1.

l\epuhlic of tbe ~bilippine~

~upreme ~ourt
;!fllanila
FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a
Resolution dated July 24, 2019 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 205321 (Spouses Atty. Doroteo and Ignacia

Gonzales, represented by their daughter and attorney-in-fact Beatriz
A. Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer of Davao City [PARO], Region XI, represented by OIC
PARO I Ernesto B. Tan, et al.). - We affirm the Decision 1 dated
April 18, 2012 and Resolution2 dated December 10, 2012 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00901-MIN. The Decisions of
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
Regional Adjudicator and DARAB, as affirmed by the CA, that the
procedure followed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in
acquiring petitioners' property was in accordance with the law and
rules and regulations of compulsory acquisition under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), are correct.
Factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific
field of expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the
absence of substantial showing that such findings were made from an
erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive,
and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, should
not be disturbed. 3

Petitioners Spouses Doroteo (Doroteo) and Ignacia Gonzales

(collectively, Spouses Gonzales) were the registered owners of several
parcels of land situated in Calinan District, Davao City. One of these

- over - ten (10) pages ...

203

1 Rollo, pp. 25-46; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, with the concurrence of
Associate Justices Melchor Q. C. Sadang and Pedro B. Corales.
2
Id. at 48-52; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, with concurrence of Associate
Justices Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
3
Sugar Regulatory Administration v. Tormon, G.R. No. 195640, December 4, 2012, 686 SCRA
854, 867, citing Lumayna v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185001, September 25, 2009, 601
SCRA 163, 176-177.

~
~ '1 1( ~ )1 :,~ ·'"
,_ ,i·: '\
1
·, ~/ ;JU;SOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 205321
i'. _;;1·: '! "j - July 24, 2019
.'( t
r! d '·
:i U\
.,
,._, ; J\ .propdl'ties was composed of 5.8455 hectares and with Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-108601. 4

On August 11, 1995, pursuant to Section 16, Chapter V of

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, 5 Elizabeth Caparo, the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Calinan District, Davao City,
issued a notice of coverage to Doroteo informing him that his
landholdings covered by TCT No. T-108601 and three other
properties were covered by CARP and inviting him to a meeting on
August 22, 1995 at the MARO office. The notice further stated that
Dorotea had the right to select and retain an area in accordance with
Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 which should be more or less contiguous
and that failure to attend will mean that the identification of the
retained area will be left to MAR0. 6

On August 31, 1995, Doroteo informed Ernesto B. Tan,

Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), that since more than
one-half of the lands have an 18-degree slope, they are exempted from
CARP coverage. Doroteo also claimed that his six children are all
qualified beneficiaries of the farmlands. 7

In a letter dated October 30, 1995, the MARO informed

Doroteo that it could not act on the request until he submits the
necessary requirements required by law. The MARO attached the
forms for the application for exemption/exclusion and other
requirements. Doroteo received the letter on November 7, 1995. 8

Because Doroteo failed to submit the requirements, the MARO

wrote him a letter on January 18, 1996 requesting that the
requirements be submitted on or before February 15, 1996. 9

Doroteo still failed to submit the requirements. Thus, on July

30, 1997, the MARO gave Doroteo only until August 20, 1997 to
submit the documents; otherwise, the MARO will determine the
landholdings to be exempt from CARP and will proceed with the
documentation of Doroteo 's landholdings in accordance with the
provisions ofR.A. No. 6657. 10

- over -
203

4 Rollo, p. 26.
5
An Act Instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to Promote Social Justice and
Industrialization, Providing the Mechanisms for its Implementation, and for Other Purposes.
6
Id. at 26-27.
7
Id. at 27.
8
Id
9
Rollo, pp. 27-28.
10
Id. at 28.

\J
 RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 205321
July 24, 2019

Since Doroteo still failed to submit the requirements, the

MARO proceeded with the actual ocular inspection/field investigation
of the properties stated in the notice of coverage. Field investigation
report dated December 15, 1997 found that the entire 5.8445 hectares
of the property covered by TCT No. T-108601 was below 18% slope,
suitable for agriculture, and therefore, "recommended for acquisition
and redistribution." 11

Subsequently, the MARO transmitted the claim folder of the

agricultural land covered by TCT No. T-108601 to the PARO on
December 17, 1997. On December 22, 1997, Doroteo received a copy
of the field investigation report and he acknowledged receipt of it in
his letter dated January 14, 1998. 12 Doroteo stated that he had an
application for exemption submitted to the Regional Director, and if
the proceedings will continue, he will file an administrative
complaint. 13

Still, the process of acquisition continued, and on the basis of

the PARO' s determination, the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No.
T-108601 and TCT No. T-302186 was issued in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines. The Register of Deeds then issued TCT
No. CL-3526 with corresponding cancellation of Certificate of Land-
Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00513032, in favor of the farmer-
beneficiaries private respondents Diosiminda Abella, Hilario Abella,
Jr. and Romeo Oming. 14

On January 18, 1999, petitioners wrote the MARO saying that,

they are applying for the retention and award to them and to their
qualified children-beneficiaries the agricultural lands covered by TCT
No. T-108601 and two other properties. They emphasized that their
four qualified children-beneficiaries are entitled to three hectares each
while the spouses are entitled to five hectares. 15

On January 22, 1999, Spouses Gonzales filed before the Office

of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) a "Petition
for Cancellation of Certificate of Land-Ownership Award (CLOA)
and/or the Non-issuance of the said CLOAs with Prayer for a
Restraining Order or Injunction" against the PARO of Davao City, the
Register of Deeds of Davao City, and the farmer-beneficiaries private
respondents. 16

- over -
203

II Id.
i2 Id
13
Rollo, p. 29.
14 Id
15
Rollo, p. 97-A.
16
Id at 30.

~
 RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 205321
July 24, 2019

In their answer, respondents stated that the cancellation of TCT

No. T-108601 was done in accordance with the provisions of R.A.
No. 6657 and the corresponding CLOA generated had already been
issued to the farmer beneficiaries. On the allegation, that the MARO
was still in the process of compiling the Application for Land
Exemption Folder (ALEF), respondents countered that the said
application was filed only on January 18, 1999 despite
demands/request to file it as early as 1995. 17

After the submission of position papers, on July 25, 2000,

Regional Adjudicator Norberto Sinsona (RARAD) dismissed the
petition. 18 The RARAD ruled that petitioners were given ample time
to submit the requirements but they failed to do so. Thus, the MARO
of Calinan District, Davao City correctly proceeded with compulsory
acquisition of the property, in accordance with the provisions of R.A.
No. 6657. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied. 19

Meanwhile, on December 13, 2000, the DAR Regional Director

acted on petitioners' application for retention. Of the three properties
applied for retention, including the land covered by TCT No. T-
l 08601, the DAR Regional Director approved the retention of five
hectares of land covered by TCT No. T-7903. 20

Petitioners appealed the RARAD's Decision to the DARAB

Central Office which, in its Decision dated March 9, 2005, affirmed
the Decision of the RARAD. 21 The DARAB also denied petitioners'
motion for reconsideration. 22

Petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 43. They

argued that: ( 1) the pending applications for retention and award to
the children and for exemption are prejudicial questions which the
DAR should have resolved first before it proceeded to award the
subject land to the private respondents; and (2) they were deprived of
the opportunity to contest the award made to the private respondents. 23

The CA denied the petition. 24 The CA ruled that the DAR's

acquisition of the property was in accordance with the law and rules
and regulations for compulsory acquisition under CARP. The CA

- over -
203
17
Id at 31.
is Id.
19 Rollo, p. 34.
20
Id. at 11.
21
Id at 36.
22 Jd.
3
2 Rollo, p. 37.
24
Id. at 45.

~
 RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 205321
July 24, 2019

noted that as early as August 11, 1995, the MARO sent petitioners the
notice of coverage, invited them to several conferences and gave and
extended petitioners' deadlines to submit their applications for
retention and exemption, but petitioners still failed to comply with the
requirements. The field investigation report which petitioners received
was also sufficient notice to them. While the landowner has the right
to choose his area of retention, as spelled out in Section 6, R.A. No.
6657, its exercise is subject to a certain period of time, i.e., 60 days
from the date of receipt of the notice of coverage as provided under
Administrative Order No, 11, series of 1990. There was no violation
of due process since petitioners were given every opportunity to take
part in the proceeding through various notices and invitations for
conferences. They were also given the opportunity to submit their
position paper at the RARAD and DARAB and to seek
reconsideration from the decisions of the two administrative bodies.
Last, petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies in
immediately filing their petition before the CA. Pursuant to DAR
Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994, they should have either
sought reconsideration of the DAR Regional Director's determination
of the beneficiaries or appealed to the DAR Secretary. 25

The CA also denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 26

In this petition, petitioners raise the following arguments: ( 1)

the resolution of the application for retention, exemption, and award
of the parcels of land to their children is a prejudicial question which
should have been resolved first because if all the applications were
approved, there would be nothing left to be distributed to other
beneficiaries; 27 (2) the lapse of two years from the time that they were
required to submit the requirements should not automatically cause
the award of the landholdings to private respondents; 28 (3) petitioners
were denied of their right to due process since their landholding was
immediately placed under CARP coverage despite the pendency of
their applications for retention, exemption and award to their
children; 29 and (4) there is no violation of the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction since cases involving the cancellation of CLOAs
registered with the Register of Deeds fall within the jurisdiction of the
DARAB. 30

- over -
203

2s Id at 39-45.
26 Id at 52.
27
Id at 14.
28 Id. at 15.
29
Id. at 16.
30
Id at 17-19.

~
 RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 205321
July 24, 2019

We deny the petition.

First, We rule that the PARADIRARAD/DARAB properly took

cognizance of the petition for cancellation of CLOA and/or the non-
issuance of the said CLOAs with prayer for a restraining order or
injunction.

Under the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, which was

effective at the time petitioners filed their petition before the PARAD,
the RARAD and the PARAD have concurrent original jurisdiction
with the DARAB to hear, determine and adjudicate all agrarian cases
and disputes, and incidents in connection therewith, arising within
their assigned territorial jurisdiction. 31

The DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both

original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian
disputes involving the implementation of the CARP under R.A. No.
6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as
amended by R.A. No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other
agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. This
includes cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of
CLOAs and emancipation patents which are registered with the Land
Registration Authority. 32

Second, We find that there was no prejudicial question to

resolve prior to the award of the land covered by TCT No. T-108601
to private respondents. The CA, affirming the DARAB Decision, was
correct in ruling that the procedure followed by the DAR in acquiring
the property was in accordance with the law and rules and regulations
for compulsory acquisition under CARP. 33

Petitioners already waived their right to choose the area of the

farmland to be retained including the land covered by TCT No. T-
l 08601. Availment of such right is subject to the observance of rules
and procedures promulgated for the implementation of the CARP.
DAR Administrative Order No. 11, series of 1990 on the Rules and
Procedures Governing the Exercise of Retention Rights by
Landowners and Award to Children under Section 6 of R.A. 6657
provides for a 60-day period from receipt of the Notice of Coverage
within which the landowner must file the application for retention,
thus:

- over -
203

31
DARAB New Rules of Procedure, Rule II, Section 2.
32
DARAB New Rules of Procedure, Rule II, Section 2.
33
Rollo, p. 38.

~
 RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 205321
July 24, 2019

Ill.
Application for Retention

xxxx

D. Period Within Which to Exercise the Right of

Retention-

1. Under Compulsory Acquisition (CA) - The

right of retention and the possibility of award to
children, where applicable, must be availed of
by the landowner within a period of sixty (60)
days from the date of receipt of Notice of
Coverage from the DAR that his landholding is
subject to compulsory acquisition. Failure to
respond within the specified period and after
due notice would mean that the landowner
waives his right to choose which area to retain.

xxxx

Moreover, the landowner applying for retention must satisfy the

following requirements:

C. Criteria/Requirements for Retention and Award

1. The land is a private agricultural land;

2. The area chosen for retention shall be compact
and contiguous and shall be least prejudicial to the
entire landholding and the majority of the farmers
thereon
3. The landowner must execute an affidavit as to
the aggregate area of his landholding; •
4. The landowner must submit a list of his children
who were fifteen (15) years old or over as of June
15, 1988 and who have been actually cultivating
or directly managing the farm since June 15,
1988.34

Petitioners received the notice of coverage on August 11, 1995.

Petitioners filed their application for retention of their farmlands
including the lot covered by TCT No. T-108601 with supporting
documents only on January 18, 1999. 35 This is way beyond the 60-day
period within which they should have filed the application for
retention.

- over -
203

34
DAR Administrative Order No. 11, series of 1990, Part III(C).
35
Rollo, p. 97.

~
 RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 205321
July 24, 2019

Moreover, petitioners did not follow the procedure in pursuing

its protest and in applying for the retention and exemption of their
farmlands from CARP coverage.

