[DOCKET # OCN CANC 0129. March 10, 2011.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOAs) AND TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AFFECTING LOT NOS. 3664 AND 3843 COVERED BY TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS. 154516-R AND 154515-R OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA IN THE NAME OF SPOUSES ELIGIO P. MALLARI AND MARCELINA I. MALLARI
SPOUSES ELIGIO P. MALLARI AND MARCELINA I. MALLARI, petitioners, vs. NOEL MANALO, JONER QUIAMBAO, REYNALDO MARZAN, BERNABE MANALO, MANUEL JACINTO, HAZEL GALANG, JOSE VITAL, JR., JAIME VITAL, JESSIE DELA PEÑA, GERRY GUEVARRA, HANSEL GALANG, INOCENCIO GALANG, BERNARDO MANALO, MENARDO MANALO, ABNER BACANI, JAYSON BACANI, JAIME GARCIA, LEONARDO QUIAMBAO, MANUEL PANGILINAN, CARLOS MADLAMBAYAN, JOSE DELA PEÑA, MELANIO SERRANO, LORETO SERRANO, CHRISTOPHER SERRANO, ORLANDO PANGILINAN, EDWIN BACANI, ALEXANDER BACANI, HENRY E. DE MESA, ROGELIO T. MANALO, CONRADO M. CARREON, CRISANTO C. MALLARI, JUNE M. JACINTO, EDUARDO Q. DE MESA, RAFAEL D. MANALO, ISIDRO V. MANALO, ROGELIO T. MANALO, ALFREDO J. TORNO, TERESITA T. MANALO, LIEZEL M. DE GUZMAN, FRANKLIN M. SERRANO, MAMERTO M. PANGILINAN, VICENTE G. MALLARI, JR., ALFRED M. DE GUZMAN, JOEWER M. SERRANO, SUZETTE M. GARCIA, ARTHUR M. PANGILINAN, REYNALDO T. YUMUL, VENANCIO S. MANIAGO, ALFREDO A. MANARANG, ARCELI A. MANARANG, LORENZANA M. MAGAT, ROBERTO V. ARCIGA, ALFREDO M. CATACUTAN, DOMINGO J. VITAL, MYRA G. PILI, CARLOS M. MAGAT, NIXON A. VITAL, LORENZANO M. MAGAT, EDGARDO C. CATACUTAN, PACITA C. CATACUTAN, SONNY E. DE MESA, BETTY V. DE JESUS, respondents,
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA, nominal party respondent.
ORDER
Just as it is with the courts, the duty to protect the underprivileged should not be carried out to such an extent as to deny justice to the landowner whenever truth and justice happen to be on his side. 1
For resolution by this Office is a Petition 2 seeking the cancellation of a total of ninety-seven (97) Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and their respective Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) covering the following landholdings and issued to the following farmer beneficiaries (FBs), to wit:
CLOA# FB's Name Area TCT No. Lot#
1. 00727672 Noel Manalo 20,002 18728 S
2. 00727678 Joener Quiambao 18,455 18729 Y
3. 00727677 -do- 5,861 18730 X
4. 00727676 Reynaldo Marzan 18,324 18731 W
5. 00727675 Bernabe Manalo 9,999 18732 V
6. 00727674 Manuel Jacinto 10,016 18733 U
7. 00727673 Hazel Galang 10,007 18734 T
8. 00727671 Jose Vital, Jr. 5,093 18735 R
9. 00727670 Jaime Vital 5,088 18736 Q
10. 00727679 Jessie dela Peña 8,051 18737 Z
11. 00727669 Gerry Guevara 29,997 18738 P
12. 00727668 Jose Vital, Jr. 22,281 18739 O
13. 00727667 Noel Manalo 10,000 18740 N
14. 00727666 Hansel Galang 19,669 18741 M
15. 00727664 Jaime Vital 20,662 18742 K
16. 00727665 Inocencio Galang 30,002 18743 L
17. 00727661 Bernardo Manalo 21,612 18744 H
18. 00727663 Bernabe Manalo 5,583 18746 J
19. 00727662 Menardo Manalo 5,583 18746 I
20. 00727660 Jaime Vital 1,863 18747 G
21. 00727658 Abner Bacani 25,236 18748 E
22. 00727659 Jayson Bacani 10,674 18749 F
23. 00727657 Jaime Garcia 28,076 18750 D
24. 00727656 Leonardo Quiambao 6,431 18751 C
25. 00727655 -do- 4,940 18752 B
26. 00727654 -do- 5,755 18753 A
27. 00727680 Manuel Pangilinan, et al. 30,122 18754 JJ
28. 00727681 Jessie dela Peña 4,513 18755 AA
29. 00727684 Manuel Jacinto 10,834 18756 DD
30. 00727683 Carlos Maglambayan 2,220 18757 CC
31. 00727696 Joner Quiambao 4,518 18758 TT
32. 00727695 Jose dela Peña 18,248 18759 SS
33. 00727694 Reynaldo Marzan 4,430 18760 RR
34. 00727693 Melanio Serrano 30,000 18761 OO
35. 00727692 Loreto Serrano 5,808 18762 NN
36. 00727691 Christopher Serrano 6,255 18763 MM
37. 00727690 Carlos Maglambayan 4,802 18764 LL
38. 00727689 Orlando Pangilinan 15,023 18765 II
39. 00727688 Edwin Bacani 14,430 18766 HH
40. 00727687 Alexander Bacani 14,420 18767 GG
41. 00727686 Reynaldo Marzan 4,736 18768 FF
42. 00727685 Manuel Jacinto 1,377 18769 EE
43. 00727682 Carlos Maglabayan 14,990 18769 BB
44. 00727770 Henry E. de Mesa 16,254 18897 8
