Case Digest (G.R. No. 229983)
Facts:
Farmer-Beneficiaries Belonging to the Samahang Magbubukid ng Bagumbong, Jalajala, Rizal, represented by their President, Toribio M. Malabanan, v. Heirs of Juliana Maronilla, represented by Atty. Ramon M. Maronilla, G.R. No. 229983, July 29, 2019, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., decided a petition for review on certiorari from a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed a Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary order exempting portions of the subject lands from CARP coverage.Juliana Maronilla was the registered owner of a 723.9428‑hectare tract in Bagumbong, Jalajala, Rizal and Casinsin, Pakil, Laguna (the subject lands) covered by various TCTs. Portions were distributed under PD 27’s Operation Land Transfer and beneficiaries received CLTs and later Emancipation Patents (EPs) and CLOAs; some titles in favor of farmer‑beneficiaries were registered between 1988 and 1995. Juliana issued a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) certain remaining portions to DAR on March 13, 1989, after which DAR also issued CLOAs over some parcels.
After Juliana’s death (c. March 1996), her heirs (respondents) applied for retention of a 60‑ha portion (granted in 1997 and later reduced to 52 ha). Respondents thereafter filed an Application for Exemption Clearance from CARP coverage for a 476.5006‑ha portion, relying on DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990) as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994, and HLURB/HSRC‑approved Land Use Plans and zoning ordinances dating from 1981 that classified much of the land as forest conservation, agro‑industrial, residential or institutional. The DAR Center for Land Use conducted ocular inspection; the Exemption Committee recommended exempting 447.4025 ha and denying exemption for 29.0981 ha that were ricelands covered by EPs.
On August 29, 2008, DAR Secretary Pangandaman issued DARCO Order No. EX‑0808‑372 adopting the committee’s recommendation: granting exemption of 447.4025 ha conditioned on payment of disturbance compensation to affected tenants and denying exemption of the 29.0981 ha ricelands. Petitioners (the farmer‑beneficiaries) moved for reconsideration, which DAR denied on April 1, 2009. Petitioners then sought judicial review in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 108543), arguing among other things that (a) Juliana had no right to apply for exemption because her VOS divested her title to DAR, and (b) the DAR Secretary lacked jurisdiction to cancel or nullify EPs/CLOAs, a matter for the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
In a Decision dated February 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed the DAR Secretary’s jurisdiction and upheld the DAR exemption ruling that the subject exempt portions were outside the coverage of PD 27 and CARP because they had been classified by HS...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the DAR Secretary have jurisdiction to take cognizance of respondents’ application for CARP exemption and to nullify or otherwise affect petitioners’ EP and CLOA titles?
- Were the portions of the subject lands properly excluded from CARP coverage based on their HSRC/HLURB‑approved reclassification ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)