Almero v. Heirs of Pacquing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Miguel Pacquing acquired agricultural lands totaling 23.6272 hectares in Tagum City via Homestead Patent No. V-33775. Following his death and that of his wife, their sole heir, Linda Pacquing-Fadrilan, sought to retain the property. Despite her application for retention being denied and becoming final, Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) were later issued to petitioners, identified as farmer-beneficiaries, for portions of the land they cultivated. Procedural History: Linda Pacquing-Fadrilan's initial petition to cancel the CLOAs was dismissed for failure to file a position paper. Subsequently, the DARAB nullified Transfer Certificates of Title issued to cultivators contracted by Linda and reinstated her title, but also ordered the issuance of titles to farmer-beneficiaries. Linda again petitioned to recall and cancel the CLOAs, arguing the land was exempt from CARP. The DAR Regional Director and DAR Secretary initially ruled in favor of CARP coverage and the validity of the CLOAs. However, the Office of the President (OP) reversed these rulings, recalling and cancelling the CLOAs. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court directly with the Supreme Court, assailing the OP's decision and resolution. They raise questions regarding the issuance of a certificate of finality by an administrative agency when its decision is reversed on appeal, whether lands under homestead grant are exempt from CARP coverage even if the heir is not cultivating it and offered it for VOS, and if deposit of compensation is sufficient to transfer title without landowner's acceptance.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court is the proper mode of appeal from the Office of the President's decision. Whether lands acquired through a homestead patent are exempt from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657, considering the heir of the patentee is not cultivating the land and had offered it under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme. Whether the deposit of the landowner's compensation with the Land Bank of the Philippines is sufficient to transfer title to the State, and the implications of the Court's ruling on the validity of CLOAs issued to farmer-beneficiaries.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the February 16, 2011 Decision and July 19, 2011 Resolution of the Office of the President, recalled and revoked the August 22, 2011 Certificate of Finality, and affirmed the August 18, 2009 Order of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the appeal: The Court ruled that a direct resort to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is allowed when only questions of law are raised. A question of law exists when the doubt concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a set of facts, or when the issue does not require an examination of the probative value of the evidence. In this case, the petitioners raised valid questions of law regarding the OP's application of law and jurisprudence on CARP coverage, necessitating no further examination of factual evidence. Therefore, the direct appeal to the Supreme Court was deemed proper. On CARP coverage of homestead lands: The Court held that for homestead lands to be exempted from CARP coverage under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657, two conditions must be met: (1) the homestead grantee or their direct compulsory heir must still own the original homestead at the time of the CARP's effectivity, and (2) they must continue to cultivate the homestead land. While Linda Pacquing-Fadrilan, as the heir, owned the land, she was no longer cultivating it. The Court clarified that the pronouncement in Paris v. Alfeche does not mean that a mere expression of intent to cultivate is sufficient; it requires actual continued cultivation. The OP misinterpreted the ruling by allowing Linda's desire to cultivate to exempt the land. Therefore, the Pacquing Estate was subject to CARP coverage. On the transfer of title upon deposit of compensation and the validity of CLOAs: This issue was raised by the petitioners but was not directly addressed by the Court in its ruling, as the core of the decision focused on the exemption from CARP coverage. The Court's reversal of the OP's decision and affirmation of the DAR Secretary's order effectively meant that the CLOAs issued to the farmer-beneficiaries were valid, implying that the CARP coverage proceeded and the issue of compensation deposit became relevant in that context, but the specific question of whether the deposit alone was sufficient to transfer title was not elaborated upon in the provided text.
Main Doctrine
Homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs must not only own the original homestead at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 but must also continue to cultivate the land to be exempted from CARP coverage. Mere expression of intent to cultivate is insufficient.