Department of Agrarian Reform

This is an appeal by petition for review pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, from the Decision 1 of the Office of the President through the Executive Secretary in O.P. Case No. 96-0-6422. The dispositive portion of this decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued: (1) granting appellant Juson's appeal; (2) setting aside and declaring null and void the Orders of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform dated 16 June 1995 and 31 January 1996; (3) reversing, setting aside and declaring null and void the Order dated 03 March 1994 of the DAR Region III Director; (4) declaring that Fortunato Buela is not a qualified beneficiary under CARP; (5) declaring that the Subject Property is not covered under Operation Land Transfer; (6) recognizing the validity of the voluntary surrender executed by Francisca Buela; and (7) dismissing the Petition dated 09 December 1993.

SO ORDERED." 2

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

Private respondent Jose C. Juson is the previous landholder of Lot No. 3272, with an aggregate area of eight thousand three hundred ninety nine (8,399) square meters, more or less, situated at Barangay Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan. This property is covered by a Torrens Title, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-785 (hereinafter "OCT No. 0-785"). Later on, it was subdivided among Josefina M. Juson, Zenaida M. Juson, Ma. Cecilia M. Juson and Ma. Asuncion M. Juson. Thereafter, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-41.178 (M) was issued to them on August 19, 1980.

The property covered by TCT No. T-41.178 (M) was then consolidated with two (2) other parcels of land covered by TCT No. 25.814 and TCT No. 42.031 (M). It was subsequently subdivided to the following: (1) Ma. Asuncion M. Juson, TCT No. 47.434 (M) with an area of 1,289 square meters, more or less; (2) Ma. Cecilia M. Juson, TCT No. 47.435 (M) with an area of 1,319 square meters more or less; (3) Zenaida M. Juson, TCT No. 47.435 (M) with an area of 2,105 square meters more or less; and (4) Josefina M. Juson, TCT No. 47.438 (M), with an area of 2,033 square meters more or less.

Private respondent is the registered owner of Lot No. 3261, with an area of fourteen thousand four hundred twenty three (14,423) square meters, more or less, situated at Barangay Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan, covered by TCT No. 0-1343 (M). Title thereto was issued on January 28, 1994 and is classified as residential per Tax Declaration No. 5554.

Prior to the Second World War, spouses Pelagio and Francisca Buela ostensibly tilled these parcels of land until the death of Pelagio Buela in 1955. Francisca Buela tilled these parcels of land until she executed a voluntary surrender of the same in 1979 in favor of private respondent.

On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 ("P.D. No. 27") was enacted into law. Said law subjected all rice and corn lands under land reform. Prior to the issuance of the Order 3 of the OIC Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform Region III dated March 1994, Lot No. 3261 and Lot No. 3272 and all the other landholdings of private respondent were never placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer.

On February 23, 1979, Francisca Buela executed a "Pinanumpaang Salaysay" 4 or voluntary surrender of the same landholdings in favor of private respondent, her landowner. In consideration thereof, the sum of forty-five thousand pesos (P45,000.00) and one thousand (1,000) square meters of the property surrendered, were given to her. In the said voluntary surrender, affiant Francisca Buela categorically stated that she is voluntarily surrendering the land she is tilling because the same is no longer comparatively productive with an end in view of engaging in another means of livelihood. Private respondent acknowledged the voluntary surrender in another "Pinanumpaang Salaysay" 5 on February 23, 1979.

The sum of forty five thousand pesos (P45,000.00) was delivered to Francisca Buela, but the additional one thousand (1,000) square meter lot consideration was not immediately assigned to her because title to the property was yet to be issued in favor of private respondent. Meanwhile, the heirs of Francisca Buela occupied and appropriated for themselves a portion of the subject property. There is however the possibility that they may have occupied a portion beyond the one thousand square meters alloted to Francisca Buela. At some point in December 1993, private respondent, in the company of her two (2) daughters, paid a visit to Miguelito Buela, who was then occupying Lot No. 3261. They notified the heirs of Francisca Buela of the reason for the delay in the assignment of the one thousand (1,000) square meters. They gave them the assurance that the same will be fulfilled the moment the title to the property was issued in favor of private respondent.

On October 11, 1979, upon the request of private respondent, Mr. Armando C. Canlas who was then a Team Leader I of the Department of Agrarian Reform issued a Certification 6. The Certification unequivocally declared that the subject property has no tenant-tiller and is not covered by P.D. No. 27 or Operation Land Transfer.

Since the execution of the "Pinanumpaang Salaysay" by Francisca Buela in 1979 and until her demise in 1979, her heirs never asserted their rights to the subject property. Neither did they give any farm lease rental to private respondent nor did they inform the latter of the status of the subject property.

Moreover, no tenancy relationship was entered into between private respondent and the heirs of Francisca Buela. By considering the land as not tenanted, private respondent did not authorize any of the heirs of the late Francisca Buela to cultivate the subject property. Contrary to the belief however of private respondent that the heirs of Francisca Buela acknowledged him as the absolute owner of the subject property, Bonifacio M. Buela, one of the heirs of Francisca Buela, introduced and constructed a four-door apartment building on Lot No. 3261. He likewise utilized the same for his hollow block business.

It was on December 9, 1993 that petitioner filed a petition with the Department of Agrarian Reform Region III entitled, "In Re: PETITION OF FORTUNATO M. BUELA FOR DECLARATION AS SOLE OWNER-CULTIVATOR, NULLIFICATION OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, COVERAGE UNDER OPERATION LAND TRANSFER (OLT) AND/OR CARP, AND ISSUANCE OF EMANCIPATION PATENT (EP) AND/OR CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA) OVER THAT PARCELS OF LAND IDENTIFIED AS LOT NOS. 3272 AND 3261 WITH AN AREA OF 8,399 SQ. M. AND 14,423 SQ. M., RESPECTIVELY, OR A TOTAL OF ABOUT 22,822 SQ. M., BOTH SITUATED AT BARRIO MALHACAN, MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN".

Private respondent however was not notified of the petition. He was not furnished with a copy of the petition. It was only after an Order was issued by DAR Region III on March 3, 1994 that private respondent learned of the petition.

In the meantime, on December 23, 1993, Ray Dennis A. Roque, Legal Officer I of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office ("PARO") of Bulacan rendered an opinion on petitioner's petition and recommended that an order be issued in the following manner: "(1) DECLARING the 'affidavit of waiver' executed by petitioner's mother, the late Francisca M. Buela, waiving her right as a leasehold tenant to the landowner Jose C. Juson null and void; (2) Declaring petitioner Fortunato M. Buela as sole owner-cultivator of the said lands pursuant to DAR Circular No. 19, Series of 1978, otherwise known as 'Rules and Regulations in Case of Death of a Tenant-Beneficiary'; (3) Declaring the subject landholding covered by Operation Land Transfer program of the government pursuant to P.D. No. 27, LOI No. 227, LOI No. 474, E.O. No. 228 and the CARP; (4) Granting the petitioner the issuance of an Emancipation Patent (EP); and (5) Directing the DAR field personnel concerned to continue and expedite the processing of the compensation claim of the landowner."

On January 17, 1994, Erlinda Pearl V. Armada, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer for the Province of Bulacan issued a 1st Endorsement forwarding petitioner's petition to the Regional Director for DAR Region III, San Fernando, Pampanga.

On January 27, 1994, Dante G. Beltran, Legal Officer III of DAR Region III, issued a memorandum to Engr. Eugenio B. Bernardo, ARD for operations of DAR Region III, recommending that an Order be issued: "(1) Declaring the affidavit of waiver executed by Francisca Buela null and void; (2) Declaring Buela as sole owner-cultivator of the lands in question; (3) Declaring subject lands covered by O.L.T.; and (4) Issuing an Emancipation Patent in Buela's name."

In the said Memorandum by Mr. Beltran, he mentioned that the foregoing dealings fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board ("DARAB"), with a directive that the parties should thresh out their differences in the "proper forum".

The petition was then endorsed through a 1st Endorsement dated February 1, 1994 by the OIC-Assistant Regional Director for Operations of DAR Region III to the PARO, DARPO, Baliuag, Bulacan. On February 9, 1994, petitioner sought reconsideration of the same endorsement alleging, among others, that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform because it involves only the administrative implementation of the P.D. No. 27.

On February 14, 1994, Erlinda Pearl V. Armada, PARO, Province of Bulacan, issued a 2nd endorsement. It forwarded the petition to the Regional Director of DAR Region III.

On March 3, 1994, the DAR Region III Office, with undue and excessive haste and without giving private respondent any opportunity to present his evidence notwithstanding that the petition was only filed on December 9, 1993, issued an Order:

"1. Subjecting the landholding (Lot No. 3272 with an area of 8,399 square meters and Lot No. 3261 with an area of 4,423 square meters) in dispute, both situated at Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan, and all other Riceland of Jose C. Juson under the Operation Land Transfer pursuant to E.O. 228;

2. Declaring the "Pinanumpaang Salaysay" or the voluntary surrender of the late Francisca M. Buela as illegal, against public policy and therefore, null and void;

3. Declaring petitioner Fortunato M. Buela as the sole owner-cultivator of the said landholdings, identified as Lot Nos. 3272 and 3261 with a total area of 22,822 square meters, more or less, situated at Malhacan, Bulacan; and

4. Granting the issuance of Emancipation Patent (EP) in favor of said Fortunato M. Buela, petitioner herein."

Private respondent received a copy of the Order on March 12, 1994. It was at this point that private respondent, for the first time learned of the existence of the case. Accordingly, private respondent filed a Notice of Appeal on March 25, 1994.

On April 18, 1994, the daughters of private respondent, Zenaida M. Juson and Josefina M. Juson-Ochoa, designated a geodetic engineer to lead the relocation and subdivision survey of Lot No. 3261 for the purpose of determining the one thousand (1,000) square meter portion that would be segregated and transferred to the heirs of the late Francisca Buela. Miguelito Buela, one of the heirs of Francisca Buela, however thwarted such an attempt. The incident was reported to the Meycauayan Police Station/PNP, Meycauayan, Bulacan, with the corresponding recording in the station's police blotter.

Notwithstanding that they were prevented from conducting the relocation and subdivision survey, the geodetic engineer chosen to conduct the same was able to make an estimation that the heirs of the lets Francisca Buela was then occupying close to two thousand (2,000) square meters of Lot No. 3261.

Private respondent filed a protest letter dated May 2, 1994 with the Office of the Municipal Engineer of Meycauayan, Bulacan, assailing the issuance to petitioner of Building Permit No. 07-93-11-00963 for the construction of a four-door apartment building despite the fact that Bonifacio Buela was the registered owner of the land.

On May 30, 1994, private respondent received a copy of the Order issued by the DAR an May 19, 1994, requiring him to file an Appeal Memorandum.

On June 14, 1994, private respondent filed with the DAR Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance ("DAR-BALA") his Appeal Memorandum. In his memorandum he raised the following:

"I.

THE OIC-REGIONAL DIRECTOR DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITION.

II.

THE ORDER DATED 03 MARCH 1994 WAS ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF THE APPELLANTS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

III

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT COVERED BY OPERATION LAND TRANSFER UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27 AND/OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657.

IV.

THE APPELLEE IS NOT A QUALIFIED BENEFICIARY WHO IS ENTITLED TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN EMANCIPATION PATENT." 7

On August 26, 1994, private respondent received a copy of petitioner's unverified Appellee's Memorandum dated August 15, 1994.

On October 10, 1994, private respondent filed his Reply Memorandum with the DAR-BALA, in which he raised the following:

"I.

CONTRARY TO APPELLEES CONTENTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, AND NOT THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR CLEARLY ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE APPELLEE'S PETITION DATED 09 DECEMBER 1993.

II.

APPELLEE DOES NOT DENY THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, IN WILLFUL AND BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

III.

THE VOLUNTARY SURRENDER DATED 23 FEBRUARY 1979 EXECUTED BY FRANCISCA BUELA IS VALID AND BINDING ON FRANCISCA BUELA, HER HEIRS AND ASSIGNS AND DIVESTS THEM OF ANY RIGHTS OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IV.

APPELLEE'S CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING, FORTUNATO M. BUELA IS NOT A QUALIFIED TENANT-BENEFICIARY AND IS, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO BE AWARDED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, OR ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THAT MATTER" 8

During the pendency of the appeal with the DAR-BALA, private respondent caused the annotation on January 18, 1995 of a Notice of Lis Pendens 9 on OCT No. 0-1343 (M). It was at this time that private respondent learned that despite the pendency of an appeal with the DAR-BALA, OCT No. 0-1343 (M) in the name private respondent was already cancelled and Emancipation Patent No. 697354, which is contained in TCT No. P-131-M dated November 9, 1994 was issued in the name of petitioner.

On July 25, 1995, private respondent received a copy of the Order of the Secretary of the DAR dated June 16, 1995 denying his appeal for lack of merit thereby affirming the Order of the Regional Director of the DAR Region III dated March 3, 1994.

In the meantime, on July 11, 1995, within the reglementary period, private respondent filed with the Office of the Secretary a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Secretary dated June 16, 1995 raising the following grounds:

"I.

CONTRARY TO THE RULING OF THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, THE INSTANT CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE THE MERE ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF P.D. NO. 27.

II.

BOTH THE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE SECRETARY AND THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR WERE RENDERED IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF APPELLANT JUSON'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

III.

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY'S FAILURE TO CITE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS FINDINGS IS UNFAIR AND ARBITRARY, AND AMOUNTS TO ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND LACK OF JURISDICTION.

IV.

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLEE BUELA IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO ACQUIRE AND REGISTER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN HIS NAME.

V.

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE VOLUNTARY SURRENDER EXECUTED BY APPELLEE BUELA'S MOTHER AND ALLEGED PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST IS NULL AND VOID.

VI.

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY ERRED IN NOT PASSING UPON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF APPELLEE BUELA TO BE A BENEFICIARY, NOTWITHSTANDING A CLEAR SHOWING THAT HE IS NOT A QUALIFIED BENEFICIARY.

VII.

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT JUSON CANNOT RETAIN HIS RICE/CORN LANDS." 10

The filing of the responsive pleadings then ensued. On January 31, 1996, the DAR Secretary issued an Order dismissing the motion for reconsideration of private respondent.

        Private respondent then appealed to the Office of the President raising the following arguments to support his appeal, to wit:

"I.

CONTRARY TO THE RULING OF THE SECRETARY, APPELLANT JUSON PRESENTED CLEAR, CONVINCING AND SUBSTANTIAL PROOF THAT THE ORDER DATED 03 MARCH 1994 OF THE OIC REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DAR REGION III IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CONCRETE EVIDENCE AND THAT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS THEREIN ARE CONTRARY TO LAW.

A.        THE OIC-REGIONAL DIRECTOR HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITION FILED BY APPELLEE BUELA.

B.         THE DECISIONS OF THE SECRETARY DATED 16 JUNE 1995 AND 31 JANUARY 1996, AND THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR DATED 03 MARCH 1994 WERE RENDERED IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF APPELLANT JUSON'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

C.        OPERATION LAND TRANSFER UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27 AND/OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657 DOES NOT COVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

II.

CONTRARY TO THE RULING OF THE SECRETARY, APPELLEE BUELA'S MOTHER AND ALLEGED PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH HER TENURIAL RIGHTS OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT HAVE TRANSFERRED THE SAME TO THE APPELLEE BUELA BY WAY OF HEREDITARY SUCCESSION.

A.        APPELLEE BUELA IS NOT A QUALIFIED BENEFICIARY IN HIS OWN RIGHT WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO ACQUIRE AND REGISTER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN HIS NAME, NOR IS HE ENTITLED TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN EMANCIPATION PATENT.

III.

CONTRARY TO THE RULING OF THE SECRETARY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT, AND NEVER WAS, COVERED BY OPERATION LAND TRANSFER.

IV.

CONTRARY TO THE RULING OF THE SECRETARY, THE VOLUNTARY SURRENDER EXECUTED BY APPELLEE BUELA'S MOTHER IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT JUSON IS VALID, AND CONSEQUENTLY, TERMINATED ALL OF THE CLAIMS OF APPELLEE BUELA'S MOTHER, AS WELL AS THOSE OF HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 11

On September 26, 1997, the Office of President through the Executive Secretary rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued: (1) granting appellant Juson's appeal; (2) setting aside and declaring null and void the Orders of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform dated 16 June 1995 and 31 January 1996; (3) reversing, setting aside and declaring null and void the Order dated 03 March 1994 of the DAR Region III Director; (4) declaring that Fortunato Buela is not a qualified beneficiary under CARP; (5) declaring that the Subject Property is not covered under Operation Land Transfer; (6) recognizing the validity of the voluntary surrender executed by Francisca Buela; and (7) dismissing the Petition dated 09 December 1993.

SO ORDERED."

Hence this appeal.

In the instant petition, petitioner assigns the following errors:

1. JURISDICTIONAL:

1.1.      THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ERRED WHEN IT ASSUMED JURISDICTION OVER, AND RESOLVED ON THE MERITS, THE APPEAL AS THE DAR DECISION/ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS THEN ALREADY FINAL AND EXECUTORY.

2. ON THE MERITS:

2.1.      THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

2.2.      THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR IS BEREFT OF JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE ISSUES RAISED HEREIN, LIKE THE RETENTION RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS, PROPRIETY OF THE APPLICATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27 (OPERATION LAND TRANSFER) AND THE CORRESPONDING GENERATION OF EMANCIPATION PATENT (EP), ETC.

2.3.      THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED ARE NOT COVERED BY OPERATION LAND TRANSFER (OLT) OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27.

2.4.      THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER, TO INCLUDE HIS MOTHER, FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY TENURIAL RIGHT WITH PRIVATE RESPONDENT, IN LIKE MANNER, IT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER IS NOT A QUALIFIED BENEFICIARY UNDER THE EMANCIPATION DECREE OF TENANTS (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27).

2.5.      AND, THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ERRED WHEN IT UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF THE LAND (TENANCY RIGHTS) EXECUTED BY PETITIONER'S MOTHER IN 1979 DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS VIOLATIVE OF A PROHIBITORY PROVISION OF LAW AGAINST TRANSFERS AND/OR THE AVOWED POLICY OF EMANCIPATING THE TENANT FARMERS." 12

We do not find merit in the instant appeal.

Insofar as the issue of jurisdiction, we so hold that public respondent correctly ruled that the OIC-Regional Director of DAR Region III was without jurisdiction over the petition filed by petitioner.

The original petition filed by petitioner involves the declaration as sole owner cultivator, nullification of voluntary surrender, coverage under operation land transfer and/or CARP, and the issuance of Emancipation Patent and/or CLOA over parcels of land. Thus, it is a matter within the primary, original and appellate jurisdiction of the DARAB. Specifically, it falls within the ambit of Rule II, Section 1 (f) of the 1989 Revised Rules of the DARAB, which was then in force at the time of the filing of the petition, to wit: " . . . Cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT), Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) and the administrative correction thereof.

The petition not involving the mere administrative implementation agrarian laws, Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657 referring to the quasi-judicial powers of the DAR is inapplicable.

With regard to the issue of denial of due process on the part of private respondent, we so hold that he was indeed denied of the same.

As correctly found by public respondent, there was no evidence that would exemplify to private respondent that he was furnished with a copy of the petition filed by petitioner Buela. He became aware of the petition only after the DAR Region III Director gave an Order on March 3, 1994 granting the petition of petitioner Buela. His right to due process administrative proceedings was therefore violated for he was not given the opportunity to present his side. For what is repugnant to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard. 13 This opportunity was not afforded to private respondent.

Considering the foregoing rationacion, there is no necessity for Us to fully traverse the other assignment of errors.

The decision appealed from, having discussed exhaustively the demerits of petitioner's case, We find no reason to modify or reverse the game.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSING for LACK OF MERIT and the decision appealed from is here AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Buzon and Cruz, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 51.

2. Rollo, p. 77, OP Decision, p. 27.

3. Rollo, p. 369.

4. Rollo, p. 393.

5. Rollo, p. 395.

6. Rollo, p. 397.

7. Rollo, p. 330, Appeal Memorandum, pp. 12-13, Annex "C".

8. Rollo, pp. 447-448, Reply Memorandum, pp. 2-3, Annex "G".

9. Rollo, p. 483.

10. Rollo, p. 487-488, Motion for Reconsideration, pp. 2-3, Annex "I".

11. Rollo, pp. 239-240, Appeal Memorandum, pp. 19-20.

12. Rollo, pp. 23-24, Petition, pp. 15-16.

13. Garment and Textile Export Board vs. Count of Appeals, 268 SCRA 258 (1997).

HELP CENTER

CONTACT INFORMATION

Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines

Copyright Information

HELP CENTER

CONTACT INFORMATION

Department of Agrarian Reform Elliptical Road, Diliman Quezon City, Philippines

Copyright Information

Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines