Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Qcourt: L/Epnblic of Tbe Fflanila
Qcourt: L/Epnblic of Tbe Fflanila
~upretne QCourt
fflanila
FIRST DIVISION
PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS
EQUITIES, INC., JIMMY CHUA,
ROJAS CHUA, BENJAMIN SIM,
SANTOS C. TAN, WILLIAM C. Promulgated:
.
LEE and STEW ART C. LIM,
Respondents. ~UN 13 2013
X----------------------------------------------------------------------
DECISION
REYES, J.:
A
Decision 2 G.R. No. 176838
The Antecedents
The case stems from the petition4 docketed as DARAB Case No. R
0403-0009-02, filed with the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD)
by the DAR through Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) Felixberto
Q. Kagahastian. The petition sought to nullify the sale to the respondents of
several parcels of land, with details of the sale as follows:
The PARO argued that the properties were agricultural land yet their
sale was effected without DAR Clearance as required under Republic Act
No. 6657 (R.A. No. 6657), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL). Allegedly, the PARO came to know of the
transactions only after he had received a directive from the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform to investigate the matter, following the latter’s receipt of a
letter-request from persons5 who claimed to be the tenant-farmers of the
properties’ previous owners.6
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that since the matter
involves an administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657, the case is
cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, not the DARAB. They
4
Id. at 181-186.
5
Rommel Federazo, Ronnie Federazo, Reynaldo Rapasin, Cesar Belen, Enocencia Allanes,
Hospicio Samson, Ely Ramos, Leonides Federazo, Romy Alano, Severino Malborbor, Virgilio Alano,
Gregorio Cane, Antonio Valdez, Noel Agnes, Lourdes Samson, Benjamin Espenia and Roque Esperon; id.
at 35.
6
Id. at 184.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 176838
7
Id. at 187-190.
8
Id. at 189.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 176838
The DARAB granted the appeal via a Decision9 dated August 18,
2004. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
SO ORDERED.10
Contrary to the findings of PA Sorita, the DARAB ruled that: first, the
failure of the parties to the sale to obtain the required clearance indicates that
their transactions were fraudulent;11 second, the PARO had the personality
to file the petition even in the absence of the Solicitor General’s assistance,
citing Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2001 (Circular No. 2), and the
policy of DAR to “acquire and distribute all lands covered by RA 6657[,]
including those subject of illegal transfers x x x”;12 and third, the DARAB
has the jurisdiction over the case, since its jurisdiction under Circular No. 2
covers the cancellation of deeds of conveyance and corresponding transfer
certificates of title over agricultural lands.13
9
Id. at 51-62.
10
Id. at 61.
11
Id. at 59.
12
Id. at 60.
13
Id. at 61.
14
Id. at 63-64.
15
Id. at 33-47.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 176838
SO ORDERED.16
On December 10, 2008, the Court again resolved to deny the petition
on the ground of the OSG’s failure to obey a lawful order of the Court,
following its failure to file the required reply despite the Court’s grant of its
several motions for extension.20 On April 20, 2009, the Court resolved to
16
Id. at 46.
17
Id. at 49-50.
18
Id. at 70-A to 70-B.
19
Id. at 117.
20
Id. at 294.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 176838
The main issue for the Court’s resolution is: Whether or not the
DARAB has jurisdiction over the dispute that seeks the nullification of the
subject properties’ sale.
into effect on June 21, 1994, identify the specific extent of the DARAB’s
and PARAD’s jurisdiction, as they read:
23
G.R. No. 181548, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 180.
24
Del Monte Philippines, Inc. Employees Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative (DEARBC) v.
Sangunay, G.R. No. 180013, January 31, 2011, 641 SCRA 87, 96.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 176838
3.3 That the Provincial Office only came to know very recently
about such transaction when the Office received on two separate
occasion[s] a memorandum directive dated 22 October and 25 April 2002
from the Office of the DAR Secretary to investigate and if warranted file a
corresponding petition for nullification of such transaction anent the
petition for coverage of the actual occupants farmers-tillers led by
spouses Josie and Lourdes Samson who informed the Office of the
DAR Secretary about such transaction. x x x25 (Emphasis ours)
It is also undisputed, that even the petition filed with the PARAD
failed to indicate otherwise, that the subject parcels of land had not been the
subject of any notice of coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP). Clearly, the PARO’s cause of action was merely
founded on the absence of a clearance to cover the sale and registration of
the subject parcels of land, which were claimed in the petition to be
agricultural.
Given the foregoing, the CA correctly ruled that the DARAB had no
jurisdiction over the PARO’s petition. While the Court recognizes the legal
requirement for clearances in the sale and transfer of agricultural lands, the
DARAB’s jurisdiction over such disputes is limited by the qualification
under Rule II, Section 1, paragraphs (c) and (e) of the DARAB New Rules
of Procedure, which read:
xxxx
Even Circular No. 2 cited in the Decision26 dated August 18, 2004 on
the authority of the PARO to file petitions with the PARAD in case of illegal
transfers presupposes the fulfillment of the conditions in the cited Section 1,
paragraphs (c) and (e), Rule II of the DARAB Rules and Section 50 of R.A.
No. 6657. The pertinent provisions of Circular No. 2 read:
xxxx
25
Rollo, p. 184.
26
Id. at 60.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 176838
xxxx
xxxx
27
Id. at 44-45.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 176838
Even during the proceedings before the PARAD, the respondents have
raised the pendency with the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna of Civil
Case No. B-5862, an appeal from the decision of the Municipal Trial Court
of Santa Rosa, Laguna in Civil Case No. 2478. The records indicate that
when the matter was elevated to the CA via the petition docketed as CA
G.R. SP No. 68110, the appellate court declared the subject properties to
have long been reclassified from “agricultural” to “industrial”. Thus, the CA
Decision dated September 23, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 68110 reads in part:
An appeal from the CA’s decision was denied by the Court in a Resolution
dated June 18, 2003.29
28
Id. at 169.
29
Id. at 171.
30
Id. at 251.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 176838
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
~~h~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
---..
~.VILL
Associate~~~
CERTIFICATION