Dar-logo Ice-logo

NINTH DIVISION

 

[CA-G.R. SP No. 44879.  August 31, 2000.]

 

MANUEL GONZALES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND VICTORIANO QUIAMCO, JR., ET AL., respondents.

 

D E C I S I O N

 

VERZOLA, E., J p:

Before us is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, damages, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order which seeks to annul the cancellation of titles of the petitioners' parents who are now deceased and the subsequent issuance of new titles in favor of the private respondents.   TSCIEa

The record shows that:

"1.     Petitioners are the legal heirs of the late spouses Emilio Gonzales and Marina dela Cruz Gonzales. During their lifetime the spouses had acquired real properties situated in Cubo, San Isidro, Davao Oriental. The parcel of lands and their respective areas were covered by the following TCTs.                                  

    TCT No. AREAS (sq.m.)

I. (T-3279) T-220 186,151 SQ.M.

II. (T-3279) T-220 69,801 SQ.M.

III. OTC (P-14872) 232,083 SQ.M.


P-3801

(The first two (2) parcel(s) of land (sic) were embraced in one certificate of title)

2.      Petitioner Manuel Gonzales was appointed executor of the Last Will and Testament of his late mother. In May 1997, he allegedly discovered partial cancellations in the TCTs abovementioned, and that new TCTs were issued in lieu thereof in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. The land in issue was brought under coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

3.      The land involved was distributed through Certificate's (sic) of Land Ownership Award to the following farmer-beneficiaries: 

  Leo Mahilum
Victoriano Guiamso

Fe Gonzaga
Edwin Nalasco

Josie Mahilum
Angelo Bordon

Sergio Mahilum
Cenon Delgado

Noniso Mahilum
Wilson Recana

Alexander Mahilum
Myrna Denso


Rufino Pareja


Damian Tiro


Antonio Baglosis


Edilberto Toniado


Zacarias Pianas


Roldan Rose


Conchita Serenas


Emilio Dizon


Herminio Ortega  

4.      Petitioners claim that the cancellation of their titles and the award thereof to farmer-beneficiaries were made without due process and payment of compensation.   HcaDTE

It was admitted, however, that prior to the cancellation of the titles involved, petitioner Manuel Gonzales had entered into a clandestinely (sic) agreement with Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) Atty. Benjamin Etulle, to exclude the land involved from coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. The illegal scheme failed.

5.      Without first resorting to available administrative remedies, pursuant to Section 50, Chapter XII of RA 6657, Section 17, Chapter 10 of Exec. Order No. 229, and the DAR (Department of Agrarian Reform) Adjudication Board New Rules of Procedures, (sic) dated May 30, 1994, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari before this Honorable Court." 1

We have examined the facts and the evidence in this case. We find no merit in the petition. We shall explain.

Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

"Sec. 1.         Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and document relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46."

A perusal of the petition would reveal that there is no judgment, order or resolution issued by the public respondents which can be made the subject of this petition for certiorari. Without the text of the orders sought to be annulled, the Court cannot be expected to act on the petition.

It must be noted that "Certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same must observe the rules laid down by law." 2

In Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 3 the Supreme Court held: "Basic is the rule that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a precondition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly."   TEAaDC

As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, failure to exhaust administrative remedies is fatal in the case at bar.

Section 1, Rule II of The DARAB New Rules of Procedure provides:

"Section 1.    Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. — The Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to cases involving the following:

a)         The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;

xxx                    xxx                    xxx

c)         The annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR or LBP;

xxx                    xxx                    xxx

f)         Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;

xxx                    xxx                    xxx

Matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARP) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.   ITHADC

xxx                    xxx                    xxx."

in relation to Section 54, RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) which provides:

"Section 54.  Certiorari. — Any decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari except as otherwise provided in this Act within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.

The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence."

While petitioners contend that the Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform unlawfully issued the Certificates of Land Ownership Award to private respondent and the Register of Deeds of Mati, Davao Oriental, illegally cancelled the Certificates of Title in the name of their late parents, there is no showing that they have lodged any complaint before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB) concerned.

In the Comment filed by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Davao, Oriental, it was pointed out that the petitioners never availed of the remedies provided by law although it is clear that the issues raised in the petition involve the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

Note must be taken of the fact that "the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence." 4

In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board vs. Court of Appeals, 5 the Supreme Court ruled that: "Under Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, it is the DAR which is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources."

"All actions pursued under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DAR, in accordance with Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, must be commenced in the PARAD of the province where the property is located and the DARAB only has appellate jurisdiction to review the PARAD's orders, decision and other disposition."   CSIDEc

It must be noted that the jurisdiction of the Adjudication Board is all encompassing, as long as the dispute or controversy arises out of the implementation of the CARL, the same should, by law, be within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the fact that there had been cancellation of titles in the name of the late parents of the petitioners over the properties in question and the consequent issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in favor of private respondents, thus it is within the jurisdiction of the Adjudication Board.

Finally, this Court cannot issue a writ of prohibition and injunction as prayed for by the petitioners in view of the express provision of the law as enunciated in Section 55, RA 6657 which reads:

"Section 55.  No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. — No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform."

The controversy involved in this case is well within the jurisdiction of the Adjudication Board. The present petition for certiorari must be denied.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and is DISMISSED accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Barrios and Rosario, Jr., JJ., concur.

 

Footnotes

  1.       Rollo, pp. 74-76, Comment, pp. 1-3.

  2.       Manila Midtown Hotels and Land Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 288 SCRA 259, (1998).

  3.       290 SCRA 198, (1998).

  4.       Machete vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 176, (1995).

  5.       266 SCRA 404, (1997).

 



CONTACT INFORMATION

Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel. No.: (632) 928-7031 to 39

Copyright Information

All material contained in this site is copyrighted by the Department of Agrarian Reform unless otherwise specified. For the purposes of this demo, information are intended to show a representative example of a live site. All images and materials are the copyright of their respective owners.