Case Digest (G.R. No. 101974)
Facts:
Victoria P. Cabral v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Hon. Eligio P. Pacis, Regional Director, Region III, Department of Agrarian Reform, et al., G.R. No. 101974*, November 4, 2002, Supreme Court First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Victoria P. Cabral owned parcels of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 0-1670 (renumbered OCT No. 0-220 (M)), including Lot 4 of Plan Psu-164390. On January 16, 1990 she filed a petition before the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) seeking cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) and subsequent Torrens titles issued in favor of private respondents, alleging among others a pending conversion/reclassification application (filed as early as July 1973), inclusion of uncultivated areas in the EPs, unlawful transfers by the patentees, abandonment, and taking without just compensation.
On January 19, 1990 petitioner filed a parallel petition for cancellation directly with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). The Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Sta. Maria, Bulacan notified petitioner on January 29, 1990 that her petition would be forwarded for legal action. On February 11, 1990, Regional Director Eligio P. Pacis dismissed petitioner’s petition for lack of legal and factual basis and directed cancellation of the lis pendens annotation on the EPs; his denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration followed.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals arguing lack of jurisdiction of the Regional Director and denial of due process. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on January 8, 1991 and denied reconsideration. Petitioner then brought the matter to the Supreme Court; on April 21, 1993 she moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO), alleging ongoing conversion and construction by third parties on the disputed land. The Court issued a TRO on May 17, 1993 enjoining the corporations from continuing construction pending final resolution.
The Court of Appeals had sustained the Regional Director’s exercise of jurisdiction, relying on administrative issuances (e.g., MAO No. 2-85, DAR Memo Circular No. 5 s. 1987), certain memoranda, and Section 13 of Executive Order No. 129-A, treating the Regional Director as having delegated adjudicatory power. The appellate ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the DAR Regional Director of Region III have jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioner’s petition for cancellation of Emancipation Patents and Torrens titles?
- Was petitioner deprived of due process by the proceedings before the Re...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)