GR 80719; (September, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 80719 September 26, 1989
HILDA RALLA ALMINE, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MINISTRY OF AGRARIAN REFORM (MAR) AND SULPICIO BOMBALES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Hilda Ralla Almine filed an application for retention of her riceland from the Operation Land Transfer Program with the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR). After investigations, MAR officials recommended the cancellation of the Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) issued to her tenant, respondent Sulpicio Bombales, finding her property not covered by the program. However, the Minister of Agrarian Reform, Conrado Estrella, ultimately denied her application for retention in an order dated February 13, 1986.
Almine appealed this denial to the then Intermediate Appellate Court. The Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that questions regarding a landowner’s right of retention, once decided by the Minister of Agrarian Reform, were appealable only to the Court of Agrarian Relations (and later the Regional Trial Courts under B.P. Blg. 129), not to the appellate court. Almine filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review, via a petition for review, the decision of the Minister of Agrarian Reform denying a landowner’s application for retention under the agrarian reform program.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified the proper legal procedure. Under Section 12 of P.D. No. 946, matters involving the administrative implementation of land transfer, including the right of retention of a landowner, are exclusively cognizable by the Secretary (then Minister) of Agrarian Reform. The law explicitly states that the decision of the Secretary may be appealed to the President of the Philippines. Consequently, such decisions are excluded from the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Agrarian Relations (now Regional Trial Courts in agrarian cases).
Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the case fell within the competence of the Court of Agrarian Relations. Since the decision of the Minister is appealable to the President, and there is no further appeal from the President’s decision, the proper remedy to challenge such a decision, if rendered with grave abuse of discretion, is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Courts over such petitions for extraordinary writs. Almine’s failure to appeal to the Office of the President was not a fatal violation of the exhaustion doctrine, as the Minister is the alter ego of the President. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the appellate court’s dismissal, and remanded the case for further proceedings.