Case Digest (G.R. No. 122363)
Facts:
Victor G. Valencia v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., as Executive Secretary, Hon. Ernesto Garilao, Secretary of Agrarian Reform, et al., G.R. No. 122363, April 29, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Victor G. Valencia, a government retiree and registered owner of two parcels in Barangay Linothangan, Canlaon City (TCT No. H-T-137, 23.7279 ha.; Homestead Application No. HA-231601, Final Proof & Tax Decl. No. 0515, 6.4397 ha.), sought recovery of possession and cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) issued under Presidential Decree No. 27 and LOI No. 474 to several occupants (the private respondents). Valencia had leased the land first to Glicerio Henson (civil lease) and later to Fr. Andres Flores under a civil law lease which expressly prohibited subleasing or encumbering the land without Valencia’s written consent. After the Flores lease expired on 30 June 1975, Valencia demanded return of possession; the occupants continued to cultivate and later applied for CLTs claiming tenancy.
Valencia filed a letter of protest with the Minister (later Secretary) of Agrarian Reform on 20 March 1976, prompting a DAR team investigation. Despite an investigation (DAR Hearing Officer Atty. Vilmo Ampong found that the lessee had been expressly prohibited from subleasing, that landowner’s shares were not remitted to Valencia, and that some occupants sublet portions), the DAR Team Office issued CLTs on 10 December 1985 to several private respondents. Valencia filed a second protest, and after administrative proceedings the DAR Regional Office (Cebu) dismissed his protest on 24 August 1989; a motion for reconsideration was denied on 12 July 1991.
Valencia elevated the matter to the Office of the President pursuant to DAR Memo. Circ. No. 3, s. 1994; Executive Secretary Teofisto Guingona, Jr., affirmed the DAR order on 8 October 1993 but excluded Valencia’s homestead area from PD 27 coverage. Valencia then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition on 27 July 1995 as filed out of time, reasoning that Sec. 54 of R.A. No. 6657 and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-95 (now Rule 43) provided the proper mode of appeal to the Court of Appeals and that exhaustion of administrative remedies did not require elevation to the President (the “qualified political agency” exception). The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration on 22 September 1995.
Valencia filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court seek...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner required to appeal directly to the Court of Appeals under Sec. 54 of R.A. No. 6657 (and SC Adm. Circ. No. 1‑95), or was an administrative appeal to the Office of the President pursuant to DAR Memo. Circ. No. 3, s. 1994 a proper mode of exhaustion of administrative remedies such that petitioner’s subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals was timely?
- Substantively, did the occupants qualify as agricultural tenants entitled to Certificates of Land Transfer under PD No. 27 and LOI No. 474, or did the civil law lease (and its prohibition on subleasing) bar ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)