GR 172109; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172109 ; August 29, 2007
MARIANO DAO-AYAN and MARJUN DAO-AYAN, Petitioners, vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), ARANETA LANDLESS AGRARIAN REFORM FARMERS ASSOCIATION, Rep. by CLAUDIO A. FUENTES, THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (PARO) and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BUKIDNON, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Mariano Dao-ayan and his son Marjun sought the annulment and cancellation of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to respondent Araneta Landless Agrarian Reform Farmers Association (ALARFA) over a lot placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Marjun had initially applied as a farmer-beneficiary. However, ALARFA filed a petition to disqualify Mariano, alleging he already owned substantial land. The DAR Regional Director granted the petition, disqualifying Mariano and subsequently awarding the CLOA to ALARFA. Petitioners claimed they were not notified of the disqualification proceedings.
After the CLOA was registered, petitioners filed a motion to stay its execution. When an Installation Order was later issued to install ALARFA on the land, petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of the CLOA before the DARAB. The Regional Adjudicator dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed by both the DARAB Central Office and the Court of Appeals. The lower tribunals ruled that the identification and disqualification of beneficiaries were administrative matters within the exclusive authority of the DAR Secretary, and that petitioners failed to appeal the Regional Director’s final order within the reglementary period.
ISSUE
Whether the DARAB correctly dismissed the complaint for annulment of the CLOA on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and finality of the administrative order disqualifying Mariano Dao-ayan.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal. The Court clarified that while the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance and cancellation of CLOAs, the preliminary administrative determination of a beneficiary’s qualification is exclusively vested in the DAR Secretary. The Regional Director’s order disqualifying Mariano was an administrative act that petitioners should have appealed to the DAR Secretary. Petitioners’ failure to do so rendered the order final.
On the issue of due process, the Court noted the absence of proof that petitioners received actual notice of the disqualification proceedings. Nevertheless, the prescriptive period to appeal began to run from the date of constructive notice upon the CLOA’s registration with the Register of Deeds, or from the date petitioners filed their motion to stay execution. Since petitioners filed their complaint for annulment more than fifteen days after these events, the Regional Director’s resolution had long become final and executory. Consequently, the DARAB correctly refused to nullify the CLOA based on a challenge to a final administrative determination.