45. 00727771 Rogelio T. Manalo 7,236 18988 9
46. 00727806 Conrado M. Carreon 26,808 18898 26
47. 07277807 Crisanto C. Mallari 24,616 18990 27
48. 00727764 June M. Jacinto 3,291 18991 2
49. 00727765 Henry E. de Mesa 645 18992 3
50. 00727766 Eduardo Q. de Mesa 11,055 18993 4
51. 00727767 Rafael V. Manalo 30,000 18994 5
52. 00727768 Isidro V. Manalo 20,848 18995 6
53. 00727769 Rogelio T. Manalo 5,472 18996 7
54. 00727772 Alfredo J. Torno 29,304 18997 10
55. 00727792 Teresita T. Manalo 1,707 18999 11
56. 00727793 -do- 742 19000 12
57. 00727794 Liezel M. de Guzman 5,700 19001 13
58. 00727795 Franklin M. Serrano 18,701 19002 14
59. 00727796 Liezel M. de Guzman 4,572 19003 15
60. 00727797 Jaime Jacinto 12,824 19004 16
61. 00727798 Mamerto M. Pangilinan 6,378 19005 18
62. 00727799 Vicente G. Mallari, Jr. 10,379 19006 19
63. 00727800 Alfred M. de Guzman 13,592 19007 20
64. 00727801 Joewer M. Serrano 21,807 19008 21
65. 00727802 June M. Jacinto 2,000 19009 22
66. 00727803 Suzzete M. Garcia 4,980 19010 23
67. 00727804 Mamerto M. Pangilinan 3,770 19011 24
68. 00727805 Arthur M. Pangilinan 30,000 19012 25
69. 00727808 Reynaldo T. Yumul 18,000 19013 28
70. 00727809 Venancio S. Maniago 11,000 19014 29
71. 00727810 Suzzete M. Garcia 18,613 19015 30
72. 00727811 June M. Jacinto 980 19016 31
73. 00727812 Alfred A. Manarang 18,200 19017 32
74. 00727813 Araceli A. Manarang 18,200 19018 33
75. 00727814 Liezel M. de Guzman 12,608 19019 34
76. 00727815 Vicente G. Mallari, Jr. 19,393 19020 35
77. 00727816 Lorenzano M. Magat 4,800 19021 36
78. 00727817 Liezel M. de Guzman 5,270 19022 37
79. 00727818 Roberto V. Arciga 26,723 19023 38
80. 00727819 Rogelio T. Manalo 6,013 19024 39
81. 00727820 Alfredo M. Catacutan 23,045 19025 40
82. 00727821 Domingo J. Vital 17,604 19026 41
83. 00727822 -do- 280 19027 42
84. 00727823 Myra G. Pili 14,645 19028 43
85. 00727824 Alfred M. de Guzman 14,600 19029 44
86. 00727825 Carlos M. Magat 26,919 19030 45
87. 00727826 Nixon A. Vital 29,459 19031 46
88. 00727827 Lorenzano M. Magat 10,100 19032 47
89. 00727829 June M. Jacinto 2,900 19033 49
90. 00727830 Edgardo C. Catacutan 19,470 19034 50
91. 00727831 Pacita C. Catacutan 19,470 19035 51
92. 00727832 Sonny E. de Mesa 3,568 19036 52
93. 00727833 June M. Jacinto 1,892 19037 53
94. 00727834 Sonny de Mesa 26,432 19038 54
95. 00727916 Franklin M. Serrano 1,282 19040 1
96. 00727917 Betty V. de Jesus 30,000 19041 48
97. ********* June M. Jacinto 15,415 19039 KK
The origin of the instant case is an agrarian dispute older than the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) itself which has been the subject of a protracted and intense legal battle fought in numerous tribunals, including the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Regional Trial Courts, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court.
This Petition involves two (2) tracts of land known as Lot No. 3664 with an area of 130.7999 hectares and Lot No. 3843 with an area of 0.6388 hectares, both of the San Fernando Cadastre and located at Barrio Maimpis, San Fernando, Pampanga. Both lots were originally owned by spouses Roberto and Asuncion Wijangco (Spouses Wijangco) under TCT No. 27507-R of the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga. Spouses Wijangco mortgaged the lots along with other lands they owned to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan. Eventually, for their failure to pay said loan, the PNB foreclosed the mortgage. In the auction sale that followed, the PNB, being the highest bidder, acquired the lots and was issued a Certificate of Sale. Upon failure of Spouses Wijangco to redeem the lots, ownership thereof was consolidated in the PNB. Several land titles were then issued to it by the Register of Deeds. Among those titles were TCT No. 154516-R 3 covering Lot No. 3664 and TCT No. 154515-R. 4
On July 10, 1980, PNB executed a Deed of Promise to Sell in favor of Spouses Eligio P. Mallari and Marcelina I. Mallari (Spouses Mallari) covering two (2) parcels of land, Lots 3664 and 3843. The contract provided that PNB shall retain ownership and title to the lots until the Spouses Mallari shall have paid the last installment.
On July 22, 1981, the tenants of Lot No. 3664 tried to redeem it at P5,000.00 per hectare. The spouses declined the offer, prompting the tenants to file a case for redemption with the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) docketed as Agrarian Case No. 1908 (Redemption Case). After the abolition of the CAR, the case was automatically absorbed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46 at San Fernando, Pampanga. The case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court. On March 20, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tenants, as follows:
"WHEREFORE:
1. The petitions of spouses Mallari in G.R. Nos. 106615, 109452, 109978 and 139379 are DENIED and the assailed Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP CAR No. 25209, CA-G.R. SP No. 30085, CA-G.R. SP-No. 30887 and CA-G.R. SP Case No. 36100 are AFFIRMED;
2. The petition of Arcega, et al., in G.R. No. 108591 is GRANTED and the appealed RTC Orders dated November 3, 1992, November 12, 1992, December 2, 1992 and January 14, 1993 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE;
3. The RTC is ORDERED to implead the LBP in Agrarian Case No. 1908;
4. Agrarian Case No. 1908 is REMANDED to the RTC, Branch 46, San Fernando Pampanga for further proceedings with dispatch; and
5. The RTC is further ORDERED to submit to this Court a progress report of the status of Agrarian Case No. 1908 every 3 months until this Court's Decision is fully implemented.
SO ORDERED."
However, acting upon the Motion for Reconsideration of Spouses Mallari, the Supreme Court reversed itself in its Resolution dated January 15, 2004 wherein it rendered the following judgment, to wit:
"WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration filed by spouses Mallari is GRANTED and our assailed Decision dated March 20, 2002 in these consolidated cases is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The "Certification To Finance Redemption Of Estate Under R.A. No. 3844, As Amended," dated January 15, 1982 issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines is declared VOID, being in violation of Section 12, R.A. 3844, as amended, and Land Bank Circular Letter No. 3 dated February 25, 1980. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, San Fernando, Pampanga (acting as an Agrarian Court) in Agrarian Case No. 1908 dismissing the petition for redemption filed by Ignacio Arcega, et al., is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
The said Resolution became final and executory on July 21, 2004, as evidenced by an Entry of Judgment 5 to that effect.
However, in November 1989, during the pendency of the Redemption Case filed by the tenants, Spouses Mallari filed a suit for ejectment before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for Pampanga against the tenants on Lot No. 3664 on the ground of non-payment of lease rentals. The said cases were docketed as DARAB Case Nos. 144-P'89 — 160-P'89 (Ejectment Cases). On June 5, 1991, the PARAD rendered a Decision 6 ordering the ejectment of the tenants for non-payment of the stipulated lease rentals for the years 1983 until 1989. Presumably, due to the pendency of the Redemption Case, a Writ of Execution in the Ejectment Cases was only ordered issued in an Order dated December 29, 2004. 7 On January 5, 2005, the Writ of Execution 8 was duly issued by the PARAD and duly implemented on January 7, 2005, per the Implementation Report 9 dated January 10, 2005 by the DARAB Sheriff for Region III.
On January 22, 1991, Spouses Mallari tendered the payment of P6,330,132.71 to PNB by way of Prudential Manager's Check Nos. 034800 and 035060 to pay for the balance on the Deed of Promise to Sell and the accrued interest thereon. However, on April 15, 1991, the Board of Directors of PNB deferred action on their offer due to the pendency of the Redemption Case. After the judgment in the Redemption Case had become final and executory, Spouses Mallari filed a case for consignation on July 10, 2006 with the RTC Branch 215 of Quezon City (Consignation Case), docketed as Civil Case No. Q-06-58366, to compel PNB to accept the payment tendered and to execute the corresponding deed of conveyance covering Lots Nos. 3664 and 3843 in their favor. In a Resolution 10 dated January 22, 2008, the RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Mallari declaring the consignation valid and ordered PNB to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale over Lots Nos. 3664 and 3843 in favor of Spouses Mallari. A Writ of Execution 11 dated May 26, 2008 was issued implementing the judgment of the RTC. The Consignation Case was elevated to the Court of Appeals by PNB by way of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 106838. In a Decision 12 dated August 11, 2009, the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals denied the Petition for Certiorari of PNB for failing to show that the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion. No appeal was taken from the Decision of the Court of Appeals; thus, an Entry of Final Judgment 13 was issued rendering the judgment in the Consignation Case final and executory.
However, to allegedly subvert the implementation of the Supreme Court Decision in the Redemption Case, the tenants and their descendants filed for CARP coverage of Lots Nos. 3664 and 3843. The application was vehemently protested by Spouses Mallari in their letter dated January 10, 2005, arguing that the subject property had been reclassified to residential land prior to the effectivity of the CARP on June 15, 1988. Invoking rulings of National Housing Authority v. Allarde 14 and Natalia Realty Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform 15 as well as Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, Spouses Mallari vigorously argued that the subject landholding was already exempt from CARP coverage, and thus, the DAR has no jurisdiction to cover the property under CARP and that the CLOAs issued to FBs are null and void ab initio. To bolster their claim that the subject landholdings are exempted from CARP, Spouses Mallari submitted the following documents:
1. Application for Subdivision 16 dated May 11, 1981 filed with the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) covering Lot No. 3664;
