G.R. No. 159654 ; February 28, 2006
NICANOR T. SANTOS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD & MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICE (ANDREA F. DALMACIO), TUBA, BENGUET, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nicanor T. Santos Development Corporation owns a 103.8-hectare property known as Santos Farm in Benguet. In 1992, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) informed petitioner that a 14-hectare portion would be placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Petitioner sent letters to various DAR officials from 1992 to 2001, asserting the land was exempt from CARP as it was allegedly untenanted, mountainous, and unsuitable for agriculture. In September 2000, respondent MARO issued a formal Notice of Coverage. Petitioner filed a Protest with the DAR in June 2001 and a subsequent complaint before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) in December 2001. The DARAB declined jurisdiction, referring the matter to the Regional Director. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) later dismissed the protest as time-barred for being filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period from notice and for failure to follow proper procedure.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Mandamus for petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for being an improper remedy.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. Mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. The legal logic is that petitioner failed to properly initiate and exhaust the administrative process for exemption or protest as mandated by DAR rules. The records show petitioner merely sent letters to various DAR offices but did not file a formal application for exemption as required under DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 13, series of 1990, which necessitates initiation before the MARO with supporting documents. Furthermore, when the Notice of Coverage was issued in 2000, the governing procedures were A.O. No. 09, series of 1994, and A.O. No. 06, series of 2000. These orders require that a protest against coverage be filed in writing, under oath, and within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Notice. Petitioner’s formal Protest in June 2001 was filed well beyond this period and was thus correctly dismissed as time-barred by the PARO. Since petitioner did not comply with the mandatory procedural steps, there was no clear, complete, and properly filed application or protest for the DAR officials to act upon. Consequently, there existed no ministerial duty on the part of the respondents that could be compelled by mandamus. The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies bars judicial recourse when administrative avenues have not been duly pursued.