Title
Spouses Salise vs. Salcedo, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 202830
Decision Date
Jun 20, 2016
Land dispute involving CARP exemption; petitioners' CLOAs canceled without due process; Supreme Court reversed CA, prioritizing justice over technicalities.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202830)

Procedural History

On January 17, 1996, Ricardo Gacula petitioned for the cancellation of CLOAs issued to 47 individual petitioners. This petition was dismissed without prejudice by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) on October 23, 1996, due to a pending application for exemption from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) made by Gacula. Despite the appeal's dismissal, Gacula continued to pursue the matter, culminating in various orders and motions through subsequent years.

Key Orders and Appeals

In 1998, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary Ernesto Garilao granted Gacula's application for exemption, only for this decision to be overturned in 1999 by then-Secretary Horacio Morales. A crucial point emerged on October 15, 2001, when DARAB Director Delfin B. Samson asserted the finality of the Secretary’s reversal. Gacula’s appeal was dismissed again in 2001, but he later filed a Manifestation expressing disinterest in his appeal while requesting the implementation of earlier decisions. On November 27, 2003, Adjudicator Salcedo issued an order canceling the petitioners' CLOAs, which the petitioners disputed as being made without due process.

Allegations of Due Process Violation

The petitioners contended that Adjudicator Salcedo's order was rendered without proper notice and hearing. They argued that the cancellation was a product of Gacula's mere Manifestation instead of a formal petition, thereby lacking the necessary legal foundation for such a ruling. The petitioners claimed they had occupied the land since the 1950s and had received their CLOAs in 1992, affirming their long-standing rights.

Court of Appeals and Petition for Review

Petitioners sought recourse in the Court of Appeals after their urgent motion to restrain the execution of Salcedo’s order was dismissed. Their petition was met with various procedural deficiencies, which the CA cited in dismissing the appeal on May 4, 2012, and later on July 12, 2012, which led to the current issue brought before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioners’ contentions, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The Court noted that while there were indeed lapses in procedural compliance, these should not overshadow the substantive issues raised by the petitioners. The Supreme Court highlighted the inconsistency and lack of legal gr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.