[O.P. Case No. 98-J-8572.  December 6, 2001.]

BERNADETTE D. GIRAY, complainant-appellant, GAUDENCIO GIRAY, intervenor, vs. PRISCILLA OFIAZA, respondent-appellee.

D E C I S I O N

          Before this Office is the appeal of Gaudencio Giray ("Mr. Giray", hereinafter) dated April 22, 1998, from the order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary dated May 6, 1997, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

          "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion is denied for lack of merit thus, the Order dated July 12, 1996 of this Office is hereby affirmed.

          Accordingly, as far as this Office is concerned, this case is considered closed.

          SO ORDERED."

As culled from the records, the facts are:

          "(T)he subject of the dispute is a parcel of agricultural land consisting of about one (1) hectare and situated at Sitio Silihan, Mahabang Parang, Angono, Rizal. Said land was formerly owned by Alexander and Alliance Development Corporation which was acquired under the compulsory scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

          In 1982, respondent-appellee (Ofiaza) and her late husband occupied/possessed the questioned land through a deed of transfer of rights executed by Ester Apa, the former occupant of the adverted land. During their occupancy, they introduced fruit-bearing trees and other seasonal crops and likewise erected a house thereon. This established possession was interrupted sometime in August 1989 when appellee's husband died due to work-connected accident in Abu Dhabi. Furthermore, the possession was interrupted due to the untimely death of appellee's father and brother on January 31, 1990 or a few months after the death of her husband. These unfortunate events caused the temporary absence of the appellee in the landholding and necessitated the hiring of a caretaker to tend the cultivation and improvements on the land.

          On the other hand, appellant's (Bernadette Giray) alleged possession over the subject property was based on the possessory rights of Efren Selda who claimed the said land during the census conducted by the DAR personnel and during the absence of appellee Priscilla Ofiaza."

          In resolving the issue as to who, between complainant-appellant Bernadette Giray (appellant) and respondent-appellee Priscilla Ofiaza (appellee), has better possessory fights over the subject parcel of land, Atty. Rodlofo B. M. Bueno, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO), Province of Rizal, in an order dated June 28, 1994, ruled in favor of the latter and disposed as follows:

          "WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that as between the two (2) contending parties, Mrs. Priscilla Ofiazo has the better right to the possession of the subject parcel of land. Let the MARO ascertain the qualifications of the identified beneficiary if she has none of the disqualifications of a qualified farmer-beneficiary. Should Mrs. Ofiaza satisfy the criteria provided in the law, let the Certification of Landownership Award (CLOA) be generated in her favor, in relation to that portion subject of the controversy.

          SO ORDERED."

          In an order dated September 15, 1994, Mr. Percival C. Dalugdug, DAR Region IV Regional Director affirmed the PARO order of June 28, 1994. Said Mr. Dalugdug:

          "(F)rom the records of the case, evident is the fact that some responsible officers of the agency (DAR) conducted investigations aimed at ascertaining who really among the contending parties, namely, Bernadette Giray and Priscilla Ofiaza, is the legal possessor and who among them (sic) introduced the improvements on the subject land. Equally evident is the fact that these officers of the DAR arrived at the same finding: That Mrs. Ofiaza is the legal possessor and is the one who really introduced the improvements.

xxx                      xxx                      xxx

          Herein Complainant-Appellant, in support of her prayer for the reversal of the questioned Order tendered various documents. Noteworthy and regretting is the fact that said documents are either self-serving or has no bearing or connection at all to the present controversy. Hence disturbance of facts already established on record by the above-mentioned documents should not be sanctioned nor countenanced."

          On appeal, the DAR Secretary, in an order dated July 12, 1996, affirmed the PARO Order of June 28, 1994 and the Region IV Order of September 15, 1994, noting that —

          "(T)he evidence on record disclosed that appellee Ofiazo had prior physical possession of the land in question. This fact is buttressed by the "AFFIDAVIT" executed by Juanito Senido (Records, p. 80), Ester Apa (Records, p. 81), Eugene Calubao and Alfonso Estacio (Records, p. 82), all of whom are disinterested parties with no motive to falsify that can be attributed to them, except their desire to tell the truth.

          Moreover, an ocular inspection was conducted by DAR Legal Officer III Nelson G. Domingo on February 16, 1994 with the observation that the fruit-bearing trees planted thereon have ages from eight to ten years.

          On the other hand, a cursory reading of appellant's pleading (Notice of Appeal) and its supporting Annexes do not show any quantum of proof that she had prior possession of the disputed land vis-a-vis appellee Ofiaza. The thrust of her exhibits is her membership with a farmers organization . . . which could not be used as a basis in the award of CARP covered lands. Anent the "MASTERLIST OF FARMER BENEFICIARIES", wherein the name of appellant Giray appears, it is observed that there is substantial disparity in area between the land in question and the land stated in the said masterlist, thus, the latter landholding may refer to a different land from the subject land."

          In a letter to the DAR Secretary dated August 23, 1996 and styled "Motion for Intervention", Mr. Giray maintained that he was the person officially listed in the Masterlist of Farmer-Beneficiaries and the actual tiller of the subject land since 1987.

          Unconvinced, the DAR Secretary, on May 6, 1997, rendered the order quoted at the outset.

          Only Mr. Giray appealed to this Office on April 29, 1998, claiming, in the main, that he is the rightful beneficiary of the subject parcel of land.

          Mr. Giray's veneer allegation that he was officially listed in the Masterlist of Farmer-Beneficiaries and the actual tiller of the subject land since 1987 deserves scant attention. The administrative officials below conclusively found that the appellee was the bona fide applicant of the land in dispute after Mr. Giray failed to show substantial evidence which gives him any right over the disputed property.

          The conclusions and findings of the DAR are, as a rule, entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons. Hence, we defer to the factual findings of the PARO, as affirmed by the Regional Office and later sustained by the Office of the DAR Secretary, that appellee had the better agrarian claim to the property in question.

          WHEREFORE, the appeal of intervenor Gaudencio Giray is hereby dismissed and the May 6, 1997 and July 12, 1996 orders of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary affirmed in toto.

          SO ORDERED.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) ALBERTO G. ROMULO

Executive Secretary

Copy for:

BERNADETTE GIRAY &
GAUDENCIO GIRAY

Sitio Silihan, Mahabang Parang

Angono, Rizal

RENATO J. SANTIAGO

Counsel for Mrs. Priscila Ofiaza

Danding Bldg. Municipal Site

Valenzuela City

The DAR

Quezon City