Case Digest (G.R. No. 103953)
Facts:
SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG KAPDULA, INC., PETITIONER-APPELLANT were awarded Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) Nos. 1116 and 1117 by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) on March 26, 1991 for two parcels in Barangay Malinta, Dasmariñas, Cavite formerly owned by Macario Aro and thereafter leased and farmed by the herein private respondents. The private respondents filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals on September 27, 1991 challenging the CLOAs; the Court of Appeals granted the petition on January 30, 1992 directing the DAR to hold hearings to determine rightful beneficiaries and to cancel the CLOAs if respondents were not entitled; the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was there observance of due process by the DAR before issuing CLOA Nos. 1116 and 1117?
- Were the private respondents required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing certiorari with the Court of Appeals?
Ruling:
The Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. It held that exhaustion of administrative remedies was unnecessary because the issuance of the CLOAs was a decision of the Secretary of the DAR, which DARAB may not review, and that Section 54 of Republic Act No. 6657 allowed the private respondents to seek certiorari in the Court of Appeals. The Court also found that due process had not been observed because notices to the private respondents were defective or untimely, and thus it affirmed the directive that the DAR conduct hearings with due notice and, if warranted, cancel the CLOAs.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) had jurisdiction only over decisions of DAR officials other than the Secretary, and the issuance of the CLOAs constituted a Secretary's decision; therefore resort to DARAB was unavailable and certiorari under Section 54, RA 6657, was proper. The Court further found that the purported notices were ineffective — they were unsigned, dated after the CLOAs were issued, or addressed to a former lessee — resulting in deprivation of opportunity to be heard; Sections 40(4) and 22 of RA 6657 required proper determination of qualified beneficiaries, warranting further hearings.
Doctrine:
- Decisions of the DAR Secretary are not reviewable by the DARAB and may be assailed by certiorari to the Court of Appeals under Section 54, RA 6657.
- Denial of due process removes the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- Issuance of CLOA requires observance of due process in notifying and affording an opportunity to potential qualified beneficiaries.
- The DAR must apply the order of priority for qualified beneficiaries under Section 22, RA 6657 when determining allotment.
- Findings of fact of the DAR are final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence pursuant to Section 54, RA 6657.