ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139045. September 20, 1999]

ADORACION ZULUETA vs. DAVID REY DE GUZMAN, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 20 1999.

G.R. No. 139045 (Adoracion Zulueta vs. David Rey De Guzman, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, Lolita G. Abela.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring that the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform (Region III) has no jurisdiction to issue an emancipation patent.

The core of the present controversy involves two parcels of agricultural land situated in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan which were acquired by private respondent by way of succession.

Petitioner is one of the duly constituted tenants who succeeded her father in the tenancy of the subject parcels of land.

In 1982, the subject parcels of land were reclassified as commercial pursuant to a Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance which was approve by the then Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.

Despite the reclassification, the subject parcels of land were placed under the coverage of the Operation Land Transfer Program of the government in 1990, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, otherwise known as the Tenant Emancipation Decree.

Private respondent then applied for and was granted a clearance to convert the parcels of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes and was issued an Environmental Clearance by the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Thereafter, private respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession against petitioner and a co-tenant before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) which rendered a decision declaring the validity of the reclassification of the subject parcels of land and, therefore, beyond the coverage of the Agrarian Reform Law. Petitioner was consequently ordered to vacate the premises upon payment of the disturbance compensation allowed under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844.

Upon appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed the PARAD's decision with modification by increasing the amount of disturbance compensation awarded. The decision lapsed into finality. Thus, private respondent moved for and was granted a writ of execution which was implemented on December 11, 1996.

In 1997, unknown to private respondent, petitioner filed a petition with the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform who issued an order declaring that (a) the subject landholding is outside the retention area of the heirs of Simeon de Guzman and, therefore, remained covered and placed under Operation Land Transfer Program; (b) petitioner had acquired a vested right over the subject property; and (c) the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Bulacan should cause the issuance of the corresponding Emancipation Patent in favor of the petitioner.

Aggrieved, private respondent filed a petition with the Court of Appeals which decided in his favor, setting aside the order of the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform for having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction.

Thus, the instant petition which we find unavailing.

The Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error when it rendered the assailed decision, the same being in accordance with Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 1994 where a Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform is merely given the task of investigating the existence of an emancipation patent over a property applied for reclassification and to issue an order denying or granting the exemption clearance applied for and to forward his report to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for appropriate action. There is nothing in the administrative order which authorizes the Regional Director to determine whether or not a tenant has a vested right over the property applied for conversion and to issue an emancipation patent.

Therefore, when the herein Regional Director ordered the issuance of an emancipation patent over private respondent's property in favor of petitioner, he went beyond his jurisdiction or authority provided in the administrative order.

More importantly, when the regional Director took cognizance of the petition, private respondent's application for exemption clearance over the subject property had already been settled by DARAB Case No. 1522 which decision attained finality and had been executed. He, in effect, reopened the DARAB case and reversed his own Department's decision. Plainly, he overstepped his authority.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE