THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 132163, January 28, 2003 ]GRACIANO PADUNAN v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD () +
GRACIANO PADUNAN, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) AND MARCOS RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
GRACIANO PADUNAN v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD () +
GRACIANO PADUNAN, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) AND MARCOS RODRIGUEZ, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision[1] dated August 14, 1997 of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision[2] of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB, for brevity) in
DARAB Case No. 0489 which, in turn, affirmed the decision[3] of the Provincial Adjudicator of Nueva Ecija in DARAB Case No. 1154'NE'90.
The facts of the case are as follows:
The landholdings subject of the present controversy consist of three parcels of agricultural land with an area of sixteen thousand two hundred twenty-seven (16,227), six thousand five hundred eighty-seven (6,587) and nine thousand nine (9,009) square meters, respectively, situated in Barangay Bantug, Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija.[4] Angelina R. Rodriguez was the original beneficiary under PD 27 of the said three parcels of land covered by Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT, for brevity) Nos. 0341310, 0341311 and 0341312.[5]
On July 21, 1981, Angelina Rodriguez waived her rights over the said landholdings in favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez by virtue of the Sinumpaang Salaysay duly executed and thumbmarked by her.[6] The waiver was concurred in by the Samahang Nayon of Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija in its Kapasyahan Blg. 15.[7] Thereafter, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez possessed and cultivated the said landholdings as tenant-beneficiary under PD 27.
On July 21, 1988, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez obtained a loan from herein petitioner, Graciano Padunan, for P50,000 with the subject landholdings as collateral. The loan agreement between private respondent Marcos Rodriguez and petitioner Graciano Padunan was embodied in a Kasunduan which further provided that petitioner was authorized to possess and cultivate the land for two years and/or until repayment of the mortgage debt.[8]
On January 10, 1990, Emancipation Patents (EP, for brevity) Nos. 414430, 414440 and 414448 covering the subject three parcels of land were issued to Angelina Rodriguez, even though she had already waived her rights over the said land in favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez on July 21, 1981.[9]
On October 9, 1990, Angelina Rodriguez executed, for the second time, a waiver of rights by way of sale, this time in favor of petitioner Graciano Padunan for the sum of P55,000.[10] Claiming ownership over the land, petitioner Graciano Padunan started constructing thereon a house and a warehouse.[11]
Objecting to the construction made by petitioner Graciano Padunan, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez filed, on November 5, 1990, a case for injunction before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD, for brevity) of Nueva Ecija.[12]
On August 26, 1991, Provincial Adjudicator Romeo Bello decided in favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, declaring him the lawful tenant-beneficiary of the subject land, directing the issuance of the corresponding EPs in his name and ordering herein petitioner Graciano Padunan to vacate the premises upon payment of the mortgage debt. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator reads as follows:
On August 14, 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition for review for lack of merit. The appellate court ruled as follows:
It is a well-settled rule that only questions of law may be reviewed by the Supreme Court in an appeal by certiorari.[17] Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court,[18] more so if the factual findings of the Court of Appeals coincide with those of the DARAB, an administrative body with expertise on matters within its specific and specialized jurisdiction.[19] The only time this Court will disregard the factual findings of the Court of Appeals (which are ordinarily accorded great respect) is when these are based on speculation, surmises or conjectures or when these are not based on substantial evidence.[20] In the case at bar, no reason exists for us to disregard the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. The factual findings are borne out by the record and are supported by substantial evidence.
Based on the documents presented, the Court of Appeals and the DARAB ruled that petitioner Graciano Padunan was only a mortgagee of the landholdings in question. The subject land was mortgaged to him by private respondent Marcos Rodriguez on July 21, 1988 by virtue of the Kasunduan duly entered between him and private respondent Marcos Rodriguez.[21] However, instead of cultivating the land until payment of the mortgage debt, petitioner Graciano Padunan claimed ownership over the land and constructed a house and warehouse thereon, based on the alleged waiver of rights executed by Angelina Rodriguez in his favor on October 9, 1990.
It was, however, found by the PARAD, affirmed by the DARAB and the Court of Appeals, that Angelina Rodriguez no longer had any rights over the subject parcels of land as early as July 21, 1981.[22] That was the date she executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay waiving her rights over the subject landholdings in favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, a waiver of rights duly confirmed by the local Samahang Nayon in its Kapasyahan Blg. 15 in accordance with existing laws and DAR issuances.[23] Clearly therefore, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez was already the lawful tenant-beneficiary of the subject land under PD 27 at the time Angelina Rodriguez entered into the questionable agreement with petitioner Graciano Padunan, thus making the second transfer null and void ab initio and Padunan at best a mere mortgagee of the subject landholdings by virtue of the Kasunduan between him and private respondent Marcos Rodriguez.
In fact, the DARAB categorically ruled that nothing in the evidence showed that petitioner Graciano Padunan was a tenant-beneficiary of the subject land. According to the DARAB:
The question now is who has the authority to cancel the erroneously issued EPs - the DARAB or the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform?
Petitioner Graciano Padunan argues that the DAR Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction to cancel EPs,[26] pursuant to Section 12(b)(5) of PD 946[27] which provides that it is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who has jurisdiction, among other things, to issue, recall and cancel Certificates of Land Transfer.[28]
Private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, on the other hand, argues that it is the DARAB which has jurisdiction, based on Rule II, Section 1, paragraph (f) of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure (1989) which provides that the DARAB has primary jurisdiction over "cases involving the issuance of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs), Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs), and the administrative correction thereof."[29]
For its part, public respondent DARAB argues that its jurisdiction to cancel erroneously issued EPs is enshrined in Section 50 of RA 6657 which provides that the DARAB has original, primary and exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters and/or those related to agrarian reform implementation.[30]
It must be stated at the outset that it is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the rules. Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or the law and rules of procedure yield to substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law.[31]
With this well-established principle on jurisdiction, it is therefore incorrect for the private respondent Marcos Rodriguez to argue that the DARAB derives its jurisdiction from the DARAB Rules of Procedure. The DARAB derives its jurisdiction from RA 6657 or popularly known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988.
Section 50 of RA 6657 confers jurisdiction on the DARAB over agrarian reform cases or controversies as follows:
The grounds for cancellation of registered EPs were summarized by DAR Memorandum Order No. 02, Series of 1994,[33] to wit:
But what about EPs that are unregistered like the one issued to Angelina Rodriguez?
The answer can be found in Administrative Order No. 06-00, issued on August 30, 2000, which provides for the Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases. These rules were issued pursuant to Sections 49 and 50 of RA 6657. In contrast to the DARAB Rules of Procedure which govern the exercise of DAR's quasi-judicial function, Administrative Order No. 06-00 govern the administrative function of the DAR.
Under the said Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases, the Agrarian Reform Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation of EPs/CLOAs that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds. Thus, Section 2 of the said Rules provides:
In the decision of the Court of Appeals under review, the Court of Appeals ruled that:
First, at the time of the promulgation of the Court of Appeals decision on August 14, 1997, the 1994 DARAB New Rules of Procedure had long taken effect. Such rules clearly provide that the DARAB has jurisdiction only over the cancellation of registered EPs but not those that are not.[37] And since the Court of Appeals itself ruled that the subject EPs were not yet registered, it should have likewise ruled that the cancellation thereof did not pertain to the DARAB.
Second, even if the Court of Appeals ruling were based on the old DARAB rules (the 1989 DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure) which provided that the DARAB had primary jurisdiction over "cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT), Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) and the administrative correction thereof",[38] we do not agree that the cancellation by the DARAB of the subject EPs fell within the ambit of mere administrative correction. "Administrative correction" refers only to the rectification of wrong or insufficient information in the patent and not to something as substantial as the actual cancellation thereof. The meaning of "administrative correction" is provided in DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1994:[39]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in so far as it upholds the ruling of the DARAB that (1) private respondent Marcos Rodriguez is the lawful tenant beneficiary of the three parcels of land located in Barangay Bantug, Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, covered by Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) Nos. 0341310, 0341311 and 0341312 and (2) petitioner Graciano Padunan is only a mortgagee thereof, thereby ordering him to vacate the premises upon payment by private respondent Marcos Rodriguez of the mortgage debt in the amount of P50,000.
The ruling of the Court of Appeals that DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel the unregistered emancipation patents in the name of Angelina Rodriguez is hereby REVERSED. We hereby rule that it is the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform who has jurisdiction to cancel the said unregistered emancipation patents. Private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, the new legal agrarian reform beneficiary of the subject land, should file the proper action before the DAR to cancel the said unregistered emancipation patents.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., no part.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Fidel P. Purisima (retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.; Rollo, pp. 25-30.
[2] Penned by DAR Assistant Secretary Lorenzo R. Reyes and concurred in by DAR Undersecretary Jose Noel D. Olano and Assistant Secretaries Hector D. Soliman, Augusto P. Quijano and Sergio B. Serrano. DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao and Undersecretary Renato B. Padilla did not take part.; Rollo, pp. 54-58.
[3] Penned by Hon. Romeo Bello, Provincial Adjudicator of Nueva Ecija; Rollo, pp. 50-53.
[4] Rollo, pp. 26, 55.
[5] Rollo, pp. 26, 55.
[6] Rollo, pp. 29, 55.
[7] Rollo, p. 29.
[8] Rollo, pp. 26, 27, 55.
[9] Rollo, pp. 28, 51.
[10] Rollo, pp. 26, 51.
[11] Rollo, pp. 26, 55.
[12] Rollo, pp. 26, 45-46, 54.
[13] Rollo, pp. 25, 54.
[14] Rollo, pp. 25-30.
[15] Rollo, p. 8-21.
[16] Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[17] Rule 45, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Solangon vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 125944, June 29, 2001; J.R. Blanco vs. Quasha, 318 SCRA 373 (1999); Fuentes vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703 (1997).
[18] Titong vs. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 102 (1998); Atillo III vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 596 (1997).
[19] Corpus vs. Grospe, 333 SCRA 425, 435 (2000), citing Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 568, 581 (1988), Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals, 87 SCRA 263, 269 (1978), and Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations 4 SCRA 1151, 1156 (1962); Greenfield Realty Corp. vs. Cardama, 323 SCRA 280 (2000).
[20] Milestone Realty & Co., Inc. and William Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135999, April 19, 2002; Baricuatro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105902, February 9, 2002.
[21] Rollo, p. 27.
[22] Rollo, pp. 27, 28.
[23] Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[24] Rollo, p. 56.
[25] Paris vs. Alfeche, G.R. No. 139083, August 30, 2001; Vda. de Dela Cruz vs. Abille, 352 SCRA 691 (2001); Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo, 183 SCRA 252 (1990).
[26] Milagros A. German, The Revised Rules of Procedure in the Litigation of Agrarian Cases by the DAR under the CARL ~ 1988 and the Special Agrarian Courts (1992).
[27] "Reorganizing the Courts of Agrarian Relations, Streamlining their Procedures, and for other Purposes" (1976); Parts of the law inconsistent with RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 were repealed or modified accordingly.
[28] Petition for Review, p. 7; Rollo, p. 14.
[29] Memorandum, p. 4; Rollo, p. 151.
[30] Comment, p. 2; Rollo, p. 61.
[31] People vs. Casiano, 111 Phil 73 (1961).
[32] Modifying or repealing accordingly the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure (1989) and all DAR administrative provisions that are inconsistent therewith.
[33] "Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) Due to Unlawful Acts and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) and for Other Causes" (1994)
[34] ARB means agrarian reform beneficiary.
[35] Sec. 6, RULE II, Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases.
[36] Rollo, p. 29.
[37] Paragraph (f), Section 1, Rule II, DARAB New Rules of Procedure.
[38] Paragraph (f), Section 1, Rule II, DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure.
[39] "Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) Due to Unlawful Acts and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) and for Other Causes" (1994).
The facts of the case are as follows:
The landholdings subject of the present controversy consist of three parcels of agricultural land with an area of sixteen thousand two hundred twenty-seven (16,227), six thousand five hundred eighty-seven (6,587) and nine thousand nine (9,009) square meters, respectively, situated in Barangay Bantug, Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija.[4] Angelina R. Rodriguez was the original beneficiary under PD 27 of the said three parcels of land covered by Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT, for brevity) Nos. 0341310, 0341311 and 0341312.[5]
On July 21, 1981, Angelina Rodriguez waived her rights over the said landholdings in favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez by virtue of the Sinumpaang Salaysay duly executed and thumbmarked by her.[6] The waiver was concurred in by the Samahang Nayon of Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija in its Kapasyahan Blg. 15.[7] Thereafter, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez possessed and cultivated the said landholdings as tenant-beneficiary under PD 27.
On July 21, 1988, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez obtained a loan from herein petitioner, Graciano Padunan, for P50,000 with the subject landholdings as collateral. The loan agreement between private respondent Marcos Rodriguez and petitioner Graciano Padunan was embodied in a Kasunduan which further provided that petitioner was authorized to possess and cultivate the land for two years and/or until repayment of the mortgage debt.[8]
On January 10, 1990, Emancipation Patents (EP, for brevity) Nos. 414430, 414440 and 414448 covering the subject three parcels of land were issued to Angelina Rodriguez, even though she had already waived her rights over the said land in favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez on July 21, 1981.[9]
On October 9, 1990, Angelina Rodriguez executed, for the second time, a waiver of rights by way of sale, this time in favor of petitioner Graciano Padunan for the sum of P55,000.[10] Claiming ownership over the land, petitioner Graciano Padunan started constructing thereon a house and a warehouse.[11]
Objecting to the construction made by petitioner Graciano Padunan, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez filed, on November 5, 1990, a case for injunction before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD, for brevity) of Nueva Ecija.[12]
On August 26, 1991, Provincial Adjudicator Romeo Bello decided in favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, declaring him the lawful tenant-beneficiary of the subject land, directing the issuance of the corresponding EPs in his name and ordering herein petitioner Graciano Padunan to vacate the premises upon payment of the mortgage debt. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:From the above decision, herein petitioner Graciano Padunan appealed to the DARAB. On January 27, 1995, the DARAB affirmed in toto the decision of Provincial Adjudicator Romeo Bello. Thus, petitioner Graciano Padunan elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
On August 14, 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition for review for lack of merit. The appellate court ruled as follows:
"Petitioner's claim is based on an alleged sale/waiver of rights by Angelina R. Rodriguez in his favor.Not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioner Graciano Padunan filed the instant Petition for Review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, based on the following grounds:
"This contention is untenable.
"To begin with, rights over agrarian reform-covered landholdings under the agrarian reform program, are not legally transferable. They are deemed outside the commerce of man. However, the waiver of rights in favor of private respondent here is entirely different. The substitution was through transfer action authorized under existing laws and DAR issuances. Strictly speaking, the land involved was not really transferred. The designated farmer-beneficiary was just replaced by another qualified farmer-beneficiary, as recommended and with the conformity of the Samahang Nayon in the locality.
"Then, too, the alleged waiver in favor of petitioner took place only after there had been a transfer action, with private respondents as the substitute farmer-beneficiary. So, when Angelina R. Rodriguez executed the waiver/sale in favor of petitioner, she no longer possessed any right over the subject landholding.
"xxx
"The annulment adjudged in the decision under review, springs from the finding that the issuance of Emancipation patents in the name of farmer beneficiary Angelina R. Rodriguez was erroneous. The issuance of said Emancipation patents was due to inadvertence. Thus, annulment thereof is a correction of an administrative error; a matter within the exclusive competence of the public respondent as adjudicating arm of DAR. And as stressed by public respondent, the said Emancipation patents in question were not even registered with the proper Registry of Property.
"xxx
"PARAD's decision under scrutiny is not anemic of evidentiary support. Records contain documents showing that the former farmer beneficiary Angelina R. Rodriguez, waived by a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July 21, 1981 (Exh. 'B'), her rights over subject landholdings in favor of the private respondent and that said waiver was with the confirmation by the local Samahang Nayon, as embodied in Kapasyahan Blg. 15 (Exh. 'C'). PARAD was thus reasonably convinced that there was a valid 'transfer action' in favor of private respondent.
"As found by PARAD, petitioner is, at best, in possession of the said land, not as a farmer-beneficiary but as a mortgagee, so that it was but proper and just for PARAD to rule the way it did; directing settlement of the mortgage debt before private respondent could reassume possession of the landholdings in question.
"WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review under consideration is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs."[14]
"The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) possessed jurisdiction to rule on the validity of Emancipation patents is not in accord with the law and with applicable jurisprudence.At the outset, it must be stated that petitioner Graciano Padunan raised not only questions of law but also issues of fact in his petition for review. He argued that the Court of Appeals, the DARAB and the PARAD failed to consider the fact that Angelina Rodriguez waived her rights over the subject landholdings in his favor with the conformity of the local Samahang Nayon, and that he possessed and cultivated the land in accordance with the laudable objectives of land reform while private respondent Marcos Rodriguez mortgaged and abandoned the same.[16]
"The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the Emancipation patents subject of this case could be cancelled by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) even if the registered owner to whom said Patent was issued is not a party to the case is patently contrary to the Bill of Rights and not in accord with law and jurisprudence.
"The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) could decide the instant case on issues not raised in the pleadings is patently contrary to the Bill of Rights and not in accord with law and jurisprudence.
"The Court of Appeals has sanctioned the departure of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) from the established rule that its decisions must be supported by substantial evidence.[15]
It is a well-settled rule that only questions of law may be reviewed by the Supreme Court in an appeal by certiorari.[17] Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court,[18] more so if the factual findings of the Court of Appeals coincide with those of the DARAB, an administrative body with expertise on matters within its specific and specialized jurisdiction.[19] The only time this Court will disregard the factual findings of the Court of Appeals (which are ordinarily accorded great respect) is when these are based on speculation, surmises or conjectures or when these are not based on substantial evidence.[20] In the case at bar, no reason exists for us to disregard the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. The factual findings are borne out by the record and are supported by substantial evidence.
Based on the documents presented, the Court of Appeals and the DARAB ruled that petitioner Graciano Padunan was only a mortgagee of the landholdings in question. The subject land was mortgaged to him by private respondent Marcos Rodriguez on July 21, 1988 by virtue of the Kasunduan duly entered between him and private respondent Marcos Rodriguez.[21] However, instead of cultivating the land until payment of the mortgage debt, petitioner Graciano Padunan claimed ownership over the land and constructed a house and warehouse thereon, based on the alleged waiver of rights executed by Angelina Rodriguez in his favor on October 9, 1990.
It was, however, found by the PARAD, affirmed by the DARAB and the Court of Appeals, that Angelina Rodriguez no longer had any rights over the subject parcels of land as early as July 21, 1981.[22] That was the date she executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay waiving her rights over the subject landholdings in favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, a waiver of rights duly confirmed by the local Samahang Nayon in its Kapasyahan Blg. 15 in accordance with existing laws and DAR issuances.[23] Clearly therefore, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez was already the lawful tenant-beneficiary of the subject land under PD 27 at the time Angelina Rodriguez entered into the questionable agreement with petitioner Graciano Padunan, thus making the second transfer null and void ab initio and Padunan at best a mere mortgagee of the subject landholdings by virtue of the Kasunduan between him and private respondent Marcos Rodriguez.
In fact, the DARAB categorically ruled that nothing in the evidence showed that petitioner Graciano Padunan was a tenant-beneficiary of the subject land. According to the DARAB:
"xxx. No way does it appear from the examination of evidences that herein Respondent-Appellant was a tenant-beneficiary of the landholding in question. Respondent-Appellant was a mere mortgagee of the subject property and his rights thereto end after the expiration of the mortgage contract and the corresponding obligations are met."[24]We rule that, since Angelina Rodriquez no longer had any rights over the parcels of land in question, the EPs issued to her on January 10, 1990 covering the subject landholdings were clearly issued by mistake. EPs can only be issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries and Angelina Rodriguez was no longer one at the time of their issuance in her name.[25]
The question now is who has the authority to cancel the erroneously issued EPs - the DARAB or the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform?
Petitioner Graciano Padunan argues that the DAR Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction to cancel EPs,[26] pursuant to Section 12(b)(5) of PD 946[27] which provides that it is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who has jurisdiction, among other things, to issue, recall and cancel Certificates of Land Transfer.[28]
Private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, on the other hand, argues that it is the DARAB which has jurisdiction, based on Rule II, Section 1, paragraph (f) of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure (1989) which provides that the DARAB has primary jurisdiction over "cases involving the issuance of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs), Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs), and the administrative correction thereof."[29]
For its part, public respondent DARAB argues that its jurisdiction to cancel erroneously issued EPs is enshrined in Section 50 of RA 6657 which provides that the DARAB has original, primary and exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters and/or those related to agrarian reform implementation.[30]
It must be stated at the outset that it is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the rules. Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or the law and rules of procedure yield to substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law.[31]
With this well-established principle on jurisdiction, it is therefore incorrect for the private respondent Marcos Rodriguez to argue that the DARAB derives its jurisdiction from the DARAB Rules of Procedure. The DARAB derives its jurisdiction from RA 6657 or popularly known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988.
Section 50 of RA 6657 confers jurisdiction on the DARAB over agrarian reform cases or controversies as follows:
"Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).To implement this particular provision of RA 6657 regarding the adjudication of agrarian reform matters, the DAR adopted the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, issued on May 30, 1994.[32] Under Section 1, Rule II of the said Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases:
"It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes, or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. Towards this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination for every action or proceeding before it." (emphasis ours)
"(a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;Subparagraph (f) stated above provides that the DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs and EPs which are registered with the Land Registration Authority (the Registry of Deeds).
(b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary determination and payment of just compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation, amortization payments, and similar disputes concerning the functions of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP);
xxx xxx xxx
(f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;
(g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, except subparagraph (Q) thereof and Presidential Decree No. 815.
xxx xxx xxx
Matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of Republic Act. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.
(h) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of the DAR." (emphasis ours)
The grounds for cancellation of registered EPs were summarized by DAR Memorandum Order No. 02, Series of 1994,[33] to wit:
A study of the above-enumerated grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs shows that it requires the exercise by the DAR of its quasi-judicial power through its adjudicating arm, DARAB. Thus, rightly so, the DARAB New Rules of Procedure provide that DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered EPs.
- Misuse or diversion of financial and support services extended to the ARB;[34] (Section 37 of R.A. No. 6657)
- Misuse of land; (Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657)
- Material misrepresentation of the ARB's basic qualifications as provided under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other agrarian laws;
- Illegal conversion by the ARB; (Cf. Section 73, Paragraph C and E of R.A. No. 6657)
- Sale, transfer, lease or other forms of conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any other usufructuary right over the land acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary in order to circumvent the provisions of Section 73 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other agrarian laws. However, if the land has been acquired under P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228, ownership may be transferred after full payment of amortization by the beneficiary; (Sec. 6 of E.O. No. 228)
- Default in the obligation to pay an aggregate of three (3) consecutive amortizations in case of voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme, except in cases of fortuitous events and force majeure;
- Failure of the ARBs to pay for at least three (3) annual amortizations to the LBP, except in cases of fortuitous events and force majeure; (Section 26 of RA 6657)
- Neglect or abandonment of the awarded land continuously for a period of two (2) calendar years as determined by the Secretary or his authorized representative; (Section 22 of RA 6657)
- The land is found to be exempt/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP coverage or to be part of the landowner's retained area as determined by the Secretary or his authorized representative; and
- Other grounds that will circumvent laws related to the implementation of agrarian reform.
But what about EPs that are unregistered like the one issued to Angelina Rodriguez?
The answer can be found in Administrative Order No. 06-00, issued on August 30, 2000, which provides for the Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases. These rules were issued pursuant to Sections 49 and 50 of RA 6657. In contrast to the DARAB Rules of Procedure which govern the exercise of DAR's quasi-judicial function, Administrative Order No. 06-00 govern the administrative function of the DAR.
Under the said Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases, the Agrarian Reform Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance, recall or cancellation of EPs/CLOAs that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds. Thus, Section 2 of the said Rules provides:
"SECTION 2. Cases Covered. - These Rules shall govern cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary which shall include the following:Clearly, the cancellation of EPs that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds falls within the authority of the Agrarian Reform Secretary or DAR officials[35] duly designated by him, in the exercise of his/their administrative functions. And since, in the case at bar, the erroneously issued EPs in the name of Angelina Rodriguez were unregistered, it is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who has the authority to cancel the same.
(a) Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), including protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage;
(b) Identification, qualification or disqualification of potential farmer-beneficiaries;
(c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP;
(d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall or cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet registered with the Register of Deeds;
(e) Exercise of the right of retention by landowner;
xxx xxx xxx
(q) Such other matters not mentioned above but strictly involving the administrative implementation of RA 6657 and other agrarian laws, rules and regulations as determined by the Secretary." (emphasis ours)
In the decision of the Court of Appeals under review, the Court of Appeals ruled that:
"The issuance of said EPs was due to inadvertence. Thus, annulment thereof is a correction of an administrative error; a matter within the exclusive competence of the public respondent as adjudicating arm of DAR. And, as stressed by public respondent, the said EPs in question were not even registered with the proper Registry of Property."[36] (emphasis ours)We disagree, for 2 reasons.
First, at the time of the promulgation of the Court of Appeals decision on August 14, 1997, the 1994 DARAB New Rules of Procedure had long taken effect. Such rules clearly provide that the DARAB has jurisdiction only over the cancellation of registered EPs but not those that are not.[37] And since the Court of Appeals itself ruled that the subject EPs were not yet registered, it should have likewise ruled that the cancellation thereof did not pertain to the DARAB.
Second, even if the Court of Appeals ruling were based on the old DARAB rules (the 1989 DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure) which provided that the DARAB had primary jurisdiction over "cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT), Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) and the administrative correction thereof",[38] we do not agree that the cancellation by the DARAB of the subject EPs fell within the ambit of mere administrative correction. "Administrative correction" refers only to the rectification of wrong or insufficient information in the patent and not to something as substantial as the actual cancellation thereof. The meaning of "administrative correction" is provided in DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1994:[39]
"C. The administrative corrections may include non-identification of spouse, corrections of civil status, corrections of technical descriptions and other matters related to agrarian reform."In sum, the decision of the Court of Appeals is partly affirmed. It is correct to say that private respondent Marcos Rodriguez was the lawful tenant beneficiary of the subject land by virtue of the valid transfer executed by Angelina Rodriguez in his favor with the conformity of the Samahang Nayon of Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, while petitioner Graciano Padunan was only a mortgagee thereof because the second transfer made by Angelina Rodriguez to him was invalid. It is incorrect, however, to rule that the DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel the emancipation patents issued in the name of Angelina Rodriguez because, under Administrative Order No. 06-00 (Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases, implementing Section 49 and 50 of RA 6657), it is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who has jurisdiction to cancel unregistered emancipation patents.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in so far as it upholds the ruling of the DARAB that (1) private respondent Marcos Rodriguez is the lawful tenant beneficiary of the three parcels of land located in Barangay Bantug, Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, covered by Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) Nos. 0341310, 0341311 and 0341312 and (2) petitioner Graciano Padunan is only a mortgagee thereof, thereby ordering him to vacate the premises upon payment by private respondent Marcos Rodriguez of the mortgage debt in the amount of P50,000.
The ruling of the Court of Appeals that DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel the unregistered emancipation patents in the name of Angelina Rodriguez is hereby REVERSED. We hereby rule that it is the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform who has jurisdiction to cancel the said unregistered emancipation patents. Private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, the new legal agrarian reform beneficiary of the subject land, should file the proper action before the DAR to cancel the said unregistered emancipation patents.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., no part.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Fidel P. Purisima (retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.; Rollo, pp. 25-30.
[2] Penned by DAR Assistant Secretary Lorenzo R. Reyes and concurred in by DAR Undersecretary Jose Noel D. Olano and Assistant Secretaries Hector D. Soliman, Augusto P. Quijano and Sergio B. Serrano. DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao and Undersecretary Renato B. Padilla did not take part.; Rollo, pp. 54-58.
[3] Penned by Hon. Romeo Bello, Provincial Adjudicator of Nueva Ecija; Rollo, pp. 50-53.
[4] Rollo, pp. 26, 55.
[5] Rollo, pp. 26, 55.
[6] Rollo, pp. 29, 55.
[7] Rollo, p. 29.
[8] Rollo, pp. 26, 27, 55.
[9] Rollo, pp. 28, 51.
[10] Rollo, pp. 26, 51.
[11] Rollo, pp. 26, 55.
[12] Rollo, pp. 26, 45-46, 54.
[13] Rollo, pp. 25, 54.
[14] Rollo, pp. 25-30.
[15] Rollo, p. 8-21.
[16] Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[17] Rule 45, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Solangon vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 125944, June 29, 2001; J.R. Blanco vs. Quasha, 318 SCRA 373 (1999); Fuentes vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703 (1997).
[18] Titong vs. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 102 (1998); Atillo III vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 596 (1997).
[19] Corpus vs. Grospe, 333 SCRA 425, 435 (2000), citing Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 568, 581 (1988), Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals, 87 SCRA 263, 269 (1978), and Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations 4 SCRA 1151, 1156 (1962); Greenfield Realty Corp. vs. Cardama, 323 SCRA 280 (2000).
[20] Milestone Realty & Co., Inc. and William Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135999, April 19, 2002; Baricuatro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105902, February 9, 2002.
[21] Rollo, p. 27.
[22] Rollo, pp. 27, 28.
[23] Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[24] Rollo, p. 56.
[25] Paris vs. Alfeche, G.R. No. 139083, August 30, 2001; Vda. de Dela Cruz vs. Abille, 352 SCRA 691 (2001); Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo, 183 SCRA 252 (1990).
[26] Milagros A. German, The Revised Rules of Procedure in the Litigation of Agrarian Cases by the DAR under the CARL ~ 1988 and the Special Agrarian Courts (1992).
[27] "Reorganizing the Courts of Agrarian Relations, Streamlining their Procedures, and for other Purposes" (1976); Parts of the law inconsistent with RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 were repealed or modified accordingly.
[28] Petition for Review, p. 7; Rollo, p. 14.
[29] Memorandum, p. 4; Rollo, p. 151.
[30] Comment, p. 2; Rollo, p. 61.
[31] People vs. Casiano, 111 Phil 73 (1961).
[32] Modifying or repealing accordingly the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure (1989) and all DAR administrative provisions that are inconsistent therewith.
[33] "Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) Due to Unlawful Acts and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) and for Other Causes" (1994)
[34] ARB means agrarian reform beneficiary.
[35] Sec. 6, RULE II, Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases.
[36] Rollo, p. 29.
[37] Paragraph (f), Section 1, Rule II, DARAB New Rules of Procedure.
[38] Paragraph (f), Section 1, Rule II, DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure.
[39] "Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) Due to Unlawful Acts and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) and for Other Causes" (1994).