[ADM. CASE NO. A-9999-03-CV-128-08.  November 15, 2010.]

IN RE: PETITION TO LIFT NOTICE OF COVERAGE AND TO EXEMPT FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP) COVERAGE OF A PARCEL OF LAND COVERED BY TCT NO. T-247848, SITUATED AT BARANGAY SABANG, MORONG, BATAAN

RAMON M. ANCIANO, ROGEL CAYAMANDA and JOSELITO MADLAMBAYAN, petitioners-appellants.

ORDER

For resolution is an Appeal of petitioners-appellants from the Order dated 24 July 2008 issued by the OIC-Regional Director of DAR Regional Office III, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office resolves to DENY the instant petition filed by Ramon Anciano, et al., through counsel Atty. Santiago Beltran, for utter lack of merit. Accordingly, the MARO and PARO are hereby directed to place within the ambit of CARP the subject landholding embraced under TCT No. 247848, with an aggregate area of 19.7746 hectares, more or less, for distribution to qualified potential farmer beneficiary, without prejudice to rights of retention, if so qualified, under the law.

SO ORDERED."

This is a Petition to Lift Notice of Coverage and to exempt from the coverage under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) involving a parcel of land embraced by TCT No. T-247848 with an aggregate area of 19.9746 hectares, more or less, situated in Barangay Sabang, Morong, Bataan. The ground for exemption posited by petitioners-appellants is that the subject property is allegedly located on a mountainous area with a slope of more than 18%.

An examination of the records shows that on 23 September 2003, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) sent a notice of coverage (NOC) to Mrs. Gertrudes Javillo Bernabe placing the subject landholding under CARP. After the issuance of the NOC, the landholding, which was then covered by TCT No. T-11685, was transferred to herein petitioners-appellants who registered their title (TCT No. T-247848) on 3 May 2005. Petitioners then filed an Opposition dated 02 June 2006 to the coverage of the landholding under CARP, claiming that they are the registered owners thereof. They also alleged that they are entitled to retention rights because the subject landholding is within the retention limit. Moreover, they claim to have been deprived of the opportunity to be heard since they did not receive the notice of coverage.

In a Legal Report and Recommendation submitted by Legal Officer Larry M. Flores of DAR Provincial Office, Dinalupihan, Bataan, it was submitted that the act of transfer from Bernabe to petitioners-appellants after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 was in violation of Section 6, paragraph 5 of said law. Thus, it was recommended that the "Opposition to the Notice of Coverage be denied and that DAR should proceed in covering the subject landholding under CARP".

On 24 July 2008, the Office a quo issued an Order denying the petition for lack of merit. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on 02 September 2008 but the same was likewise denied for lack of merit.

Hence, this Appeal.

Among the grounds raised in this instant appeal is the alleged denial of due process committed against herein petitioners-appellants by the failure to notify them of the conduct of ocular inspection on the subject property. Moreover, they insist that the subject land is not suitable for agriculture.

This Office finds the instant appeal without merit.

The records of the case show that based on the ocular inspection conducted by field personnel with the Land Bank of the Philippines dated 17 July 2006, the subject landholding has a slope below eighteen percent. The area suitable for agriculture is 14.7846 hectares of which 3.1759 hectares is irrigated riceland and 11.6087 hectares is planted to cashew. Clearly, the subject landholding is suitable for agricultural purposes.

We now go to the contention of petitioners-appellants that they were not given notice of the date of the ocular inspection and as such, were not accorded due process. Due process requirements in administrative proceedings have been ruled upon by our courts thus:

"It has been consistently held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Any seeming defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. . . . ." (Mayo vs. Mapa, June 21, 2006. CA-G.R. SP No. 90982; Zacarias vs. National Police Commission, 414 SCRA 387).

It cannot be argued that petitioners-appellants have been given more than enough opportunity to explain their side.

Accordingly, we see no cogent reasons to reverse or set aside the assailed Order.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. Thus, the Order dated 02 October 2008 issued by the OIC-Regional Director of DAR Regional Office III is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Diliman, Quezon City, November 15, 2010.

(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Secretary