A. Z. ARNAIZ REALTY, INC. represented by CARMEN Z. ARNAIZ, petitioner, vs.

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DAR REGION V, LEGASPI CITY; PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, DAR PROVINCIAL OFFICE, MASBATE, MASBATE; MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, DAR MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MASBATE, MASBATE, respondents. GR No. 170623, July 9, 2010 FACTS: A. Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc., filed a petition for exclusion from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage dated April 25, 1994 before the Regional Director of Agrarian Reform (DAR) a parcel of land situated at Brgy. Asid, Sinalugan, Masbate, Masbate since the land has been devoted to cattle-ranching purposes since time immerorial, not tenanted and has more than 18% slopes. However the petition was denied and ordered to be still in the coverage of the acquisition of the properties under the coverage of CARP. It was established that a portion of land was leased to Monterey Farm for 10 years. Petitioner sold its entire herd of cattle to Monterey Farms Corporation before the expiration of lease agreement. It was also established that said land is not owned by the petitioner but rather by Nuestra Senora del Carmen Marble, Inc with a new TCT number. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in December 8, 1995. Petitioner appealed again the Order to the Sec. of Agrarian Reform for two separate motions for ocular inspection. The Sec. of Agrarian Reform dismissed for lack of merit on Oct. 23, 1996. Ordering CARP to identify portions and areas not suited for agriculture and be excluded from the program and do the necessary notices. Petitioner filed another motion for reconsideration but was denied on February 13, 1998. Petitioner then sought recourse before the Office of the President (OP) on Sept. 19, 2001 but dismissed the appeal. Petitioner again filed for motion for reconsideration on the argument that OP seriously erred but CA rendered that petition for review is DENIED DUE COURSE and was DISMISSED on August 11, 2005. CA ratiocinated that DAR were supported that substantial evidence which the petitioner failed to established. On a petition for motion for reconsideration which was again denied on Nov. 24, 2005, Petitioner argued and insists that they were not given due process, and that subject lands are not suitable for agriculture if they contain slope more than 18%. Petitioner also added that DAR should allow for the ocular inspection to be conducted invoking the Luz Farms v Secretary of Department of Agri and Department of Agri v Sutton that the petitioners property should be excluded from the coverage of the CARP. ISSUE: Whether or not the property is excluded from the coverage of CARP Whether or not Petitioner was denied due process HELD: No, CA held that the properties are not excluded from the coverage of CARP since the petitioner entered into a Contract of Lease to Monterey Farms as a lessor. The 433 hectares are devoted to marble, gold and other mineral. The said land was also not for the exclusive use for pasture neither it was for breeding cattle. The portion for used for cattle was not even under the petitioners name. The court did not also believed the contention of petitioner that the presence

of the NPAs, bad elements diminished the land area used by the petitioner. The more than 18% slope was also invalid in fact the said land is predominantly cultivated below 18% slope. Petitioner cannot also argue that the findings of DAR and the OP were baslesess and unjustifiable. No, it was consistently established and held that the essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, and opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek for reconsideration of the acting or ruling complained of. The denial of due process cannot be invoked by someone who had the opportunity to be heard on hi motion for reconsideration. The court generally accord great respect, if not finality, to factual findings of administrative agencies because of their special knowledge and expertise on matters within its specific and specialized jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 11, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73687, and the Resolution dated November 24, 2005, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.