Case Digest (G.R. No. 183142)
Facts:
Rosita A. Montanez v. Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), Negros Occidental, et al., G.R. No. 183142, September 17, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rosita A. Montanez owned two contiguous parcels in La Castellana, Negros Occidental (Lot 750-A, TCT No. T‑71582 — 21.9586 ha; Lot 850‑A, TCT No. T‑71583 — 13.6412 ha). In October 1999 the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) published a Notice of Land Coverage that included those parcels but misidentified one lot’s TCT number. DAR thereafter placed an aggregate of 32.4257 hectares under CARP, and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued the parcel and issued a certification of deposit to petitioner, which she rejected.
On June 28, 2000 the DAR caused cancellation of petitioner’s original TCTs and had replacement titles T‑205481 and T‑205482 issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines; those replacement titles reflected differing area allocations between the Republic and the petitioner. On the same day the DAR issued CLOAs (CLOA‑8434 and CLOA‑8435) purporting to derive from the old and new TCTs; the CLOAs bore erroneous notations and aggregate areas inconsistent with the source titles. Individual respondents received the CLOAs as CARP beneficiaries.
Petitioner filed a petition with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB) seeking annulment/cancellation of CLOA‑8434, CLOA‑8435, T‑205481 and T‑205482 for irregular issuance (DARAB Case No. R‑0605‑1707‑03). By Decision dated October 18, 2004 PARAD Gil Alegario dismissed the petition as grounded on "purely technical" discrepancies beyond the grounds enumerated in DAR Administrative Order No. 2, but acknowledged the discrepancies could be administratively corrected and noted an inscription on the CLOAs referring to "segregation and reconveyance."
Instead of appealing to DARAB Proper, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Section 54 of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARP) with the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA‑G.R. CEB‑SP No. 00229). The CA initially issued a status‑quo order (Feb. 7, 2005) and on December 27, 2005 granted certiorari, set aside the PARAD decision and referred the matter to DAR for correction of the technical descriptions in the CLOAs. DAR moved for reconsideration; petitioner filed a partial motion for reconsideration.
On April 18, 2008 the CA issued an Amended Decision granting DAR’s motion, setting aside the CA’s December 27, 2005 ruling, and dismissing petitioner’s certiorari petition — the CA held PARAD had jurisdiction over CLOA cancellat...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner fail to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals instead of appealing the PARAD decision to DARAB Proper?
- If petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, is dismissal of her petition required and what is the legal effect on the PARAD decision and the reglementary period to appeal?
- Were any exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applicable here so as to permit direct judicial intervention and, separately, could the CA or the Court prope...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)