ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136403. February 3, 1999]

RAQUEL DE LEON, et al. vs. HEIRS OF JUAN SICAT, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 3, 1999.

G.R. No. 136403 (Raquel De Leon, et al. vs. Heirs of Juan Sicat, et al.)

Petitioners are the heirs of the late Joaquin Valdez Gonzales, alleged to be the owner of the lot in dispute. Situated in Sta. Monica, San Simon, Pampanga, the lot has an area of 14,000 sq. m. and is covered by TCT No. 225671. Petitioners claimed that they had been in possession of the aforesaid lot until November 1994, when they were told that it had been sold by respondent heirs of Juan Sicat and Ernesto Sioco to respondent Avelina Cruz. They also alleged that they later learned that without their knowledge, the land was placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27 and was awarded to respondents Sicat and Sioco. Petitioners, therefore, filed a complaint for the cancellation of emancipation patents and the sale of the land to respondent Cruz with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). In answer, respondents Sicat and Sioco claimed that they were entitled to the issuance of patents, having been the lawful possessors and cultivators of the land. They also denied that they had sold it to respondent Cruz. In his decision, dated September 28, 1995, the PARAD dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAN) affirmed the decision of the PARAD. Petitioners then filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, but their petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The appellate court likewise denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend that they were denied due process because no hearing for the reception of evidence was conducted by the PARAD before the decision was rendered.

After due consideration of the instant petition, however, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals and, therefore, resolves to DENY the same.

Contrary to petitioners' contention, a hearing was actually conducted on their application for a writ of preliminary injunction wherein they presented the testimony of their caretaker. Thereafter, the parties were required to submit their memoranda but, for reasons known only to them, petitioners did not submit a memorandum. No error can, thus, be imputed to the PARAD when he rendered a decision on the basis of the available evidence in the record, especially considering that Rule VIII, �9 of the Rules of the DARAB requires adjudicators to decide cases assigned to then within sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint. In addition, administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are not bound by technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases (Ford Phils. Salaried Employee Association v. NLRC, 156 SCRA 284 (1987)). In the proceedings before such agencies, affidavits, memoranda or position papers can take the place of the direct testimony of the witnesses and the formal presentation of evidence, consistent with the requirements of due process. (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, 180 SCRA 195 (1989)).

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE