Facts:
Respondent
Andres D. Egano and his spouse
Tarcelita filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office (DARRO), Region VIII, Tacloban City, in
2004, a
“Petition for Nullification of Coverage and Disqualification of Farmer-Beneficiary.” They challenged the issuance of
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to petitioner
Flor Canas-Manuel and her sister,
Salome D. Canas, over
Lot 3595, Csd. 726-D in Barangay Palarao, Leyte, Leyte. Respondent alleged that
CLOA No. 00091138 was mistakenly issued because a
portion of the covered land of about
3,655.50 sq.m. had allegedly been previously sold to him by petitioner’s father,
Celedonio Canas, and that petitioner and her sister were not qualified farmer-beneficiaries because they were not the actual tillers of the subject portion. In an
Order dated October 28, 2004, DAR Regional Director
Tiburcio A. Morales, Jr. granted the petition, declared the award in favor of petitioner and Salome
null and void ab initio, directed DAR offices to conduct delineation and identify the rightful beneficiaries, and ordered petitioner to coordinate for the filing of the proper petition with the
Adjudication Board for the
cancellation of
CLOA No. 00091138. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the order became final and executory for lack of appeal. Acting on the directives, respondent filed on
January 24, 2005 with the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Region VIII a
“Petition for Cancellation of CLOA No. 00091138,” docketed as
DARAB Case No. R-0800-0042-05. In a
Decision dated February 16, 2006, Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
Wilfredo M. Navarra ordered the cancellation of
CLOA No. 00091138 and its corresponding
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 3324, and petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then appealed to the DARAB Central Office, docketed as
DARAB Case No. 14579, which
dismissed the appeal in a
Decision dated May 29, 2007, holding that the cancellation of the CLOA was a necessary consequence of Director Morales’s declaration which bound the DARAB absent vacature by an appropriate authority. The DARAB denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in
a Resolution dated October 9, 2007. Petitioner sought review in the Court of Appeals through a
Rule 43 petition, and in a
Decision dated February 18, 2011 and
August 31, 2011 Resolution, the CA affirmed, ruling in substance that issues such as due process and illegality of the sale could not be entertained by the DARAB because of jurisdictional limitations, and that DARAB had no appellate jurisdiction over acts of DAR Regional Directors. Petitioner then filed the present
petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the October 28, 2004 order could not attain finality because it was illegal and void, and asserting procedural and substantive defenses, including alleged
prescription,
collateral attack on her title, misidentification of the land, alleged excess of authority by Director Morales on ownership matters, and the alleged illegality and prohibited nature of the supposed sale under
Section 73(e) of R.A. No. 6657.
Issues:
Whether the DARAB and the Court of Appeals acted within their jurisdiction in entertaining and granting respondent’s
petition for cancellation of CLOA No. 00091138, considering whether an
agrarian dispute or tenancy relationship existed between the parties.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: