved in DARAB Case No. 01-288-EP'90, Civil Case No. T-1715 and the case at bar.

2.         All the landholdings involved in the said cases are primarily devoted to root crops, sugarcane, vegetables and other auxiliary crops.

3.         The Infantados are owners of the following landholdings:

Title No.                          No. of Lots   Location           Area (in has.)

TCT No. 17732                13                     Nampalican                       23.8700

TCT No. 17436                10                     Fulgosino                           15.9636

TCT No. 69653                10                     Nancalabasaan                  12.0000

TCT No. 69652                  3                     Nancalabasaan                  13.6378

TCT No. 16922                10                     Nancalabasaan                  15.0680

TCT No. 924 (partial)         2                     Bantug                                 5.4856

*TCT No. 52434              20                     Cabangaran                       45.9288

(* co-owned by Emilia Infantado and Fausta Belidario)

          On March 29, 1993, an application for retention was filed by Emilia Infantado indicating her desire to retain the land covered by TCT No. 924 with an area of 128,840 square meters as her retention area.

          After evaluating the records, the DAR issued an Order, dated July 12, 1996, granting the petition for coverage of the landholding under the CARP, subject to the right of appellant Emilia Infantado to retain five (5) hectares of her landholdings.

          Hence, this appeal.

          This Office ordinarily accords respects, if not finality, to factual findings of lower offices by reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained from handling of specific matters falling under their respective jurisdiction. The exemptions to this rule are: (1) the factual findings are not supported by evidence; (2) the findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition, or collusion; (3) the procedure which led to the factual findings is irregular; (4) palpable errors are committed, or when a grave, abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifested (Ateneo de Manila vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 100).

          Absent any showing of any important cause therefor, this Office will not normally substitute its judgment for that of the lower office in a case or controversy involving a question which is within its jurisdiction where the question demands exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purpose of the statute administered (Antipolo Realty Corp. vs. NHA, 153 SCRA 399).

          A careful study of the records show that none of the above circumstances is present in the case before us which would justify the overturning of the findings of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform that appellees have been in possession of the disputed landholding since the 1970's; that appellant impliedly consented to the tenancy relation with the appellees when she received her supposed share of the produce of her land thru withdrawal of the deposits made in her favor by the latter; and that appellant had an aggregate agricultural landholding of 43.1445 hectares, more or less.

          In any event, while it may be conceded that the landholding in the original petition for conversion involved only twelve (12) hectares, the DAR may include other landholdings of the landowner(s) in case it exceeded the limits provided by the law.

          Relative thereto, appellant laid too much stress on the fact that in their supposed tenancy relationship with the appellees, the latter failed to prove consent and consideration.

          As narrated by the appellant, the questioned tenancy relationship started in the 1970s when they allowed appellee Federico Arquines to work on the land. Later, Arquines began inviting his co-appellees to enter and cultivate the land. It is of no moment that the entry of the other appellees to the land is without knowledge and consent of the appellant because the former are religiously paying the landowners' share of the produce of the land thru bank remittances. The money deposited thereto are then withdrawn by the appellants, giving basis to the findings of the lower court in Civil Case No. T-1715 that there was implied tenancy relationship between the parties.

          Finally, appellant cannot claim that she had been deprived of due process. It may be recalled that long before the petition for conversion was filed, the subject landholding were already being disputed by the parties before the courts and the DARAB. In the DARAB cases, both parties were afforded opportunities to present documentary evidences. When these cases were forwarded to the DAR for further proceedings, all the evidences of the parties were transmitted together with the records of the cases. The DAR, in turn, directed its Regional Office in Region I to conduct investigation of the disputed landholdings. After investigation, a report was submitted confirming the findings that appellant owned more than forty (40) hectares of agricultural land. Thus, it is highly inconceivable that appellant does not know of the planned conversion of her landholding when she wrote a letter to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform about her desire to retain the land covered by TCT No. 924. Aside from this fact, the case was resolved on the basis of documents previously submitted by the parties before the DARAB.

          It has already been settled that what due process abhors is not lack of previous notice but absolute lack of opportunity to be heard (Tajonero vs. Lamoroza, 110 SCRA 438). There is no denial of due process where the party was afforded every opportunity to present its case (Municipality of Daet vs. Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., 138 SCRA 265).

          WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Order appealed from AFFIRMED in toto.

          SO ORDERED.

          Manila, Philippines.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Presidential Legal Counsel

Copy furnished:

Atty. Nemesio V. Flora

Mr. Federico Arquines, et al.,

Ms. Emilia Infantado

Department of Agrarian Reform