Case Digest (G.R. No. 133806)
Facts:
Heirs of Pedro Atega represented by Veronica Atega-Nable v. Hon. Ernesto D. Garilao, G.R. No. 133806, April 20, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the heirs of Pedro Atega (represented by Veronica Atega-Nable), owners of a 129.4615-hectare parcel covered by OCT No. P-5 in Taligaman, Butuan City. Respondents are Hon. Ernesto D. Garilao in his capacity as Secretary of Agrarian Reform, Isidro Dublado as Regional Director, DAR Region XIII, and Teresita Depenoso as Officer-in-Charge, DAR Agusan del Norte Provincial Office.In December 1992 the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) notified petitioners that their land was subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution under RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). Petitioners protested before the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO), arguing the land was non-agricultural, but the MARO apparently did not act, and on 9 September 1994 the PARO sent petitioners a Notice of Land Acquisition and Valuation.
In April 1996 petitioners filed with DAR–Region XIII an Application for Exemption from CARP coverage. On 27 November 1996 Regional Director Dublado denied the application, reasoning that the Sangguniang Panglungsod (SP) Ordinance No. 33-79 relied on by petitioners had not been approved by the HLURB as required by DAR Administrative Order No. 6-94 and Department of Justice Opinion No. 44-90.
Petitioners sought relief in the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the Regional Director’s Resolution. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (i.e., to file a motion for reconsideration before the Regional Director or to appeal to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform) and held that the Regional Director did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was denied.
On review before the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, petitioners argued (1) they were not premature in bringing certiorari because administrative remedies were futile and (2) the Regional Director committed grave abuse by finding that SP Resolution No. 33-79 was not approved by the HLURB. The records showed that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform had, as early as 26 November 1994, cancelled petitioners’ title and transfer...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari prematurely filed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (motion for reconsideration before the Regional Director or appeal to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform)?
- Did the Regional Director of DAR–Region XIII commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioners’ Application for...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)