[ADM. CASE NO. A-9999-06-RT-107-03. March 10, 2011.]
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR RETENTION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657
ROMAN SEÑERES, applicant-movant,
AVELINO SEÑERES, LAURENCIO SUBADE, AURELIO SUELLO and ELADIO SUBADE, respondents-appellants.
ORDER
Before this Office is the Ex Parte Motion for Clarification and Correction dated 13 February 2009 1 filed by herein applicant-movant, Roman Señeres, 2 from the Resolution dated 10 December 2008 3 issued by this Office, the dispositive portion of which provides:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Order dated 08 April 2005, issued by then DAR Secretary Rene Villa is hereby MODIFIED. A new ORDER is hereby issued as follows:
1. GRANTING the application of Roman Señeres to retain five (5) to be taken from his other agricultural land with an area of 6.3127 hectares;
2. DIRECTING the PARO of Iloilo to issue Certificate of Retention to the herein Applicant-Movant;
3. The OLT covered area of 8.0994 hectares awarded to the herein respondent-appellants and the EPs issued in their favor are hereby MAINTAINED.
As far as this Office is concerned, this case is considered CLOSED.
SO ORDERED."
In his Motion for Clarification, applicant-movant avers that as the owner of the subject property covered by Operation Land Transfer, 4 he has the prior right to choose which area of his landholding he wants to retain. He alleges that the tenants appear to have been granted the right to choose which areas they wish to retain while he was relegated to the remainder of the subject property. He further maintains that the area must be contiguous.
After reviewing the records of the case, we find no merit in the Motion for Clarification at bar.
First, it appears that the Motion for Clarification chiefly delves upon the merits of the case. If heeded, it will substantially alter the soundness of the pronouncement in the Assailed Resolution. Hence, this Office will have to treat the same as a Second Motion for Reconsideration, which is prohibited under the rules governing agrarian reform law implementation cases.
Under Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2003, [v]5 only one motion for reconsideration is allowed. Section 24, Rule III of the Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Rules provides:
"Section. 24. Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision or Order of the Secretary. — In cases where the Secretary exercises exclusive original jurisdiction, a party may file only one (1) motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Secretary, and may do so only within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the decision, furnishing a copy of the motion to all other parties. The filing of the motion interrupts the running of the reglementary period within which to appeal.
24.1. If the motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant may perfect an appeal before the Office of the President within only the remainder of said non-extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days but not less than five (5) calendar days.
24.2 If the motion for reconsideration is granted, resulting in the reversal of the original decision, the losing party may perfect an appeal before the Office of the President within a full but non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the new decision." (emphasis supplied)
Guided by the foregoing provision, this Office cannot take cognizance of the Motion for Clarification (treated as Second Motion for Reconsideration) of Roman Señeres. The aforequoted provision categorically states that when there has been a motion filed and the same is granted, the losing party's recourse is to file an appeal before the Office of the President.
A review of the proceedings prior to the filing of this Motion for Clarification in relation to the issue of exercising the right of retention is necessary. On 8 April 2005, this Office, through then Secretary Rene C. Villa, issued an Order granting Roman Señeres the right to retain one (1) hectare to be taken from his other agricultural lands. 6 On June 1, 2005, applicant-movant filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 27 May 2005, claiming that he is entitled to five (5) hectares retention area and that the same must be taken from the area occupied by the alleged tenants and covered by emancipation patents. 7 The said motion was partially granted through the Assailed Resolution signed by then Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman. Applicant-movant's right of retention was increased to five (5) hectares. However, the retention area was still to be taken from his other landholdings.
From the foregoing, Roman Señeres' Motion for Reconsideration was denied with respect to the choice of retention area. Thus, his recourse should be an Appeal before the Office of the President, pursuant to the aforementioned Section 24.1 of Rule III of the ALI Rules. For this reason alone, this Motion for Clarification should be denied.
Second, a careful perusal of the Motion for Clarification shows that there are no new issues raised that will warrant the reversal and/or modification of the Assailed Resolution. The matters at issue were already clarified and resolved in the Resolution sought to be reconsidered.
Under the Assailed Resolution, then Secretary Pangandaman held that the rules on retention were correctly applied. Thus, it was clearly provided that Roman Señeres shall only be entitled to the retention of properties not covered by OLT. Under DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003 dated 16 January 2003, 8 the exercise of retention right by landowners is subject to several policies. The right of the landowner to choose is absolute. It is subject to several qualifications as provided in the Rules on Retention Rights. Thus, Section 2 thereof provides:
ARTICLE I
Preliminary Provisions
SECTION 1. Coverage. — These rules and procedures shall apply to all applications for retention under PD 27 and RA 6657.
SECTION 2. Statement of Policies. — The exercise of retention right by landowners shall be governed by the following policies:
2.1 The landowner has the right to choose the area to be retained by him which shall be compact and contiguous, and which shall be least prejudicial to the entire landholding and the majority of the farmers therein.
xxx xxx xxx
2.5 In all cases, all rights previously acquired by the tenant-farmers under PD 27 and the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of RA 6657 shall be respected. Furthermore, actual tenant-farmers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom. (emphasis supplied.)
Consequently, the Assailed Resolution correctly took into consideration the existing rights emanating from the Emancipation Patents already issued to herein appellants.
Thus, for being a prohibited motion, and for failure to allege grounds sufficient to reverse the Assailed Resolution, the Motion for Clarification must be denied.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Ex-Parte Motion for Clarification and Correction at bar dated 13 February 2009 is DENIED for being a prohibited motion and for utter lack of merit. The Assailed Resolution of this Office dated 10 December 2008 is MAINTAINED. Insofar as this Office is concerned, this case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED.
Diliman, Quezon City, March 10, 2011.
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Secretary
Footnotes
1. Hereafter, "Motion for Clarification." Rollo, pp. 156-157.
2. Hereafter, "applicant-movant" or "Roman Señeres."
3. Hereafter, the "Assailed Resolution." Rollo, pp. 158-162.
4. Hereafter, "OLT."
5. Entitled "2003 Rules of Procedures for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases;" Hereafter, "ALI Rules."
6. Rollo, pages 139-144.
7. Rollo, pages 150-154.
8. Hereafter, "Rules on Retention Rights."