Department of Agrarian Reform v. Berenguer
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The respondents, owners of 58.0649 hectares of residential and industrial lands in Sorsogon, Sorsogon, received notices of coverage from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). They protested this coverage, asserting their lands were not agricultural, citing prior classification as residential and industrial by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and relevant municipal resolutions and development plans. Despite their protest and application for exclusion, the DAR proceeded to cancel their titles and issue Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) to the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative. Procedural History: The respondents filed an application for exclusion from CARP coverage, which was denied by the DAR Regional Director. While their appeal to the DAR Secretary was pending, the Baribag cooperative filed a petition to implement the denial order, leading to a writ of possession. The DAR Secretary subsequently denied the respondents' appeal. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which the CA treated as a petition for review. The CA granted the petition, reversing the DAR Secretary's order, setting aside the writs of execution and possession, canceling the CLOAs, and ordering the restoration of the lands to the respondents. The DAR appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), as petitioner, appeals the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the CA erred in several aspects. Specifically, the DAR contends that the CA wrongly ruled the landholdings exempt from CARP coverage, incorrectly determined the land's classification, erred in its findings regarding cattle raising, and improperly treated the respondents' certiorari petition as a petition for review, thereby overlooking the finality of the DAR's decision. The DAR seeks to overturn the CA's reversal of its earlier orders and the subsequent directives to cancel CLOAs and restore possession of the lands to the respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating the respondents' petition for certiorari as a petition for review. Whether the respondents' landholdings are exempt from CARP coverage for not being agricultural, due to their classification as residential/commercial or their use for cattle raising. Whether there was error in the selection and designation of farmer beneficiaries. Whether the DAR erred in cancelling the respondents' titles and denying their right of retention.
Ruling
The appeal is denied. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform is ordered to cancel the CLOAs issued to Baribag, reinstate the respondents' titles, and restore possession of the landholdings to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of treating certiorari as a petition for review: The Court held that the CA did not err in treating the petition for certiorari as a petition for review. Citing precedents like Department of Education v. Cuanan, the Court reiterated that such treatment is permissible in the interest of substantial justice and in line with the liberal spirit of the Rules of Court, especially when the order questioned is a patent nullity or the court a quo lacks jurisdiction. The petition was filed within the reglementary period for a petition for review, thus satisfying the procedural requirement for substantial justice. On the substantive issue of CARP coverage: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the respondents' landholdings were not subject to CARP. Firstly, regarding cattle raising, while DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1993, set a ratio for livestock, the CA's finding that cattle were indeed raised on the land was not disputed. The Court noted that the insufficiency of cattle at the time of survey could be due to various reasons. More importantly, the Court reiterated the ruling in Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR that lands devoted to commercial livestock raising are outside CARP coverage. Secondly, even if not used for cattle raising, the landholdings were presumed non-agricultural. Resolution No. 5 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sorsogon, series of 1981, included Barangay Bibincahan within the poblacion, and jurisprudence dictates that lands within a poblacion are presumed residential, commercial, or industrial unless proven otherwise, as established in Hilario v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Natalia Realty Corporation v. DAR. The excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan showing Barangay Bibincahan as part of the Central Business District further supported this classification. On the issue of beneficiary selection: The Court found that the DAR erred in designating Baribag as the beneficiary. Section 22 of CARL mandates a specific order of priority for beneficiaries, prioritizing landless residents of the same barangay or municipality, such as agricultural lessees, regular farmworkers, and other farmworkers. The DAR failed to justify its exclusion of the actual workers on the landholdings and its selection of Baribag, relying on mere speculation and conjecture rather than documentary proof or strict compliance with the law. The DAR did not present evidence that the workers lacked interest or refused screening, nor did it show Baribag qualified under Section 22. On the issue of cancellation of titles and right of retention: The Court found that the DAR violated the respondents' right of retention under Section 6 of CARL, which allows landowners to retain five hectares. By cancelling all the respondents' Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs), the DAR effectively deprived them of their property without due process of law, assuming the lands were covered by CARL. Furthermore, RARAD Florin's issuance of the writ of execution in favor of Baribag was irregular, as Baribag was not a party to the exclusion application, and the writ was issued while the DAR Secretary's review was pending, making it premature and without legal basis.
Main Doctrine
Lands classified as residential, commercial, or industrial prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL) are outside the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Furthermore, lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry, and swine raising are also excluded from CARP coverage.