April 4, 1997
DAR OPINION NO. 38-97
Mr. Rodolfo A. Ricacho, Jr.
PARA-Legal Officer
Office of the Regional Director
Department of Agrarian Reform
Region VIII, Tacloban City
Dear Mr. Ricacho:
This refers to your letter which posed the following queries, to wit:
a. Are there any existing rules and regulations or laws prohibiting the landowner to go directly to the DARAB to file a Petition for Cancellation of EP Title?;
b. Isn't the practice in filing Petition for Exclusion from the coverage of the OLT program at the Regional Director's Office a normal and realistic procedure that meets the requirement of the law in protecting the right/s of the parties especially the EP title holders?;
c. Is the granting of the Petition for Exclusion by the Regional Director an indirect or a collateral attack on the indefeasibility of the Title vested in the beneficiary? and
d. Is the Order issued by Director Baniqued proper?
The aforecited queries were brought about and all begun when you encountered an Order dated 5 August 1996 issued by Director Baniqued, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing consideration, Order is hereby issued, GRANTING this instant petition for exclusion of the landholding described as Lot No. 1019 covering an area of 2.8246 hectares as described in the OCT Title No. P-20495, located at Brgy. Bagongsabang, San Jose, Northern Samar, and ADVISING Soledad Plandez, herein Petitioner to file an action for the cancellation of Emancipation Patent erroneously issued. However, the tenants in the subject property shall be maintained in the peaceful possession of the landholding in issue and proper leasehold contracts should be executed with the landowner, if none are yet existing.
SO ORDERED."
You are of the opinion that the Order of the Regional Director should have denied the Petition for Exclusion without prejudice to the right of the landowner to file a direct action/petition for cancellation of the EP Title since said Order will create absurd legal consequences. Hence, your queries.
With regard to your first query, the answer is in the affirmative. Under DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994, otherwise known as the "Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) . . .". it provides in the transitory provision thereof that: "the implementation of these rules shall be governed by the procedures of the DARAB to include the concept of designating a nominal party and the concept of exhaustion of administrative remedies." From the aforequoted, it is very clear that prior to the filing of a Petition for Cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents to the DARAB, the ground for the cancellation of the EP Title should first be determined by the Secretary or his authorized representative under the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Likewise, the same procedure applies where the land is found exempt/excluded from P.D. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP coverage or to be part of the landowner's retained area (Section IV-B, No. 9 of the aforecited guideline). Thus, in this instance, we agree with your observation under query No. 2 hereof.
However, with regard to your third query, we reject the view that the granting of the Petition for Exclusion by the Regional Director is an indirect or a collateral attacks on the indefeasibility of the title vested in the farmer beneficiary. Under A.O. No. 2, Series of 1994, EPs/CLOAs issued to ARBs may be corrected and cancelled for violation of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. This includes cases of lands which are found to be exempt/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP coverage or to be part of the landowners' retained areas. This is administrative in nature, perforce, the principle of indefeasibility of title issued under the Torrens System is not applicable in the instant case.
As regards your last query, from the foregoing and on the presupposition that the Regional Director's Order for the filing of an action for cancellation of Emancipation Patent falls within the purview of Section IV-B, No. 9 of A.O. No. 2, Series of 1994, the said Order is deemed proper and in order.
We hope to have clarified the matter with you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning