ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136381. June 14, 1999]

ESTRELLA PANTIG vs. HON. VIVIAN MAQUILING, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14, 1999.

G.R. No. 136381 (Estrella Pantig vs. Hon. Vivian Maquiling, et al.)

The instant questions the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) over the cancellation of petitioner's Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) in the instant case.

Petitioner, Estrella Pantig, represented by her attorney-in-fact who also her father, Jolito Hoyohoy alleged that on February 3, 1992, one Anacleto Clamonte sold to her a parcel of land situated in Obat, Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental. Said Lot No. 4013 constituted three (3) lots having a total area of 16,711 square meters. Apparently, the lot in question was covered under CLOA No. 00103044.

Petitioner Pantig together with the vendor went to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to have the sale notarized. She was then prodded by the DAR officials to put her land under the Land Reform Program of the government and was thereby issued OCT No. 5113.1 [Rollo, p. 48.]

Respondent, in her official capacity as Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) operating within the province where the property in dispute is situated, later discovered that upon a survey made, petitioner's land overlapped almost 20 home lots which were previously distributed to settlers. She then fled a petition before the DARAB which sought the cancellation of petitioner's CLOA. Respondent also sought the disqualification of petitioner as beneficiary of the Land Reform Program since petitioner is not a resident of the municipality where the land is located.

Petitioner moved to dismiss on the ground that the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the land which was allegedly privately owned and possessed by petitioner prior to its grant. The adverse decision of the DARAB and eventually of the Court of Appeals (CA) led to the filing of the instant petition.

We find no reversible error with the decision of the respondent court.

Undeniably, petitioner's land was covered under CLOA No. 00103044. The resulting OCT No. 5113 which was issued in her name was granted by virtue of R.A. 6657.2 [An Act Instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.] Consequently, the case falls under the DARAB which has primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and has exclusive jurisdiction over all maters involving the implementation of agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Since the DARAB has found that petitioner's claim of ownership over the subject land is questionable and neither is she qualified to be considered a beneficiary under the Agrarian Reform law, we find no error much less grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DARAB in cancelling petitioner's CLOA which in effect divests her ownership over the subject land.

Rule II of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure is quite clear which provides:

SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act. No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, Republic Act. No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Specifically such jurisdiction shall include but not be limited to cases involving the following:

xxx

f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificate of Landownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;

xxx

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE