G.R. No. 190682. February 13, 2019.
PAUL C. DAGONDON, Petitioner, vs. ISMAEL LADAGA, Respondent.

FACTS

The subject 4,147-square-meter riceland, owned by Jose Dagondon, was placed under Operation Land Transfer (OLT) in the 1970s, with his tenant, Ismael Ladaga, as the beneficiary. The landowner’s son, Paul Dagondon, protested to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR), arguing the land was exempt from coverage as its income was inadequate to support the family. The protest was denied by the MAR through an order dated February 28, 1986 (Estrella Order). Despite a pending motion for reconsideration filed by Dagondon, an Emancipation Patent (EP) and corresponding Original Certificate of Title were issued to Ladaga in 1987 and registered in 1988.
In 1994, Dagondon filed another protest with the DAR, which Secretary Ernesto Garilao treated as a motion for reconsideration of the 1986 Estrella Order. In 1995, Secretary Garilao set aside the Estrella Order and exempted the property from OLT coverage, a decision later affirmed by the Office of the President in 2002. Dagondon then sought the cancellation of Ladaga’s EP and reconveyance of the property.

ISSUE

Whether the DAR Secretary retained jurisdiction to review and reverse the 1986 Estrella Order, which had allegedly attained finality, and consequently, whether the Emancipation Patent issued to Ladaga was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Paul Dagondon. The Court held that DAR Secretary Garilao validly exercised jurisdiction in reviewing the Estrella Order. The legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court applies, as there was no evidence presented to prove that Dagondon’s motion for reconsideration of the 1986 order was filed out of time. The reglementary period for finality is counted from the party’s receipt of the order, not from its issuance date. Ladaga failed to prove the date of Dagondon’s receipt or the actual filing date of the reconsideration motion.
Therefore, the Estrella Order could not be deemed final and executory, and Secretary Garilao was not ousted of jurisdiction to act on the subsequent protest/motion. His 1995 order, which found the land exempt from coverage due to inadequate income for the landowner’s family, was valid. Consequently, the issuance of the EP to Ladaga had no legal basis, and the subsequent decisions of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office and the DARAB ordering the cancellation of the title and reconveyance were reinstated. The Court of Appeals decision upholding the EP was reversed.