[O.P. Case No. 96-G-6544.  March 12, 1998.]

IN RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM OLT COVERAGE OF CERTAIN LANDHOLDINGS SITUATED AT STA. MONICA, AND SAN AGUSTIN, HAGONOY, BULACAN.

LUZ TEOPACO, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. JOSE MENDOZA, NARCISO MENDOZA, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

D E C I S I O N

          This refers to the appeal of Jose Mendoza, et al., from the order, dated February 25, 1995, of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform dismissing their motion for reconsideration of its earlier order of October 18, 1991, the dispositive portion of which reads:

          "WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued maintaining the Order dated September 23, 1988 of the Regional Director, DAR Region III; exempting the subject landholding from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer; and directing the cancellation of the Certificate of Land Transfer (CLTs) covering the same. The tenants therein shall, however, be issued Certificates of Agricultural Leasehold (CALs)."

          Culled from the records are the following factual antecedents of the case:

          On July 10, 1985, petitioners Luz Teopaco, Adriano Tito Tanjangco and Rosario Manlapit filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) District Office, Malolos, Bulacan, a Petition for Exemption from Operation Land Transfer (OLT) covering an undivided and untitled landholding situated at Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan. Said parcel of land, consisting of 20.4363 hectares, is covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 8547, 8548, 8549 and 1524 in the names of petitioners and administered by Miguel Tanjangco, Sr. From the investigation Report (OLT Form No. 12) submitted by ART Victoria Punzalan and Municipal Operation Officer Mercedita Pagsibigan, dated April 7 and May 5, 1988, respectively the following are the tenants of the land: Elisa Durante, Narciso Mendoza, Maximo de Luna, Fortunato Buensuceso, Federico Bautista, Francisco Carpio, Jose Mendoza, Antonio del Pilar, Salvador Durante, Domingo Victorino and Juanito Contreras.

          In support of their petition, petitioners submitted the following documents: (a) joint affidavit, dated July 24, 1985, showing that the total area of the landholding is 20.4364 hectares, more or less, and that each of them owns less than seven (7) thereof; (b) a copy of unnumbered Resolution, dated January 7, 1985, of the ARBA, Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan, requesting DAR to exempt said landholding from OLT coverage and to cancel the CLTs issued to farmer-beneficiaries; (c) Certification of Sr. Deputy Assessor II Maximo C. Lomotan, Office of the Provincial Assessor, Bulacan, that petitioners' total landholding consists only of 20.4364 hectares; and (d) Kapasiyahan Blg. 3-87, dated November 3, 1987, of ARBA Hagonoy Chapter attesting that the CLTs were erroneously issued to farmer-beneficiaries because the land is not covered by OLT of the government.

          Upon the favorable recommendation of DAR District Trial Attorney Rufino B. Antonio and DAR District Officer Atty. Fernando M. Ortega, DAR Regional Director Eligio P. Pacis issued an order on September 23, 1988, in the following tenor:

          "In the light of the foregoing facts and considering that the documents presented established that the subject landholding should not be covered by OLT as envisioned under P.D. 27 and likewise the properties do not fall under LOI 474 and the petitioners have no other properties except the landholdings, this Office has no alternative but to issue an Order affirming the favorable recommendation of the District Trial Attorney and of the then District Office. Thus, CLTs issued to the tenants as above-mentioned shall be cancelled."

          Excepting thereto, Jose Mendoza and Narciso Mendoza, thru counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration dated October 18, 1988. On even date, Juanito Contreras, thru councel, filed a like motion.

          Pursuant to the amended Motion for Reconsideration and Reinvestigation filed by Juanito Contreras on November 9, 1988, the DAR Secretary ordered a reinvestigation of the case.

          In their "POSITION PAPER FOR RESPONDENTS JOSE MENDOZA AND NARCISO MENDOZA," dated August 15, 1989, respondents-appellants argued that (1) the DAR Regional Director's order of September 3, 1988 is a patent nullity, since the said petition for exemption from OLT has been the subject of earlier suits to which the corresponding court decisions thereon had long become final and executory; (2) despite the said finality, Luz Teopaco, et al., filed a similar petition for exemption following the affidavit of quitclaim executed by Miguel Tanjangco renouncing ownership over the property: (3) said September 23, 1988 order was issued solely on the basis of tax declarations presented by petitioners, without giving respondents-appellants opportunity to be heard; and (4) petitioners-appellees have no more cause of action against respondents-appellants who have become owners of the lands they till upon being issued CLTs and paying their amortizations.

          On the other hand, petitioners-appellees, thru counsel, averred in their "POSITION PAPER FOR THE PETITIONERS," dated July 8, 1989, that (1) the DAR Regional Director did not err in issuing his order, considering that said CLTs were mistakenly generated and, therefore, were fittingly cancelled; (2) petitioners-appellees are entitled to exemption because, of the subject aggregate landholding, each of them owns only about 6.60 hectares, or less than seven (7) hectares, and has no other properties exceeding seven (7) hectares, except said landholding; (3) petitioners-appellees were issued tax declarations precisely on the basis of transfer documents executed by Miguel Tanjangco; (4) oppositor Juanito Contreras was never a tenant of the landholding but a mere representative of his mother, Macaria Velasco, as evidenced by the "Kasunduan sa Buwisan", marked as Annexes "E" and "E-1", of the petitions, (5) oppositor Antonio del Pilar is not a tenant-farmer but merely bought the land he is tilling from tenant Jesus de Luna, in violation of P.D. No. 27, which considers such transaction null and void; (6) although a tenant, oppositor Jose Mendoza violated agrarian reform laws by subleasing a portion of said property to his brother Nano Mendoza; and (7) oppositor Narciso Mendoza also violated said laws when he converted a portion of subject property from riceland to fishpond without the approval of DAR or the administrator thereof, Miguel Tanjangco, Sr.

          After reinvestigation, Atty. Erasmo Cruz, in his Report dated May 23, 1991, recommended that subject landholding be exempted from OLT coverage, it appearing that the share of each of the petitioners is only 6.8121 hectares and that none of them owns more than seven (7) hectares of agricultural or urban land they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.

          On October 18, 1991, then DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong issued an order, the decretal portion of which is quoted at the outset hereof.

          Feeling aggrieved, respondents-appellants Jose Mendoza and Narciso Mendoza filed a "MOTION TO RE-OPEN CASE ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE," alleging, inter alia that (a) in 1973, they entered into a "Kasunduan sa Buwisan" with former landowner Miguel Tanjangco on a "fifty-fifty" basis; (b) payment of rentals for the years 1973 to 1982 are evidenced by corresponding receipts; (c) the deed of sale executed between Miguel Tanjangco and petitioners Luz Teopaco, et al., is spurious and unregistered; (d) Luz Teopaco is being used as dummy to circumvent the agrarian reform law; and (e) the receipts for rentals for the year 1972 are not only spurious but were not presented during the investigation at the DAR Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga.

          The Opposition filed by petitioners-appellees to the afore-mentioned motion spurred a spate of counter-pleadings between the contending parties.

          For his part, Juanito Contreras (since deceased) moved for reconsideration of the October 18, 1991 order on November 11, 1991, contending, in the main, that the land for which he was issued CLT No. 125450 is different and distinct from that owned in common by petitioners-appellee; that petitioners-appellees' landholding is situated in Sta. Monica and San Agustin, Hagonoy, Bulacan, while the area he is cultivating is located in San Pablo, Hagonoy, Bulacan; that the land he is claiming has been subjected to OLT, and he was issued Tax Declaration No. 25505, cancelling Tax Declaration No. 13192; and that the land under Tax Declaration No. 13192 is not among those sold to petitioners-appellees.

          In the meantime, on March 20, 1992, petitioners-appellees, thru counsel, filed with the DAR a "MOTION TO WITHDRAW PETITION IN SO FAR AS THE PORTION OF NARCISO MENDOZA AND JOSE MENDOZA ARE CONCERNED" citing as reason therefor the need" . . . to maintain the cordial relationship among the parties and to avoid further proctracted discussion on the matter."

          Revolving the controversy, DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao issued an order on February 25, 1995, denying the motions for reconsideration filed by Jose and Narciso Mendoza, et al., and Filomena J. Vda. de Contreras, widow of Juanito Contreras, for lack of merit. Hence, this present recourse by respondents-appellants.

          After a close and perceptive study of the case, we find the appealed order to be assayed on firm and sound legal grounds.

          The thrust of respondent-appellant Juanito Contreras' argument is two-fold, to wit: (1) that the land he is tilling, situated in San Pablo (not San Agustin), Hagonoy, Bulacan, is not owned by petitioners but by Miguel Tanjangco and had been subjected to Operation Land Transfer under PD No. 27 as of 1972 for which he was issued CLT No. 125450 and Tax Declaration No. 25505 cancelling previous Tax Declaration No. 13192; and (2) petitioners-appellees' evidence of ownership of said landholding is dubious and debatable, consisting, as it does, of a mere certification by Deputy Assessor Maximo Lomotan of Bulacan, and therefore hearsay.

          We cannot yield to respondent-appellant's assertion. A perusal of the "Declaration of Real Property (Filed Under Presidential Decree No. 76)" submitted by him covering Cadastral Lot No. 10643 purportedly owned by Miguel Tanjangco and Virginia Tanjangco veritably shows that the land claimed by him is situated in San Agustin, not San Pablo, Hagonoy, Bulacan.

          As to respondent-appellant's claim that he is a tenant of said land, the same is belied by the "Kasunduan sa Pamumuwisan" which reveals that it is her mother, Macaria Velasco, who entered into a tenancy agreement with its former owner, Miguel Tanjangco, as in fact she was the one who paid all the rentals thereon.

          Likewise devoid of foundation in truth is respondent-appellant's contention the said landholding is owned by Miguel Tanjangco and not by petitioners-appellees, as disclosed in the "SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY", dated November 3, 1980, whereby the latter constituted the former as their Attorney-in-Fact to, among others things, manage, represent them and carry their interests in the leasing of their agricultural land in Hagonoy, Bulacan.

          At any rate, subject landholding having been consistently determined to be exempt from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer of the government by DAR District Trial Attorney Rufino D. Antonio, DAR District Officer Fernando M. Ortega, DAR Regional Director Eligio P. Pacis and DAR Secretaries Benjamin Leong and Ernesto D. Garilao, no cogent reason exists for us to veer away from said finding.

          For the very reason that subject property, consisting of 20.4364 hectares would, if partitioned among petitioners-appellees, leave each of them with only 6.8121 hectares, coupled with the fact that each of them does not own more than seven (7) hectares of other agricultural or urban land from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families, this Office finds untenable the grounds adduced in support of the appeal of the other respondents Jose and Narciso Mendoza, et al., who were aware and had incipient knowledge of the transfer of said property from Miguel Tanjangco to petitioners-appellees prior to October 21, 1972 and yet paid rentals to the new owners, which is a clear indication of their recognition of petitioners-appellees as the real owners of the landholding.

          Hence, there being no merit in the assignment of errors, made by respondents-appellants and the appealed order being in consonance with the established facts and applicable laws and jurisprudence, the same deserves affirmance by this Office.

          WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the order appealed from AFFIRMED.

          SO ORDERED.

          Manila, Philippines.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Presidential Legal Counsel

Copy furnished:

Department of Agrarian Reform

Mr. Miguel Tanjangco, Sr.

MENA & MAGABO LAE OFFICE
Counsel for Respondent-Appellant
Juanito Contreras

Mr. Jose Mendoza

Mr. Narciso Mendoza