[O.P. Case No. 3772.  February 5, 1993.]

[Civil Case No. 8473]

EDGARDO D. AREOLA, appellant, vs. JULIANA VDA. de PAJOTA, ET AL., appellees.

D E C I S I O N

          This is an appeal of Edgardo D. Areola, from the order of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, February 1, 1988, the dispositive portion of which reads:

          "WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued dismissing the Appeal of the defendant for lack of merit and affirming the certification issued by the Regional Director, DAR, Region III, San Fernando, Pampanga, on December 2, 1986 that Civil Case No. 8473 is Proper for Trial."

          Records show that the land subject of the present controversy, consisting of (2) hectares, more or less, and located in Bgy. Bicos, Rizal, Nueva Ecija, is a portion of a 32-hectare agricultural land covered by TCT-#T-2640 owned by the late Major Juan Pajota, husband of herein appellee Juliana Vda. de Pajota.

          According to appellant Edgardo Arcola, the lot in question was transferred to a certain Leonardo Barangan under the Operation Land Transfer Program of the government and that a certification to that effect was issued by the Officer-in-Charge of the DAR Team Office of Rizal, Nueva Ecija; that he (appellant) has been in actual possession and cultivation of the disputed land in the concept of tenant-farmer by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney executed by Leonardo Barangan on December 11, 1983; that Ernesto Baul was among Juan Pajota's men from Kalikid, Cabanatuan City, who was installed as tenant and thereafter acted as overseer of the land; that on July 31, 1985, herein appellees filed a complaint against appellant for Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

          On the other hand, appellees contend that they are the compulsory heirs of the late Juan Pajota; that on July 29, 1985 they filed against appellant Civil Case No. 8473 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 26, of Cabanatuan City, to recover possession of the land in question; that, in 1976 before the death of Juan Pajota, Baul was installed as tenant in the disputed area; in 1984 Baul mortgaged his tenancy rights to Feliciano Hilarion and Luisa Lawagan who agreed to till the land until the amount loaned is paid; that, after appellees had talked to Hilarion and Lawagan, the former agreed to pay the loan, provided that Baul will execute a Deed of Voluntary Surrender; that, before the actual execution of said instrument, appellant unlawfully withheld possession of the land and refused to surrender possession thereof, despite appellees' repeated demands therefor.

          Acting on appellees aforementioned complaint, the RTC of Cabanatuan City, in an order of September 18, 1985, referred the case to the then Ministry (now Department) of Agrarian Reform for preliminary determination of the relationship between the parties.

          After appellant had submitted his affidavit and appellee's their comment, MAR Hearing Officer Germogenes R. Rena made a preliminary statement of facts and, on September 3, 1985, ordered the parties to submit their respective comments thereon within 5 days from receipt of said order. Noting that the parties had not submitted the desired comments, the MAR Hearing Officer issued an order on December 24, 1985 reiterating the following findings of fact:

          "From the foregoing, it is very clear that neither Leonardo Barangan and Edgardo Areola are tenants of the said land, Leonardo Barangan had abandoned the subject land and his Attorney-in-Facts Edgardo Areola is not recognized as tenant in the subject land."

          On January 20, 1986, appellant filed his "Comment/Manifestation and Motion," alleging, among others, that the procedure for summary proceeding prescribed by DAR Memorandum Circular No. 29, series of 1973, should be followed. Taking issue thereon, the MAR Hearing Officer countered that said circular had been superseded by Ministry Administrative Order No. 2-84, series of 1984, entitled "The Revised Rules and Procedure Governing Investigation of Cases Referred by Courts of Fiscals to MAR for Certification," which pertinently states:

          "Transmittal of records to Team Leader-Cases subject of referral and certification shall be forwarded by the Courts or by tribunal, fiscal or other officer having jurisdiction to the Agrarian Reform District Officer or Team Leader of the area where the property is located. The District officer or Team Leader shall immediately refer the case to the Team Legal Officer. In the absence of a Team Legal Officer, or if he is unable to act on the referral for valid reason, the District Officer shall assign a lawyer in the district to conduct the investigation.

          The District Officer or Team Leader shall within 48 hours from receipt of the order of referral furnish the Ministry of a copy thereof thru the Director of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance."

          Thereafter, appellant was directed on several occasions to submit evidence to support his case, but, for one reason or another, failed to do so. Consequently, on February 24, 1986, the MAR Hearing officer made the following recommendation, to wit:

          "Considering it is very clear that Edgardo Areola is not a tenant in the subject landholding, nor Leonardo Barangan has any relationship as a tenant in the subject landholding having abandoned the same, this case is not for ejectment of a tenant and should be certified as "PROPER FOR TRIAL"

          On December 2, 1986, the DAR Regional Director, Region III, certified the case as Proper for Trial. From this certification, appellant appealed to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who, on February 1, 1988, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the certification issued by the DAR Regional Director. Hence, this present recourse.

          The instant appeal is anchored on the following grounds: 1) that RTC Branch 26, Cabanatuan City, is bereft of jurisdiction over the complaint (Civil Case No. 8473) filed therewith by appellees because it contains allegations tending to confer exclusive and original jurisdiction on the Municipal Trial Court over an action for forcible entry and detainer; 2) that the appealed certification contravenes DAR Memorandum Circular No. 29, Series of 1973 (Guidelines in the Implementation of P.D. No. 316 in relation to P.D. No. 27.); 3) that appellant was denied the due process of law, since the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, in dismissing the appeal, relied heavily on court records, affidavits and certifications which are not under oath or notarized and issued by persons who never testified nor were presented as witnesses during the summary proceedings conducted by the DAR Hearing Officer and, hence inadmissible as evidence; and 4) that appellees are not entitled to recover possession and cultivation of the landholding in question.

          After careful study, we find the instant appeal manifestly devoid of substantial merit.

          The facts of record fully establish that neither appellant nor his alleged predecessor-in-interest are tenants of the contested lot. Appellant could have controverted the MAR Hearing Officer's finding to the effect but opted not to present contrary evidence, despite several opportunities granted him. Thus, said factual finding precludes appellant from asserting otherwise.

          The issue of jurisdiction should be raised before the proper forum at the proper time. Likewise, the resolution of the fourth issue hinges largely on the final outcome of the case when tried in court.

          Anent the second ground, we find no violation of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 29, Series of 1973. We do not also agree with the holding that DAR Ministry Administrative Order No. 2-84, Series of 1984, has superseded DAR Memorandum Circular No. 29, Series of 1973. For, although the former was issued later, it merely outlines the flow of the records of cases subject of referral and certification from the court to the DAR Team Leader, then to the Team Legal Officer or, in his absence, to a lawyer in the district for investigation. The issues to be investigated are necessarily the same as those enumerated in Memorandum Circular No. 29. Moreover, the parties, particularly the appellant, were given ample opportunity to present their respective sides, but only minimal compliance was made. Finally, the DAR Hearing Officer issued his recommendation, which became the basis of the certification by the Regional Director and eventually by the appealed order of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Thus, far from violating the DAR guidelines on the subject, the MAR Hearing Officer and the Regional Director in fact followed the same to the letter, as shown by these findings of fact:

          "From the evidence submitted, both parties admitted that the subject landholding has an area of two hectares, more or less, located at Rizal, Nueva Ecija, devoted to the planting of rice and there is no doubt that Mr. Edgardo Areola is in possession and cultivation of the subject landholding."

          Thirdly, the recommendation of the DAR Hearing Officer, on which the appealed order was based, is all that can be had on the basis of the scanty evidence submitted, mostly by appellees. When the case is finally tried in court, the parties can then present additional evidence to substantiate their respective claims. On this score, the last paragraph of Section 12 of P.D. No. 946 provides:

          "The preliminary determination of the relationship between the contending parties by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his authorized representative is not binding upon the Court, Judge or hearing officer to whom the case is certified as a proper case for trial. Said Court, Judge or hearing officer may confirm, reverse or modify said preliminary determination as the evidence and substantial merits of the case may warrant."

          WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the order appealed from AFFIRMED.

          SO ORDERED.

          Manila, Philippines.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) RENATO C. CORONA

Assistant Executive Secretary
for Legal Affairs