ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 142578. June 14, 2000]
FERNANDO VILLAMOR, JR., et al vs. SECRETARY OF DAR, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.
G.R. No. 142578 (Fernando Villamor, Jr., and Cleofe Villamor vs. Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Basilan, Regional Director of DAR, Region IX, Zamboanga City.)
Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform which in turn dismissed petitioners' appeal from the resolution of the DAR Regional Director shelving their protest in connection to the notice of land valuation and acquisition made by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Basilan.
The subject of the controversy is a parcel of agricultural land with an area of 24.1212 hectares (TCT No. T-9455) owned by petitioners which is sought to be acquired by the Government for distribution to qualified Agrarian Reform beneficiaries pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, Republic Act No. 6657.
On November 9, 1993, as an offshoot of the notice of coverage issued by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Isabela (MARO), the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) sent a notice of land valuation and acquisition.
On February 22, 1995, petitioners filed an opposition/protest, alleging that the property is exempt from CARP coverage under Section 10 of Republic Act NO. 6657; that the procedure for acquisition of private agricultural land particularly Section 16 of said law, was not followed; and that MARO violated petitioners' right to equal protection of the law.
On March 15, 1995, am investigation was conducted by DA legal officer. In the subsequent report submitted, it was stated that: (a) the subject property is slightly rolling raging from 15 to 18 slope and suitable for agriculture; (b) Ordinance No. 467, as amended by Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 147, passed by the Sangguniang Bayan of Isabela in 1990 which declared the subject property residential has not yet been passed or approved by the Housing and Land use Regulatory Board (HLURB); and (c) petitioners were issued the required notice for the acquisition of their lands.
On August 8, 1995, the OIC Regional Director, Regional Office No. IX, DAR, Zamboanga City denied petitioners' protest.
The DAR Regional Director denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The appeal and subsequent motion for reconsideration lodged with the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform met the same fate.
Unperturbed, petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, again to no avail.
Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.
Initially, the Court notes that the instant petition is not accompanied by the required affidavit and proof of service on the Court of Appeals. Then too, petitioners failed to pay the P20.00 deposit for costs in violation of Rule 45.3 in relation to Rule 56.5.c of the Rules of Court. These lapses, standing alone, are sufficient to cause the outright dismissal of the instant petition.
Over and above these technical flaws, however, is the fact that the Court finds no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeal issuing its assailed decision.
Petitioners assert that under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657, all lands with 18 slope, except those which are already developed, are excluded from the CARP Law and this excludes the subject land which is undeveloped and which has a slope of more than 18 . But aside from this bare allegation, petitioners failed to present any tangible proof to support their claim. On the other hand, on the evidentiary record are the finding of the MARO indicating that the subject land has a slightly rolling terrain with 15 to 18 slope suitable for agriculture, the certification from the Department of Agriculture that the subject land is suitable for agriculture, and that it is planted to coconut trees.
Anent petitioners' claim that the subject land has already been reclassified into residential land by the Sangguniang Bayan of Isabela, Basilan, the same deserves scant consideration for said alleged reclassification has not been approved by the HLURB, for which reason it cannot be given effect pursuant to Memorandum Circular 54 (1993) of the Office of the President in conjunction with Section 20 of Republic Act 7160.
Moreover, the Court has ruled that factual findings of an administrative agency, in the case at bar, the Department of Agrarian Reform, must be respected so long as such findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant (Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs of the Office of the President vs. CA, 169 SCRA 27 [1989]).
WHEREFORE, petition is hereby denied due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