Under Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994, all protests

against CARP coverage shall be filed with the MARO or the PARO
currently processing the claim folder. Once the written protest is filed,
the MARO or PARO shall comment on said protest and submit the
same to the Regional Director who shall rule on the same. 36

Under Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1990, the MARO

shall receive the written application for exemption which shall include
the following documents: (1) ownership documents and other
muniments of title; and (2) evidence to support application and
convince DAR that the area qualifies for exemption under Section 10,
R.A. No. 6657 such as: copy of proclamation, topographic map,
sketch map, area development plan, affidavit, certification from
relevant government agency. 37

Here, petitioners' letters to the MARO cannot be considered as

the application for exemption from CARP coverage since they were
not accompanied by evidentiary documents to support their
application. 38

Verily, petitioners cannot claim violation of their due process

when they were remiss in the exercise of their rights as landowners.
We approve the conclusions of the CA:

In this case, as early as August 11, 1995, the

MARO had sent a notice of coverage to the
petitioners informing them that portions of their

- over -
203

36
III. PROCEDURE
A. All protests under this Order shall be filed with the MARO or the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officer (PARO) that is currently processing the claim folder.
B. Once a written protest is filed, the MARO or PARO shall comment on said protest and
submit the same to the RD who shall rule on the same.
C. In case any of the parties disagree with the RD's decision/resolution, the affected party
may file a written motion for reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
order. The filing of the motion for reconsideration shall stop the running of the period to
appeal.
Thereafter, the RD shall rule on the motion for reconsideration and in the event that the
motion is denied, the adverse party has the right to appeal within the remainder of the
period to appeal, reckoned from the receipt of the resolution of denial. If the decision is
reversed on reconsideration, the aggrieved party shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt
of the resolution of reversal within which to perfect an appeal therefrom, if no appeal has
been duly perfected, the RD shall order execution.
37
Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1990, Part IV(A)(2).
38
See Nicanor T. Santos Development Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Agrarian
Reform, G.R. No. 159654, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 569.

~
 RESOLUTION 9 G.R. No. 205321
July 24, 2019

landholdings were under CARP. As a matter of

procedure, they were invited to several conferences
for them to discuss and participate in the land
acquisition initiated by the DAR. As can be gleaned
from the series of letters from the MARO, the
petitioners were given ultimatums or deadlines·
which were nonetheless extended a number of
times. x x x Petitioners have allowed the periods to
lapse. Petitioners cannot now cry lack of due
process. The DAR has, in fact, been lenient in
applying the rules.

xxxx

Thus, the landowner may not unduly delay in

exercising his right to choose which land he desires
to retain. As long as the landowner is properly
notified, DAR can choose in his behalf if he fails to
seasonably exercise that right.

xxxx

In other words, the petitioners were given every

opportunity to take part in the proceeding through
various notices and invitations for conferences.
These are indications that they were afforded
procedural process. They were also given the
opportunity to submit Position Paper at the RARAD
and DARAB and to seek reconsideration from the
decisions of the two administrative bodies. It is only
in the absence of opportunity to be heard when they
claim deprivation of procedural due process. 39

WHEREFORE, We DENY the petition. The Decision dated

April 18, 2012 and Resolution dated December 10, 2012 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00901-MIN are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., on official leave,·

Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First
Division per Special Order No. 2680 dated July 12, 2019.

Very truly yours,

LIB
Clerk of Court~ tJ..s
203
- over -

39
Rollo, pp. 39-42.

~
RESOLUTION
BALTAZAR, YANGY ANG, ESPEJO
& GALICIA LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Petitioners
2/F, Unit 5, Babista Building
No. 23 Palma Gil Street
8000 Davao City
Ms. Beatriz A. Gonzales
Petitioners' Attorney-in-Fact
13 Aurora Quezon Street, Calinan
8000 Davao City
UR
10 G.R. No. 205321
July 24, 2019
Court of Appeals
9000 Cagayan de Oro City
(CA-G.R. SP No. 00901-MIN)
BUREAU OF AGRARIAN
LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Counsel for Respondents
Provincial Agrarian Reform
Office-Davao City
Km. 12, DAR Compound, Catalunam
Pequeno, 8000 Davao City
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD (DARAB)
Annex Building, DAR Central
Office Compound
Diliman, 1101 Quezon City
(DARAB Case No. 10918)
[Reg. Case No. XI-1518-A-DC-99]
Public Information Office (x)
Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)
Judgment Division (x) (b \
Supreme Court ~
203
if