2. Approved Preliminary and Locational Clearance 17 issued on January 8, 1988;
3. Approved HLURB Development 18 Permit issued on March 4, 1988;
4. Certification 19 dated June 11, 1998 by HLURB Regional Officer Amado V. Diaz; and
5. Certification 20 dated September 23, 2005 by HLURB Regional Officer Editha U. Barrameda.
Notwithstanding the protest by Spouses Mallari, the DAR Regional Director (RD) for Region III, Narciso B. Nieto, rendered an Order on February 19, 2005 21 ordering the CARP coverage of Lots Nos. 3664 and 3843. Pursuant to the Order of RD Nieto, the following entries were annotated on the back of TCT Nos. TCT No. 154516-R and TCT No. 154515-R:
1. Entry No. 1828 — REQUEST TO ISSUE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. — REQUEST from DAR executed by Rodolfo S. Pangilinan that a portion of 54.9141 has. described herein is transferred to the Republic of the Philippines. Wherefore, this title partially cancelled, as per deed on file in this office.
Date of Doc. 9-20-2005
Date of Insc. 9-22-2005
2. Entry No. 5132 — Subd. Plan Psd-03-14477 (AR) approved by the DENR in favor of Inocencio Galang, et al., for with an area of 130,7999 square meters for the registration of the CLOAs awarded to deserving Farmer-Beneficiaries pursuant to CA 539 & RA 1500 in accordance with administrative Order No. 3, series of 1990. Wherefore, this title is partially cancelled.
<table of CLOA Numbers, Corresponding FB, Area, TCT Number and Lot Number>
Date of Doc. 5-17-2005
Date of Insc. 9-22-2005 at 4:05 p.m.
3. Entry No. 5388 — Subd. Plan, Psd-03-148210 (AR) approved by the DENR in favor of Rafael Manalo et al for the subd., of the parcel land herein described and covered by this title with an area of 743,443 square meters, for the registration of CLOAs awarded to the deserving farmer-beneficiaries pursuant to CA 539 & RA 1400 in accordance with administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1990. Wherefore this title is partially cancelled.
<table of CLOA Numbers, Corresponding FB, Area, TCT Number and Lot Number>
Date of Inst. — 10-4-05
Date of Insc. — 12-21-05 at 3:00 p.m.
4. Entry No. 5389 — Subd. Plan, Psd-03-144771 (AR) approved by the DENR in favor of Inocencio Galang, et al., for the subd. Of the parcel of land herein described and covered by this title with an area of not indicated on plan, for the registration of CLOA awarded to deserving farmer beneficiaries pursuant to CA 539 & RA 1400 in accordance with administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1990, Wherefore this title is partially cancelled and CLOA TCT No. 19039, with an area of 15,415 square meters with Lot # KK in the name of June M. Jacinto is issued.
Date of Inst. — 5-17-05
Date of Insc. — 12-21-05 at 3:00 p.m.
5. Entry No. 8379/Vol. 89/T-3:30 p.m. — REQUEST by Arnel S. Dizon Prov'. Agrarian Officer, to the portion of 73.1571 has., is transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, pursuant to RA 6657.
Date of Inst. — 12-21-05
Date of Insc. — 12-21-05
On June 3, 2005, Spouses Mallari appealed the Order dated February 19, 2005 to the DAR Secretary, reiterating their claim that Lots No. 3664 and 3843 were exempted from CARP due to the prior reclassification thereof by the HSRC, now the HLURB. On December 14, 2005, former DAR Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman promulgated an Order 22 declaring the exemption of 96.1095 hectares of Lot No. 3664. The remaining area of Lot No. 3664, including the 0.6388 hectares of Lot No. 3843, was declared covered under CARP. Thereafter, the twin motions for reconsideration separately filed by Spouses Mallari and Rafael Manalo, et al., including PNB's manifestation and motion to intervene were denied by Secretary Pangandaman in his Order 23 dated 04 December 2006. Spouses Mallari appealed to the Office of the President (OP). In a Decision 24 dated October 28, 2008, Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita modified the Order dated December 14, 2005 by ordering the exemption of the entire area of Lot No. 3664 (130.7999 hectares); it, however, affirmed the DAR Order in all other respects. No appeal was taken from the OP Decision; thus, it became final and executory as evidenced by an Order of Finality 25 dated September 25, 2009.
On June 4, 2010, Spouses Mallari filed a Petition 26 for Cancellation of the ninety-seven (97) CLOAs that were issued to herein respondents. Certified true copies of the CLOAs and their corresponding TCTs were attached to the Petition. 27 Summons were duly served upon the respondents 28 together with the Notice of Hearing on June 10, 2010.
On July 17, 2010, the fifty-eight (58) respondents filed their Answer, 29 where they made qualified admissions of the averments in the Petition. Respondents qualifiedly admitted the existence of the Redemption Case but argued that the adverse ruling in the Redemption Case does not bar CARP coverage of the subject property. They also admitted the allegations raised with respect to the Ejectment Case but claimed that their due identification and award as FBs of the subject property rendered the judgment reached in the Ejectment Case moot, the respondents now being the owners of the properties covered by their respective CLOAs. With respect to the identification and issuance of CLOAs in their favor, the respondents claimed that the Order dated February 19, 2005 by RD Nieto was rendered final and executory for failure of the Spouses Mallari to file a timely Motion for Reconsideration or Appeal questioning the said Order. They likewise questioned the jurisdiction of the Office of the Secretary to issue the Order dated December 14, 2005, considering that the Order of RD Nieto had already become final and executory.
By way of special and affirmative defenses, the respondents argued that Spouses Mallari had no cause of action to seek the cancellation of the subject CLOAs as the said lands were never reclassified from their prior status as agricultural lands. As the lands remained agricultural, they were properly within the coverage of CARP, and thus, the CLOAs issued in their favor were clearly valid. They further argued that the action to question such CLOAs had prescribed, invoking the principle of indefeasibility of titles. Furthermore, they claimed that there was no valid reclassification done by the HLURB as the Spouses Mallari were not the lawful owners of the property when they filed for the clearances to develop the same. They also claimed that the action for consignation filed by the Spouses Mallari before the RTC of Quezon City smacks of forum shopping and is invalid considering that there was no prior Order issued by the RTC of San Fernando City denying the previous motion of the Spouses Mallari to compel PNB to accept the payment they tendered for the properties. Likewise, they argued that their right to due process were violated, as no copy of the appeal was furnished to them. As such, they argued that the Decision of the OP could not have attained finality. Lastly, they reiterated the validity of their CLOAs, having been issued after the due coverage of the subject property under CARP.
On November 8, 2010, the DAR Undersecretary for Legal Affairs issued an Order 30 remanding the case to the DAR Regional Office III, and directed the Spouses Mallari to amend their Petition to implead the Register of Deeds of Pampanga in accordance with DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2009.
On November 12, 2010, Spouses Mallari filed their amended Petition 31 in conformity with the aforesaid Order. A copy of the Amended Petition was personally served on the Register of Deeds of Pampanga on November 12, 2010. 32 On November 17, 2010, the Register of Deeds of Pampanga filed a Manifestation 33 that it will abide with any decision or order that may be rendered by this office. On November 24, 2010, Atty. Odgie Cayabyab, Chief of DAR Legal Division for Region III, issued his Investigation Report and elevated the records of the case to the DAR Secretary for resolution.
Despite the magnitude of the subject property involved and the numerous legal complexities surrounding this case, the sole issue to be resolved by this Office is whether or not there is a sufficient legal ground to warrant the cancellation of the CLOAs in question.
Upon a careful deliberation on the facts of this case and the prevailing law on the matter, this Office finds the instant Petition to be impressed with merit.
The records show that the instant case was filed on June 4, 2010; 34 hence, the resolution of this case is clearly governed by DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 3, Series of 2009. Under Section 4, Rule II thereof, the valid causes of action for the cancellation of a CLOA, EP, or other title issued under the agrarian reform program are the following:
(a) The land subject matter of the CLOA, EP or other title under agrarian reform program is found to be:
1. The retention area of the landowner;
2. Excluded from the coverage of CARP, PD No. 27 or other agrarian reform program;
3. Exempted from the coverage of CARP, PD No. 27 or other agrarian reform program;
4. Outside of the authority of the DAR to dispose and award as the same falls within the authority of the DENR to distribute;
5. Consist in the erroneous issuance of the said title resulting from the defect or lack in documentation (DNYP or DNYD generated titles but not yet distributed).
(b) The CLOA or EP holder is found to have:
1. Misused or diverted the financial and support services;
2. Misused the land;
3. Materially misrepresented his basic qualifications as agrarian reform beneficiary;
4. Illegally converted into other uses the awarded land;
5. Sold, transferred, conveyed the awarded land to other person;
6. Defaulted in the payment of obligation for three (3) consecutive years in the case of Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme;
7. Failed to pay the amortization for at least three (3) annual amortizations;
8. Neglected or abandoned the awarded land; and
9. Circumvented the laws related to the implementation of the agrarian reform program. (emphasis supplied)
The said A.O. also provides that a final and executory order from the DAR Secretary, his authorized representative, or the courts that any of the foregoing grounds exist is required as a condition sine quo non for the filing of a petition for cancellation of CLOAs, EPs, or other titles issued pursuant to the agrarian reform program.
The petitioners Spouses Mallari have complied with this requirement. The records reveal that Lot No. 3664 was found to be exempt from CARP coverage pursuant to the Decision dated October 28, 2008, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of protestants-appellants is hereby GRANTED. The Order dated 14 December 2005, of DAR is hereby MODIFIED, exempting from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, the entire Lot No. 3664 embraced under TCT No. 154516-R with an area of 130.7999 hectares located in Barangay Maimpis, San Fernando City, Pampanga.
In all other respects, the DAR Order is hereby AFFIRMED.
This Decision already became final and executory pursuant to the Order of Finality 35 dated September 25, 2009. Verily, the Spouses Mallari have established that they have a cause of action to cause the cancellation of the CLOAs in question.
It must be stressed that, like EPs, the mere issuance of a CLOA does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. 36 This is because CLOAs are similar to EPs, being titles issued under the agrarian reform program. There is no provision of law that provides that EPs or CLOAs may no longer be cancelled even after issuance. Notwithstanding the protection of indefeasibility of titles which is likewise extended to certificates of title issued under the agrarian reform program, EPs or CLOAs may be corrected or cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules, and regulations. 37 Thus, DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of 1994, which was later superseded by DAR A.O. No. 3, Series of 2009, was promulgated by DAR enumerating the grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs or CLOAs. As adverted to above, the determination that the land is exempted from CARP is a ground for cancellation of CLOAs. The rationale for such consequence is because lands exempted from CARP coverage should not have been placed under CARP coverage in the first place; thus, any EP or CLOA issued pursuant thereto is fatally defective which justifies its cancellation.
In Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, 38 the Supreme Court succinctly held that lands reserved for, or converted to, non-agricultural uses by government agencies other than the Department of Agrarian Reform, prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), are not considered and treated as agricultural lands, and are therefore, outside the ambit of said law. The ruling in Natalia was not confined solely to agricultural lands located within townsite reservations, but applied also to real estate converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL, provided the conversion was made by government agencies other than the DAR — like the HLURB and its predecessor, the HSRC. 39 This doctrine has been affirmed by succeeding cases decided by the High Court: in Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 40 Junio v. Garilao, 41 and De Guzman v. Court of Appeals. 42
The case of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas 43 applies four-square to the case at bar. In that case, a parcel of land owned by the Philippine Banking Corporation (Philbanking) was placed under CARP coverage which resulted in the issuance of CLOAs in favor of FBs. The award of the landholding to agrarian reform beneficiaries was questioned by assignees of Philbanking on the ground that the land was exempted from CARP as the land had been reclassified to residential by the local government and the HLURB Regional Office prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657. In sustaining the judgment of the Court of Appeals which declared the land exempt from CARP and ordered the cancellation of the CLOAs issued by DAR, the Supreme Court cited with approval the doctrine in Natalia as affirmed by the cases of Pasong Bayabas and Junio, thus:
We agree with the CA that the facts obtaining in this case are similar to those in Natalia Realty. Both subject lands form part of an area designated for non-agricultural purposes. Both were classified as non-agricultural lands prior to June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of the CARL.
In Natalia, the land was within a town site area for the Lungsod Silangan Reservation by virtue of Proclamation No. 1637 (1979). The developers of the land were granted preliminary approval and clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) to establish a subdivision in the area. Sometime after, the DAR sought to have the land included in the coverage of the CARL. The developer protested. On appeal, this Court held that lands previously converted by government agencies to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL are outside its coverage. Government agencies include the HSRC and its successor, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
In the case under review, the subject parcels of lands were reclassified within an urban zone as per approved Official Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Davao. The reclassification was embodied in City Ordinance No. 363, Series of 1982. As such, the subject parcels of land are considered "non-agricultural" and may be utilized for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes. The reclassification was later approved by the HLURB.
Contrary to what petitioners think, the Natalia ruling was not confined solely to agricultural lands located within townsite reservations. It is also applicable to other agricultural lands converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL. This is subject to the condition that the conversion was made with the approval of government agencies like the HLURB.
Notwithstanding the character of the OP Decision as final and executory, its validity may still be subject to attack as the law provides for three (3) remedies to set aside a final and executory judgment. In the case of Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, 44 the Supreme Court held:
It is clear then that to set aside a final and executory judgment, there are three remedies available to a litigant: first, a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence filed within sixty (60) days from the time petitioner learns of the judgment but not more than six (6) months from the entry thereof; second, a direct action to annul the judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud; and third, a direct action for certiorari or collateral attack to annul a judgment that is void upon its face or void by virtue of its own recitals.
The defense of the respondents that the OP Decision does not bind them constitutes a collateral attack to annul a judgment. An attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as incident thereof. 45 Such an attack can only prosper if the judgment sought to be implemented is void upon its face or void by virtue of its own recitals, otherwise the proper remedy would be by way of a direct attack through a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court or byway of a petition for certiorari. 46 In this case, it is clear from a simple perusal of the OP Decision that the judgment promulgated therein is not void on its face or by virtue of its own recitals; hence, the collateral attack must necessarily fail.
The claim also of the respondents that the Decision of the OP dated October 28, 2008 does not bind them for the alleged violation of their right to due process does not impress. First, it appears from the records of this case that the respondents, or their respective predecessors-in-interest, were duly furnished with copies of the Orders promulgated by Secretary Pangandaman dated 14 December 2005 and 04 December 2006. They did not file any appeal to assail the Orders of Secretary Pangandaman. Hence, the said Orders already attained finality insofar as they are concerned. It was only the petitioners who elevated the Order on appeal to OP, while the respondents slept on their rights. Respondents' claim that their right to due process was violated is clearly not supported by the records. In fact, the contrary appears to be the case, as it sufficiently appears that they were duly informed of the status of the case at every stage thereof. Furthermore, the promulgation of the Order by the OP carries with it the presumption that the government employees performed their duty of furnishing a copy of the Decision to the respondents. The respondents herein failed to rebut such a presumption by at least submitting substantial evidence to corroborate their claim.
It bears stressing that the denial of due process is a serious allegation that must be accompanied by evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable mind to support such a conclusion. Paraphrasing the words of the eminent Justice Isagani Cruz, this Office is not unaware of the practice of some who, lacking plausible support for their position, simply claim a denial of due process as if it were a universal absolution. The ground will prove unavailing, and not surprisingly, since it is virtually only a pro forma argument. Due process is not to be bandied like a slogan. It is not a mere catch-phrase. As the highest hallmark of the free society, its name should not be invoked in vain but only when justice has not been truly served. 47
Assuming that the claim of respondents that they were not furnished a copy of the appeal and the decision of the OP was indeed true, the records undeniably disclose that the OP decision was declared final and executory pursuant to the Order of Finality dated 25 September 2009. When Spouses Mallari instituted this case for cancellation of CLOAs on June 4, 2010 and summons were served to the respondents on June 10, 2010, which is barely nine (9) months after finality of the OP decision, the respondents were already aware and informed of the issuance of OP decision and its declaration as final and executory. They could have had instituted the available legal remedies as discussed above, but unfortunately they opted not to take any action to annul the OP decision; instead they remained complacent with their argument that they are not bound by the said decision despite clear knowledge of the same.
Unless the final decision of the OP has been annulled, this Office, being a subordinate of the OP, has no recourse but to uphold its validity. Moreover, under the doctrine of hierarchy of administrative agency, a DAR Secretary, who is a mere alter ego of the President, has no power and jurisdiction to set aside a final and executory decision of the President.
Lastly, concerning the respondents' claim that the Office of the Secretary has no jurisdiction to issue the Order dated December 14, 2005, considering that the Order of RD Nieto dated February 19, 2005 had already become final and executory, the same is also untenable. It must be remembered that when the Order of RD Nieto was elevated on appeal to OSEC by Spouses Mallari, the respondents actively participated in the appeal proceedings. In fact, when Secretary Pangandaman promulgated the Order dated December 14, 2005, the respondents and even Spouses Mallari filed a separate motion for reconsideration. However, when the twin motions for reconsideration were denied, it was only Spouses Mallari who went up on appeal to the OP. The active participation of the respondents in the appeal process before the OSEC clearly constitutes respondents' submission to OSEC jurisdiction. Henceforth, they cannot claim that the OSEC has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of Spouses Mallari from the Order of Director Nieto.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. Order is hereby issued declaring the following CLOAs as CANCELLED:
CLOA# FB's Name Area TCT No. Lot#
1. 00727672 Noel Manalo 20,002 18728 S
2. 00727678 Joener Quiambao 18,455 18729 Y
3. 00727677 -do- 5,861 18730 X
4. 00727676 Reynaldo Marzan 18,324 18731 W
5. 00727675 Bernabe Manalo 9,999 18732 V
6. 00727674 Manuel Jacinto 10,016 18733 U
7. 00727673 Hazel Galang 10,007 18734 T
8. 00727671 Jose Vital, Jr. 5,093 18735 R
9. 00727670 Jaime Vital 5,088 18736 Q
10. 00727679 Jessie dela Peña 8,051 18737 Z
11. 00727669 Gerry Guevara 29,997 18738 P
12. 00727668 Jose Vital, Jr. 22,281 18739 O
13. 00727667 Noel Manalo 10,000 18740 N
14. 00727666 Hansel Galang 19,669 18741 M
15. 00727664 Jaime Vital 20,662 18742 K
16. 00727665 Inocencio Galang 30,002 18743 L
17. 00727661 Bernardo Manalo 21,612 18744 H
18. 00727663 Bernabe Manalo 5,583 18746 J
19. 00727662 Menardo Manalo 5,583 18746 I
20. 00727660 Jaime Vital 1,863 18747 G
21. 00727658 Abner Bacani 25,236 18748 E
22. 00727659 Jayson Bacani 10,674 18749 F
23. 00727657 Jaime Garcia 28,076 18750 D
24. 00727656 Leonardo Quiambao 6,431 18751 C
25. 00727655 -do- 4,940 18752 B
26. 00727654 -do- 5,755 18753 A
27. 00727680 Manuel Pangilinan, et al. 30,122 18754 JJ
28. 00727681 Jessie dela Peña 4,513 18755 AA
29. 00727684 Manuel Jacinto 10,834 18756 DD
30. 00727683 Carlos Maglambayan 2,220 18757 CC
31. 00727696 Joner Quiambao 4,518 18758 TT
32. 00727695 Jose dela Peña 18,248 18759 SS
33. 00727694 Reynaldo Marzan 4,430 18760 RR
34. 00727693 Melanio Serrano 30,000 18761 OO
35. 00727692 Loreto Serrano 5,808 18762 NN
36. 00727691 Christopher Serrano 6,255 18763 MM
37. 00727690 Carlos Maglambayan 4,802 18764 LL
38. 00727689 Orlando Pangilinan 15,023 18765 II
39. 00727688 Edwin Bacani 14,430 18766 HH
40. 00727687 Alexander Bacani 14,420 18767 GG
41. 00727686 Reynaldo Marzan 4,736 18768 FF
42. 00727685 Manuel Jacinto 1,377 18769 EE
43. 00727682 Carlos Maglambayan 14,990 18769 BB
44. 00727770 Henry E. de Mesa 16,254 18897 8
45. 00727771 Rogelio T. Manalo 7,236 18988 9
46. 00727806 Conrado M. Carreon 26,808 18898 26
47. 07277807 Crisanto C. Mallari 24,616 18990 27
48. 00727764 June M. Jacinto 3,291 18991 2
49. 00727765 Henry E. de Mesa 645 18992 3
50. 00727766 Eduardo Q. de Mesa 11,055 18993 4
51. 00727767 Rafael V. Manalo 30,000 18994 5
52. 00727768 Isidro V. Manalo 20,848 18995 6
53. 00727769 Rogelio T. Manalo 5,472 18996 7
54. 00727772 Alfredo J. Torno 29,304 18997 10
55. 00727792 Teresita T. Manalo 1,707 18999 11
56. 00727793 -do- 742 19000 12
57. 00727794 Liezel M. de Guzman 5,700 19001 13
58. 00727795 Franklin M. Serrano 18,701 19002 14
59. 00727796 Liezel M. de Guzman 4,572 19003 15
60. 00727797 Jaime Jacinto 12,824 19004 16
61. 00727798 Mamerto M. Pangilinan 6,378 19005 18
62. 00727799 Vicente G. Mallari, Jr. 10,379 19006 19
63. 00727800 Alfred M. de Guzman 13,592 19007 20
64. 00727801 Joewer M. Serrano 21,807 19008 21
65. 00727802 June M. Jacinto 2,000 19009 22
66. 00727803 Suzzete M. Garcia 4,980 19010 23
67. 00727804 Mamerto M. Pangilinan 3,770 19011 24
68. 00727805 Arthur M. Pangilinan 30,000 19012 25
69. 00727808 Reynaldo T. Yumul 18,000 19013 28
70. 00727809 Venancio S. Maniago 11,000 19014 29
71. 00727810 Suzzete M. Garcia 18,613 19015 30
72. 00727811 June M. Jacinto 980 19016 31
73. 00727812 Alfred A. Manarang 18,200 19017 32
74. 00727813 Araceli A. Manarang 18,200 19018 33
75. 00727814 Liezel M. de Guzman 12,608 19019 34
76. 00727815 Vicente G. Mallari, Jr. 19,393 19020 35
77. 00727816 Lorenzano M. Magat 4,800 19021 36
78. 00727817 Liezel M. de Guzman 5,270 19022 37
79. 00727818 Roberto V. Arciga 26,723 19023 38
80. 00727819 Rogelio T. Manalo 6,013 19024 39
81. 00727820 Alfredo M. Catacutan 23,045 19025 40
82. 00727821 Domingo J. Vital 17,604 19026 41
83. 00727822 -do- 280 19027 42
84. 00727823 Myra G. Pili 14,645 19028 43
85. 00727824 Alfred M. de Guzman 14,600 19029 44
86. 00727825 Carlos M. Magat 26,919 19030 45
87. 00727826 Nixon A. Vital 29,459 19031 46
88. 00727827 Lorenzano M. Magat 10,100 19032 47
89. 00727829 June M. Jacinto 2,900 19033 49
90. 00727830 Edgardo C. Catacutan 19,470 19034 50
91. 00727831 Pacita C. Catacutan 19,470 19035 51
92. 00727832 Sonny E. de Mesa 3,568 19036 52
93. 00727833 June M. Jacinto 1,892 19037 53
94. 00727834 Sonny de Mesa 26,432 19038 54
95. 00727916 Franklin M. Serrano 1,282 19040 1
96. 00727917 Betty V. de Jesus 30,000 19041 48
97. ********* June M. Jacinto 15,415 19039 KK
Furthermore, the Register of Deeds is hereby DIRECTED to cancel Entry Nos. 1828, 5132, 5388, 5389 and 8379 that are annotated on TCT No. 154516-R and REINSTATE TCT No. 154516-R.
SO ORDERED.
Diliman, Quezon City, March 10, 2011.
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Secretary
Footnotes
1. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118712 & 118745, October 6, 1995, 249 SCRA 149.
2. Rollo, pp. 2-32.
3. Rollo, pp. 128-133.
4. Rollo, pp. 134-137.
5. Rollo, pp. 33-36.
6. Rollo, pp. 86-97.
7. Rollo, pp. 98-102.
8. Rollo, pp. 103-105.
9. Rollo, pp. 106-108.
10. Rollo, pp. 37-47.
11. Rollo, pp. 48-49.
12. Rollo, pp. 54-71.
13. Rollo, p. 79.
14. 318 SCRA 22 (1999).
15. 225 SCRA 278 (1993).
16. Rollo, p. 118.
17. Rollo, p. 119.
18. Rollo, p. 120.
19. Rollo, p. 121.
20. Rollo, p. 122.
21. Rollo, pp. 123-127.
22. Rollo, pp. 139-147.
23. Rollo, pp. 149-158.
24. Rollo, pp. 160-165.
25. Rollo, p. 166.
26. Rollo, pp. 1-32.
27. Rollo, pp. 1948-2291.
28. Rollo, pp. 2871-3010.
29. Rollo, pp. 3302-13.
30. Rollo, pp. 3633-36.
31. Rollo, pp. 3584-3611.
32. Rollo, pp. 3550-47, 56.
33. Rollo, pp. 3536-37.
34. Rollo, p. 1.
35. Rollo, p. 166.
36. See Mercado v. Mercado, G.R. No. 178672, March 19, 2009; Gabriel v. Jamias, G.R. No. 156482, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 443.
37. Mago v. Barbin, G.R. No. 173923, October 12, 2009.
38. Supra, note 16.
39. Junio v. Garilao, G.R. No. 147146, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 173.
40. G.R. Nos. 142359 & 142980, May 25, 2004, 429 SCRA 109.
41. Supra, note 34.
42. G.R. No. 156965, October 12, 2006, 504 SCRA 238.
43. G.R. No. 168394, October 6, 2008.
44. G.R. No. 102900, October 2, 1997, 280 SCRA 20.
45. Mallilin, Jr. v. Castillo, 333 SCRA 628 (2000).
46. Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, supra note 39.
47. Pacific Timber Export Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 106170, July 30, 1993.