[O.P. Case No. 96-A-6361. October 9, 2001.]
RE: PETITION TO WITHDRAW VOS OF LANDHOLDINGS SITUATED AT BRGYS. SAN AGUSTIN, DAYHAGAN, CABASAN & AMUTAG, ALL IN AROROY, MASBATE.
DELIA T. SUTTON, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. THE HON. DAR SECRETARY, respondent-appellee.
D E C I S I O N
This resolves the appeal of Atty. Delia T. Sutton, et al., (hereinafter "appellants") from the order dated September 14, 1995 of then Secretary Ernesto D Garilao of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, this Order is hereby issued:1. Granting the exemption application of Atty. Delia Sutton, et al., under the Luz Farms case with an area of 1,209 hectares for grazing purposes and a maximum 102.5635 hectares for infrastructure;
2. Directing the Regional Director to segregate the area actually, directly and exclusively use for cattle raising and its corresponding infrastructure as specified in No. 1;
3. To place the rest of the area under Compulsory Acquisition.
SO ORDERED."
The antecedental facts which led to the filing of the original action below are undisputed and are hereunder set forth synthesized by the DAR Secretary.
"Based on the records, the said property [situated at Barangays San Agustin, Dayhagan, Cabasan and Amutag, all in Arroyo, Masbate, with an aggregate area of 4,046.9093 hectares and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-4747 and T-4802] was offered by Delia Sutton, et al. for voluntary coverage on October 26, 1987.
On 25 June 1992, Delia Sutton, one of the heirs of Samuel Sutton, the original owner, filed a petition to withdraw the voluntary offer to sell and applied for exemption pursuant to the decision of Luz Farms vs. DAR Secretary (192 SCRA 51) wherein the Supreme Court declared that such business activity is not covered by the constitutionally mandated agrarian reform program.
In support of the said application for exemption, Atty. Sutton submitted as part of her evidence a mortgage contract with Development Bank of the Philippines dated December 28, 1976 for livestock loan; receipts of purchase of cattle for the Masbate ranch on different dates from 1974 to 1985; check voucher on the purchase of cattle by Monterey Farms Corp. from Masbate Cattle Farm; and, Internal Control Unit Inspection Report of the Department of Agriculture dated April 26, 1988 to show proof that the said property is actually, directly and exclusively used for cattle breeding and raising purposes.
In an Investigation Report dated 21 December 1992, MARO Mila R. de la Peña of Aroroy stated that a substantial portion of the Sutton landholding being applied for is devoted to cattle raising. Based on actual head count conducted by ARPT's M. Veterbo and R. Almojela, the number of cattle now being raised is around 1,209 heads distributed as follows: 769 heads of which is found in San Agustin (Dayhagan); 228 heads in Cabas-an; and, 212 in Amatong. Further, the MARO recommended that the application for VOS withdrawal be granted.
On 17 February 1993, Atty. Francisca Tracena, in its 3rd Indorsement stated that out of the area offered which is 3,020.7525 hectares, 1,037.6111 hectares were identified as not suitable for agriculture. Atty. Tracena then recommended that only 171.3889 be given to the petitioner as the exempted area under Luz Farms . . ..
The 171.3889 hectares represent the additional area needed for the raising of the 1,209 heads of cattle in addition to the 1,037.6111 hectares, which were excluded as not suitable to agriculture. In short, what Atty. Tracena wants is to only exclude 171.3889 hectares as an addition to the area they have already identified as not suitable to agriculture which are 1,037.6111 hectares."
After painstakingly evaluating the arguments advanced and the pieces of evidence submitted in support of the application for exemption, as well as the reports/recommendations of the DAR local officials, then DAR Secretary Garilao, applying DAR Administrative Order (AO) # 09, s. of 1993, entitled Rules and Regulations Governing the Exclusion of Agricultural Lands Used for Livestock, Poultry and Swine Raising from the Coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), issued an order on September 14, 1995, granting partial exemption of appellants' landholding, the dispositive portion of which is quoted at the outset. Their motion for reconsideration having been denied in an order dated December 5, 1995, appellants have interposed this recourse.
Appellants assail the validity of DAR AO # 09, s. of 1993, supra, in particular Section B thereof which provides that:
"B. In determining the areas qualified for exclusion under this Administrative Order, the following ratios of land, livestock, poultry, and swine raising shall be adopted:
1.0 Grazing
1.1 Cattle, Carabao and Horse Raising
— Cattle, carabao and horses (regardless of age) — the maximum ratio is one (1) head to one (1) hectare
2.0 Infrastructure
2.1 Cattle, Horses and Carabao Raising — a ratio of 21 heads for every 1.7815 hectares of infrastructure."
Appellants contend that it would be difficult if not impossible for a cattle-ranching business to survive if the above-stated animal-to-land ratio would be implemented, in particular, to their landholding. According to them, they were denied the opportunity to present evidence to prove the impracticability and unreasonableness of said ratio insofar as it applies to their landholding.
Appellants also claim that said administrative order, supra, is unconstitutional. They pointed out that the Supreme Court, in Luz Farms vs. DAR Secretary (192 SCRA 51), has already ruled that cattle-raising lands are excluded from the coverage of CARP.
The Appeal is not impressed with merit.
In seeking reversal of the DAR orders in question, appellants raise two (2) issues: (1) whether or not they were denied due process, and (2) whether or not the DAR AO # 09, s. of 1993, supra, is constitutional.
Anent the first issue, appellants failed to show under what circumstances they were denied the opportunity to present evidence to support their claim that it would be impractical and unreasonable to implement the animal-to-land ratio insofar as their landholding is concerned. As it were, appellants were even the ones who filed the application for exemption, attaching therein supporting documents. Thereafter, the DAR proceeded to evaluate the evidence and the arguments interposed by appellants until finally it issued the order in question. Aggrieved with the order, appellant even filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied. Clearly, these circumstances negate any claim that appellants were denied the opportunity to be heard. In Villareal vs. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 293 [1993], the Supreme Court ruled that:
"The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and air their side. The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling taken".
It is also established that "denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration" (Rubenecia vs. Civil Service Commission, 244 SCRA 640 [1995]). Moreover, in Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 770 [1995], the Supreme Court said that:
"Petitioner has no reason to complain of lack of opportunity to explain its side as well as to comply with the alleged deficiencies where it has gone all the way up to the office of the President to seek reversal of the phase-out and closure orders."
As to the second issue, the DAR correctly ruled that the power to determine the constitutionality of DAR AO # 09, s. of 1993, supra, is vested in the courts of justice. The DAR ratiocinated that:
"It is elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force and effect of law, hence, entitled to great respect. As to the issue raised by the petitioners on the constitutionality/unconstitutionality of the said administrative regulations or policies, it should be noted that this Office is not the proper forum to act on the matter, since jurisdiction of the same is lodge with the Court of Justice upon the initiative of the parties in interest."
Be that as it may, we disagree with appellants' submission to the effect that the Luz Farms ruling that the inclusion of land devoted to cattle raising under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is unconstitutional thereby also renders unconstitutional DAR AO # 09. This AO does not run counter to Luz Farms. On the contrary, this AO precisely provides the mechanism in implementing the Luz Farms ruling, in that it provides the guidelines in determining whether a certain parcel of land is actually, directly and exclusively used for cattle raising or not. DAR AO # 09 thus, provides for the orderly implementation of the Luz Farms decision.
Finally, the DAR's decision to place the remaining portion of appellant's landholding from CARP coverage is unquestionably in accordance with DAR AO # 09, s. of 1993, supra. Its findings that only an area of 1,209 hectares for grazing purposes and a maximum of 102.5635 hectares for infrastructure are exempt from CARP coverage are supported by substantial evidence, hence, entitled to great weight and respect. As held in Ynson vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 411 [1996]:
"Well-settled is the rule in our jurisprudence that the findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected, as long as such findings are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or preponderant."
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the questioned DAR orders dated September 14, 1995 and December 5, 1995, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED and the instant appeal DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines.
By authority of the President:
(SGD.) ALBERTO G. ROMULO
Executive Secretary
Copy for:
Atty. Maria Roselie S. Casals
Counsel for Appellants
Padlan Sutton & Associates
202 Cristina Condominium
Legaspi corner Herrera Sts.
Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City
The Honorable
The Secretary of Agrarian Reform
Quezon City
The Regional Director
Region V, Legaspi City
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
DARPO, Masbate
The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
DARMO, Aroroy, Masbate