Title
David vs. Aquilizan
Case
G.R. No. L-49360
Decision Date
Dec 14, 1979
A tenancy dispute arose over land in Polomolok, with petitioners denying unlawful ejectment. The Supreme Court nullified the CAR decision for lack of due process, as no hearing was conducted, rendering it void.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49360)

Denial and Counter‐Affirmations by Petitioner

David denied any tenancy relationship. He asserted Ricardo Jugar was a former tractor driver to whom a one‐hectare incentive was granted and later surrendered; Felomeno sold his farm animals, resumed religious healing, and relinquished his two‐hectare holding. Petitioner contended that average yields could exceed 120 sacks per hectare, contradicting respondents’ 60–70 sacks claim.

Administrative Findings by the DAR

The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Hearing Officer found no unlawful ejectment. Noting respondents admitted their holdings were “borrowed” temporarily, the officer reported they voluntarily surrendered the land due to employment with DOLEFIL, ill health, and farming on their father’s land. He recommended dropping the petition.

CAR Order on Operation Land Transfer

On June 29, 1978, the CAR judge, citing the recent Court of Appeals ruling that land devoted to rice or corn as of October 21, 1972, is automatically covered by Operation Land Transfer, directed the Ministry of Agrarian Reform to include the disputed parcels under PD 27.

CAR Final Decision Declaring Ownership

Without holding further hearings, on September 29, 1978, the CAR judge declared the Jugar brothers “deemed owners” of the land they cultivated when PD 27 was promulgated. He ordered the Ministry to effect land transfer, directed the Philippine Constabulary to install them peacefully, and furnished copies to the DAR Secretary. No costs or damages were awarded.

Grounds for Supreme Court Certiorari

Petitioner challenged the order and final decision on four grounds: (a) denial of due process for lack of hearings; (b) lack of jurisdiction, which lay exclusively with the Ministry of Agrarian Reform; (c) finality of the June 29, 1978 order precluding novation; and (d) factual findings contrary to the evidence.

Supreme Court Analysis and Ruling

The Court held that the CAR decision was void ab initio for failure to afford petitioner any hearing, thus violating procedural due process under the 1935 Constitution. Citing pr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.