G.R. No. 152797 , September 18, 2019
FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PAULINO REYES, DANILO BAON, PACITA D. VADURIA, JULIE MONTOYA, MERCEDES RAMOS, GERONIMO DERAIN, FELICIANO D. BAON, PACIFICO DERAIN, EUTERIO SEVILLA, MAMERTO B. ESPINELI, CARMELITA GRAVADOS, AVELINO E. PASTOR, ANTONIO BUHAY, TIRZO GULFAN, JR., FELIX SOBREMONTE, ERNESTO SOBREMONTE, BEN PILIIN, PASCUAL V. DISTREZA, JACINTO P. BACALAG, ADELAIDA BAYANI, ELMERT BAYANI, EGLESIA SOBREMONTE, NICASIO TINAUGISAN, VICENTE VILLALUNA, MEYNARDO VILLALUNA, LEOPOLDO DE JOYA, LENIE DE JOYA, LIBERATO DE JOYA, CRESENCIANA DE JOYA, FRESCO CATAPANG, ROSITA CATAPANG, DOMINGO P. LIMBOC, VIRGILIO A. LIMBOC, VICENTE LIMBOC, MARIO H. PERNO, LAZARITO CABRAL, CARLITO CAPACIA, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 189315]
PAULINO REYES, DANILO BAON, PACITA D. VADURIA, JULIE MONTOYA, BENIGNO BAON, BEATRIZ DERAIN, MARILOU SEVILLA, MAMERTO B. ESPINELLI, CARMELITA GRANADOS, ANTONIO BUHAY, FELIX SOBREMONTE, NICASIO TINAMISAN, CRESCENCIANA DE JOYA, FRESCO CATAPANG, SONNY CATAPANG, MARIO H. PERNO, CARLITO CAPACIA, AQUILINA BAUTISTA, FELECITO BARCELON, LUIS MANGI, BAYANI ORIONDO, BASILISA DERAIN, GUILLERMO BAUTISTA, BEATRIZ SEVILLA, NICOLAS ASAHAN, ROSITA MERCADO, LAMBERTO BAUTISTA, REXIE DINGLES, JOSE QUIROZ, PETITIONERS, VS. FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., RESPONDENT.
[G.R. No. 200684]
NOLITO G. DEL MUNDO, GABRIEL A. MAULLON, MARIA L. TENORIO, NOEL G. DEL MUNDO, RACQUEL DEL MUNDO-REDUCA, TEODORICO D. AGUSTIN, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, NOMER G. DEL MUNDO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE MANILA SOUTHCOAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions involve Hacienda Looc in Nasugbu, Batangas. The property, originally registered under the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), was transferred to the government and placed under the Asset Privatization Trust (APT). In 1990, APT offered to sell portions of the hacienda to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Voluntary Offer to Sell scheme. From 1991 to 1993, DAR distributed 25 Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) covering 3,981.2806 hectares to farmer-beneficiaries. In 1993, APT sold its rights over Hacienda Looc through public bidding. Manila Southcoast Development Corporation (Manila Southcoast) acquired the property. In 1995, Manila Southcoast filed a petition before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) seeking the cancellation of the 25 CLOAs, resurvey, and reconveyance of excluded areas. Subsequently, through a series of Partial Summary Judgments and Orders issued by Regional Adjudicators in 1996, 15 CLOAs were canceled based on waivers allegedly executed by farmer-beneficiaries. In 1995, Manila Southcoast entered into a joint venture with Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (Fil-Estate) for the development of 10 lots covered by some of the canceled CLOAs. In 1996, Fil-Estate filed a petition to exclude these 10 lots (totaling 1,219.0133 hectares) from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage, claiming the lands had slopes exceeding 18%. The farmer-beneficiaries contested the cancellations, alleging due process violations and falsified waivers. DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao ordered an investigation. In 1998, Secretary Garilao issued an Order declaring 70 hectares of the 1,219.0133-hectare parcel as covered land under CARP. The Court of Appeals affirmed this Order. Separately, other CLOAs were canceled by DAR Undersecretary Order in 1997, which was upheld by the DARAB and later by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary acted within his jurisdiction and correctly applied agrarian reform laws in declaring portions of Hacienda Looc as covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), and whether the cancellation of the Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petitions. The Court held that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and has exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The DAR Secretary, through the DARAB, has the authority to investigate and act on petitions for the cancellation of CLOAs. The findings of the DAR, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great weight and respect. In this case, the DAR Secretary’s Order, which was based on the findings of multiple task forces and investigations, correctly identified agriculturally developed areas within Hacienda Looc that were subject to CARP coverage. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the DAR Secretary’s determination. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the cancellation of the CLOAs was proper as the lands covered were found to be excluded from CARP coverage, particularly based on the slope limitation (over 18%) and other exclusionary criteria under the law. The Court emphasized that the DAR’s mandate includes preventing the circumvention of agrarian reform laws, and its factual findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion.