Title
Almine vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 80719
Decision Date
Sep 26, 1989
Petitioner sought retention of riceland under PD 27; MAR denied application. CA dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction; SC ruled CA erred, remanded case for further proceedings.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 80719)

Facts:

  1. Application for Retention/Exemption: On December 25, 1975, petitioner Hilda Ralla Almine filed a sworn application for retention or exemption of her riceland from the Operation Land Transfer Program under Presidential Decree No. 27 with the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) in Tabaco, Albay.
  2. Investigation Reports:
    • On June 26, 1980, Atty. Cidarminda Arresgado of MAR filed an investigation report recommending the cancellation of the Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) issued to private respondent Sulpicio Bombales, petitioner's tenant.
    • In 1979-1985, petitioner reiterated her application, alleging that Bombales failed to deliver her landowner's share since 1975 and had distributed the land to his children.
    • On October 31, 1985, Atty. Seth Evasco conducted a reinvestigation and recommended the cancellation of Bombales' CLT.
  3. MAR's Decision:
    • Regional Director Salvador Pejo and Officer-in-Charge Juanita L. Lorena concurred with Evasco's report, stating that petitioner's landholding of 4.3589 hectares was not covered by the Operation Land Transfer Program.
    • However, on February 13, 1986, then MAR Minister Conrado Estrella denied petitioner's application for retention.
  4. Appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC):
    • On April 17, 1986, petitioner appealed to the IAC (docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 08550).
    • The IAC denied Bombales' motion to dismiss the appeal on May 28, 1986.
  5. Court of Appeals Decision:
    • On June 29, 1987, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction. The court held that such matters should be reviewed by the Court of Agrarian Relations (now Regional Trial Courts) under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
    • Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on October 22, 1987.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the administrative decision of the Minister of Agrarian Reform regarding the retention of landholdings under Presidential Decree No. 27.
  2. Whether the appeal should have been certified to the proper court instead of being dismissed.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.