Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City

SPECIAL EIGHTEENTH DIVISION

AE INTERNATIONAL CA-G.R. SP NO. 10552

CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT Members:
CORPORATION, *
Petitioner, LAGURA-YAP, J., Acting Ch.
**
QUIROZ, &
CORPIN, JJ.

- versus -
Promulgated:

DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM – FEBRUARY 26, 2021
REGIONAL OFFICE VII,
RESPONDENT.
x-----------------------------------------------x

DECISION

CORPIN, J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is

the Cease and Desist Order 1 (“Order”) dated December 14,
2016 issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional
Office No. VII (“DAR VII”).

The Antecedents

As culled from the records of the case, the facts are as

follows:

* Vice Executive Justice Gabriel T. Ingles per Office Order No. 03-21-PAAM dated 26 February 2021.
** Vice Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga per Office Order No. 09-21-GTI dated 23 February 2021.
1 See Rollo, pp. 19-24.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 2 of 15
Decision

Petitioner AE INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (“AE INTERNATIONAL”) is a
domestic corporation involved in raw land acquisition and
development. It is the developer of West Box Hill Residences, a
subdivision project located in Brgy. Mohon, Talisay, City
Cebu.2

AE INTERNATIONAL is the registered owner of Lot No.

10728 (“subject property”), which contains an area of 2,336
sq. m, and which is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
102-20140002293 of the Registry of Deeds for Cebu and by
Tax Declaration No. 060016018564 of the Talisay City
Assessor’s Office.5

AE INTERNATIONAL secured permits from the Local

Government of Talisay City, Cebu such as: (1) Preliminary
Approval and Locational Clearances6 issued by the Office of
the City Planning and Development Coordinator of Talisay
City; and (2) Development Permit7 issued by the Office of the
City Planning and Development Coordinator of Talisay City.

On December 7, 2016, a certain Ireneo Leuterio

(“Leuterio”) filed a letter complaint to DAR VII expressing his
objection to the on-going construction and development of
West Box Hill Residences, Talisay City, on the ground that the
land is an Agricultural Land which was illegally converted to
Actual Residential by AE INTERNATIONAL.

On the basis of the letter complaint, DAR VII issued a

Cease and Desist Order dated December 14, 2016 directing AE
INTERNATIONAL to stop the on-going construction and
development in the subject property and to explain within ten

2 See Rollo, p. 4.
3 See Rollo, pp. 25-17.
4 See Rollo, p. 28.
5 See Rollo, p. 5.
6 Dated 29 January 2016. See Rollo, p. 29.
7 Dated 2 May 2016. See Stollo, p. 30.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 3 of 15
Decision

days from receipt of the Order why it should not be penalized

for violation of existing laws, rules, and regulations on the
land use conversion.8 The said Order was received by AE
INTERNATIONAL on December 15, 2016. 9

As stated in the Order, the following documents were the

alleged basis by the public respondent for the issuance
thereof, to wit: (a) Evaluation Report and Recommendation of
Legal Division of DARPO dated 08 December 2016; (b) Ocular
Inspection/Investigation Report of the MARPO dated 01
September 2016; (c) Pictures of CD of the alleged development
in the area; and (d) Letter of the applicant dated 07 December
2016. However, according to AE INTERNATIONAL, it has not
read or seen the above-mentioned documents.10

AE INTERNATIONAL claimed that it was denied due

process when DAR VII issued the Order without serving any
notice of the alleged investigation conducted and to allow it to
submit evidence, hence, committing grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of
DAR VII.11

In its Comment12 dated April 19, 2017, DAR VII

asseverated that the Petition for Certiorari filed by AE
INTERNATIONAL is an improper remedy considering that there
is still other plain, speedy and adequate remedy under Section
23 of the 2003 Rules For Agrarian Law Implementation Cases.
According to DAR VII, AE INTERNATIONAL still had until
January 3, 2017 to file a Motion for Reconsideration but did
not avail of the said remedy available.13

DAR VII maintained that it did not commit grave abuse

8 See Rollo, pp. 19-24.

9 Id.
10 See Rollo, p. 8.
11 Id.
12 See Rollo, pp. 43-48.
13 See Rollo, p. 45.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 4 of 15
Decision

of discretion since the Order was issued in accordance with

law and the rule. A fact finding investigation was conducted by
the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (“MARO”) of Talisay City
by virtue of the Memorandum dated August 8, 2016 of the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Program Officer II of Cebu. 14

In its report dated September 1, 2016, the MARO found

out that there was an on-going development made by the
landowner. The Legal Division of DAR Provincial Office also
conducted an investigation where it discovered that there were
moving activities, back-filling of limestone, clearing and
alteration of physical characteristics of the land. DAR
Provincial Office Legal Division conducted an investigation
where it discovered that there were moving activities, back-
filling of limestone, clearing and alteration of physical
characteristics of the land.15

The Regional Director of DAR VII, Alejandro S. Otacan

(“RD Otacan”) examined the evidence submitted and found
that a prima facie case of illegal conversion of the land has
been made. With this, RD Otacan issued a Cease and Desist
Order against AE INTERNATIONAL.16

On May 16, 2017, AE INTERNATIONAL filed its Reply 17

and argued that the RD of DAR VII has no authority to issue
the said Order. As provided under 2002 Comprehensive Rules
on Land Use and Conversion, only the Secretary of DAR is
authorized to issue a Cease and Desist Order or his authorized
representative. The RD is not an authorized representative of
the DAR Secretary.18

AE INTERNATIONAL raised the following grounds:

14 Id.
15 See Rollo, p. 47.
16 Id.
17 See Rollo, pp. 49-56.
18 Id.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 5 of 15
Decision

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT

VIOLATED PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS19;

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT

ISSUED THE ORDER WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS
OF JURISDICTION20.

Our Ruling

The petition is devoid of merit.

At the outset, a Petition for Certiorari is a special civil

action that may be invoked only against a tribunal, board, or
officer exercising judicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65 of the
1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit on this
matter, viz.:

SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any

tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its
or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there
is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment must be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or
officer.21

The essential requisites for a Petition for Certiorari under

Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board,
or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2)
such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any
19 See Rollo, p. 8.
20 Id.
21 Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 6 of 15
Decision

plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of

law.22

Thus, the special civil action for certiorari is intended for

the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its
principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the
parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing
such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.23

In the case at hand, AE INTERNATIONAL fails to meet the

above-mentioned requisites for the proper invocation of a
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

For one, the Regional Director of DAR VII, in issuing the

assailed Cease and Desist Order, did so in accordance with his
mandate to implement the land use conversion provisions of
Republic Act No. 6657.

DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2002 provides

the procedure in administrative investigation of illegal,
premature, or unauthorized conversions, to wit:

Section 57. Administrative Action – The following

procedure shall be followed in the administrative
investigation of illegal, premature, or unauthorized
conversions:24

57.1. On the basis of the complaint or report received,

the Secretary of his duly authorized representative
shall conduct an investigation to determine if a
prima facie case of illegal, premature, or
unauthorized conversion exists.25

57.2. Upon determination of prima facie case, the

22 Id.
23 Bugaoisan vs. OWI Group M
24 DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2002.
25 Id.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 7 of 15
Decision

Secretary or Regional Director (for those cases

where he was the approving authority), shall
issue a cease and desist order (CDO) directing
the respondent to stop any and all
development activities in the area and
requiring him to explain within ten (10) days
from receipt of the CDO why he should not be
penalized for violation of existing laws, rules
and regulations on land use conversion.26

57.3. After the lapse of the period to answer, whether or

not an answer has been filed, administrative
proceedings shall be conducted to determine if the
respondent can be held liable for illegal,
premature, or unauthorized conversion. The
proceedings shall not be bound by the technical
rules of procedure and evidence, but shall proceed
in a most expeditious manner, employing all
reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every
case in accordance with justice and equity and the
merits of the case. The investigating official shall
have the power to summon witnesses, administer
oaths, take testimony, require submission of
reports, compel the production of books and
documents and answers to interrogatories and
issue subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena
duces tecum and to enforce its writs through
sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. He shall
likewise have the power to punish for direct and
indirect contempt in the same manner and subject
to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of
Court, in accordance with Section 50 of RA
6657.27

57.4. Upon determination that the respondent

committed illegal, premature, or unauthorized
conversion, the cash bond or performance bond, if
any, shall be cancelled and forfeited in favor of the
government, without prejudice to the imposition of
other penalties or sanctions, as may be

26 Emphasis Ours.
27 Id.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 8 of 15
Decision

warranted.28

57.5. Any government official who, directly or indirectly,

assisted or took part in the commission of illegal,
premature or unauthorized conversion shall be
administratively charged or dealt with in
accordance with pertinent laws and regulations.29

Here, as can be gleaned from the records, DAR VII acted

on a letter complaint filed by a certain Ireneo Leuterio alleging
illegal conversion by AE INTERNATIONAL of the land located
at Mohon Talisay City, Cebu, without the necessary
Conversion Order. Immediately, a fact finding investigation
was conducted by the MARO of Talisay City by virtue of the
Memorandum dated August 8, 2016 of the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Program Officer II of Cebu. RD Otacan examined the
evidence submitted and found prima facie case of illegal
conversion of the land which resulted to the issuance of the
CDO. RD Otacan also directed AE INTERNATIONAL to explain
within ten days from receipt of the Order why it should not be
penalized for violation of existing laws, rules and regulations
on land use conversion.

The action taken by RD Otacan was in accordance with

the existing rules and regulation in implementing agrarian
reform cases particularly DAR Administrative Order No. 1,
Series of 2002 (“AO”). Therefore, DAR VII through RD Otacan
did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
in excess of its jurisdiction.

DAR VII contends that the instant Petition is an improper

remedy considering that there is still other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy under Section 23 of the 2003 Rules For
Agrarian Law Implementation Cases which is the filing of a
Motion for Reconsideration.

While AE INTERNATIONAL countered by raising the issue

28 Id.
29 DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2002.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 9 of 15
Decision

on the denial of procedural due process, to wit:

“Petitioner humbly submits that the public

respondent violated ALL of the seven (7) cardinal rules
enumerated in Ang Tibay30, when it issued the herein
assailed Order without affording petitioner its due
process right to a hearing.

Before the public respondent issued the Order, basic

precepts of decency and due process dictate that it
should give petitioner first an opportunity to explain
why a Cease and Desist Order should not be issued
against the development of the Project. The public
respondent could have at least afforded petitioner with
a copy of the complaint or application of the private
respondent, the Evaluation Report and
Recommendation of Legal Division of DARPO dated 08
December 2016, the Ocular Inspection/Investigation
Report of the MARPO dated 01 September 2016, and
the other documents mentioned in the Order as basis for
the issuance of the same. The public respondent should
have done these instead of letting petitioner guessing
how or why said Order was issued. This is the Sword
of Damocles that has been dangling on petitioner's
31
neck.”

We do not agree.

In Universal Robina Corp., vs. Laguna Lake Development

Authority32, the Court emphasized:

Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not

always and in all situations require a trial-type
proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is
notified of the charge against him and given an
opportunity to explain or defend himself. In
administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and
giving reasonable opportunity for the person so
charged to answer the accusations against him
30 AE INTERNATIONAL cited the case of Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations. 69 Phil. 635
(1940).
31 See Rollo, p. 10.
32 G.R. No. 191427, May 30, 2011.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 10 of 15
Decision

constitute the minimum requirements of due process.

The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or
as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.

Administrative due process cannot be fully equated

with due process in its strict judicial sense for it is
enough that the party is given the chance to be heard
before the case against him is decided.

Notably, AE INTERNATIONAL was given an ample

opportunity to be heard. It is noted that AE INTERNATIONAL
was given ten days from receipt of the CDO to explain why it
should not be penalized for violation of existing laws, rules,
and regulations on the land use conversion for, as stated in
the above-mentioned jurisprudence, it is enough that the
party is given the chance to be heard before the case against it
is decided. However, instead of complying, AE
INTERNATIONAL opted to file the instant Petition.

After all, the essence of due process is to be heard, and,

as applied to administrative proceedings, this means a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity
to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of.33

Settled is the rule that a direct resort to the Court via

certiorari is an exception rather than the rule, and is a
recourse that must be firmly grounded on compelling
reasons.34|||

AE INTERNATIONAL also argued that the instant petition

comes within the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies, as follows:

33 G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013.

34 Non v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 251177, September 8, 2020.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 11 of 15
Decision

“13. Very clear and patent from a simple reading of the

petition is what was raised there is the patent nullity of
the Cease and Desist Order issued by the DAR Regional
Director VII, ALEJANDRO S. OTACAN and the patent
deprivation of the petitioner's fundamental right to due
process of law. The petition clearly falls outside the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.” 35

The above argument must fail.

First, as previously explained, there is no violation of the

right to procedural due process of AE INTERNATIONAL that
would warrant the application of the exception to the rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Second, in the case of Power Sector Assets and Liabilities

Management Corp. v. CIR 36, the Court explained the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies:

The rationale of the doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies was aptly explained by the
Court in Universal Robina Corp. (Corn Division) v.
Laguna Lake Development Authority37:

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative

remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. The
thrust of the rule is that courts must allow
administrative agencies to carry out their functions
and discharge their responsibilities within the
specialized areas of their respective competence.
The rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails
lesser expenses and provides for the speedier
resolution of the controversies. Comity and
convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away
from a dispute until the system of administrative
redress has been completed.

35 See Rollo, p. 51.

36 G.R. No. 198146, August 8, 2017.
37 G.R. No. 191427, May 30, 2011.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 12 of 15
Decision

In requiring parties to exhaust administrative

remedies before pursuing action in a court, the
doctrine prevents overworked courts from
considering issues when remedies are available
through administrative channels. Furthermore, the
doctrine endorses a more economical and less formal
means of resolving disputes, and promotes efficiency
since disputes and claims are generally resolved more
quickly and economically through administrative
proceedings rather than through court litigation.38

DAR Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 2003, otherwise

known as the 2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation
Cases, provides for the rules governing the adjudication of
cases involving Agrarian Law Implementation. Section 23
thereof states:

Section 23. Motion for Reconsideration – A party may

file only one (1) motion for reconsideration of the
decision of the Regional Director, 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 file appeal. The Regional Director shall
rule on the motion within thirty (30) days from its filing
date.

23.1. If the motion for reconsideration is denied, the

movant may perfect an appeal before Secretary
within only the remainder of said non-extendible
period of fifteen (15) calendar days but not less
than five (5) calendar days.

23.2. If the motion for reconsideration is granted,

resulting in the reversal of the original decision,
the losing party may perfect an appeal before the
Secretary within a full but non-extendible period
of fifteen (15) calendar days from the receipt of the
new decision.39

38 Id.
39 DAR Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 2003.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 13 of 15
Decision

From the foregoing, it is clear that AE INTERNATIONAL

erred in prematurely filing the instant Petition when there is
clearly an available plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. The remedy of filing a Motion for
Reconsideration of the assailed Order is readily available to AE
INTERNATIONAL. However, instead of complying, it opted to
seek the intervention of this Court.

In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Avon Products

Manufacturing, Inc.40:

This Court in a long line of cases has consistently

held that before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he
should have availed of all the means of administrative
processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the
administrative machinery can still be resorted to by
giving the administrative officer concerned every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within
his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted
first before court’s judicial power can be sought. The
premature invocation of court’s intervention is
fatal to one’s cause of action. Accordingly, absent
any finding of waiver or estoppel the case is
susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of
action.41

Moreover, of the same tenor, the Court held in Asia

International Auctioneers, Inc. v. Parayno42:

It is settled that the premature invocation of the

court’s intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. If a
remedy within the administrative machinery can still
be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within
his jurisdiction, then such remedy must first be
exhausted before the courts power of judicial review
can be sought. The party with an administrative
40 G.R. Nos. 201398-99 & 201418-19, October 3, 2018.
41 Id.
42 G.R. No. 163445, December 18, 2007.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 14 of 15
Decision

remedy must not only initiate the prescribed

administrative procedure to obtain relief but also
pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking
judicial intervention in order to give the administrative
agency an opportunity to decide the matter itself
correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature
resort to the court.43

Thus, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative

remedies should not be ignored. It is founded on sound public
policy and practical considerations. The theory is that
administrative authorities are in a better position to resolve
questions that properly belong to their particular expertise.

This doctrine gives superiors an opportunity to review

and rectify errors committed by their subordinates. Likewise,
it relieves the courts of a considerable number of cases,
thereby decongesting their already heavily loaded dockets.44
Recourse through court action cannot prosper until after all
such administrative remedies have first been exhausted. 45

Consequently, the prayer of AE INTERNATIONAL for the

issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, prohibition
and/or temporary restraining order is denied for lack of merit.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED. Cost against

petitioner AE INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
BAUTISTA G. CORPIN, JR.
Associate Justice

43 Id.
44 GSIS vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 196564, August 07, 2017.
45 Teotico vs. Baer, G.R. No. 147464 June 8, 2006.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 10552 Page 15 of 15
Decision

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

MARILYN B. LAGURA-YAP ROBERTO P. QUIROZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution,

it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARILYN B. LAGURA-YAP
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Special Eighteenth Division