[O.P. Case No. 97-G-8082.  August 8, 2000.]

AGAPITA CARRASCAL, petitioner-appellee, vs. VICTORIANO VINZONS, respondent-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

          This is an appeal of respondent-appellant Victoriano Vinzons from the order of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) dated February 28, 1997, denying his motion for reconsideration of an earlier order dated July 12, 1996, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

          "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order dated July 12, 1996, is hereby AFFIRMED. Consequently, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office thru the proper personnel is mandated to institute an action for the cancellation of Emancipation Patent issued in favor of Victoriano Vinzons before the proper forum. In this regard, this case is considered closed as far as this Office is concerned and no more subsequent motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

          SO ORDERED."

          The affirmed order of July 12, 1996 adverted to dispositively reads:

          "WHEREFORE, in view of the above findings, the Order dated May 29, 1995 is hereby SET ASIDE, thus, this Office holds that the transfer of landholding in favor of Victoriano Vinzons is baseless and erroneous such that the rightful beneficiary of the land subject of this instant action should be the wife of the original beneficiary or her children pursuant to the mandate of the law.

          "SO ORDERED."

          The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

          The landholding subject of this case consists of four (4) farm lots located at Barangay Lag-on, Daet, Camarines Norte and formerly owned by Estefania David Vda. de Cruz. Covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT) pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27, said landholding was originally tenanted by Ventura Carrascal, husband of petitioner-appellee Agapita Carrascal. Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) covering the property were in his name.

          On June 15, 1983, Ventura Carrascal, with the written conformity of his wife, executed a "Kasulatan ng Paglilipat ng Karapatan sa Pagsasaka sa mga Lupang Palayan" (Kasulatan) thereby transferring his rights over the three (3) farm lots covered by CLT Nos. 036783, 036784 and 03788 in favor of Victoriano Vinzons, herein appellant, in consideration of a Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) — loan and as an acknowledgment of his (Vinzons') hardship in the tillage of said farm lots.

          On September 16, 1983, the Lag-on Samahang Nayon, Inc. (Samahang Nayon, for brevity) passed Resolusyon Bilang I-S 1983 which stated that, per investigation, Ventura Carrascal had long been absent from said farm lots and that he is no longer a resident of Barangay Lag-on, Daet, Camarines Norte. In the same resolution, the Samahang Nayon recommended Victoriano Vinzons to succeed Ventura Carrascal in all the rights and obligations pertaining to the subject farm lots.

          On October 6, 1983, however, owner Estefania David Vda. De Cruz executed a "Sinumpaang Salaysay", and another document denominated "Pagpapatunay", which on its face was notarized on September 20, 1983. There, she stated that Victoriano Vinzons actually assisted Ventura Carrascal in cultivating the subject lands. In the "Pagpapatunay", she stated that Ventura Carrascal has left the farm lots and that Victoriano Vinzons has assumed the tillage thereof.

          On May 28, 1987, the DAR Regional Director, Region V, ordered the reallocation of the four (4) farm lots in question in favor of Victoriano Vinzons, who succeeded Ventura Carrascal as sole owner-cultivator of the same. He also ordered the cancellation/recall of the CLTs in Ventura Carrascal's name and the generation of new certificates of land transfer/emancipation patents in favor of Victoriano Vinzons.

          On February 19, 1992, Agapita Carrascal, claiming to be the legitimate spouse of Ventura, filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO), Daet, Camarines Sur, a petition for transfer action, praying for the transfer from her husband to herself of the rights and obligations over the disputed farm lots. Appended to the petition is a document denominated "Sinumpaang Pahayag" dated October 1, 1991, signed by Estefania David Vda. de Cruz, stating that Agapita Carrascal and her children were the only tenants that she recognized.

          Denying the petition, the OIC Regional Director, Region V, in an order dated April 27, 1994, stated that the ". . . petition . . . was filed only now, two years after the receipt of petitioner of the Order of this Office for re-allocation and long after the thirty-day period for filing such motion had lapsed, . . ."

          From the above order, Carrascal interposed a motion for reconsideration, therein alleging, among other things, that she is in actual cultivation of the land and that the documents upon which the transfer was made in favor of Vinzons were false/fabricated.

          In an Order dated April 27, 1994, the Regional Director, Region V, denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that the "re-allocation of subject landholding from Ventura Carrascal to Victoriano Vinzons was made in accordance with existing administrative rules and regulations, specifically Memorandum Circular Nos. 8-80 and 4-83, [and that] these guidelines have been strictly applied and followed in the case at bar." (emphasis supplied)

          Nothing undaunted, Agapita Carrascal sought a re-investigation of the case, but her request was denied by the Regional Director in an Order of May 29, 1995.

From this latest setback, Agapita Carrascal moved for reconsideration alleging that: 1) the "Kasulatan" was a product of misrepresentation that she and her husband signed on the belief that it pertained to the payment of the loan Ventura Carrascal secured from the Land Bank, Daet Branch, in the amount of P4,000.00, which Victoriano Vinzons promised to pay, but did not; 2) that the Samahang Nayon was bribed to pass the resolution naming Victoriano Vinzons as successor of Ventura Carrascal, and 3) that Victoriano Vinzons was issued emancipation patents when no payment for the land was made with the Land Bank.

          Treating the said motion for reconsideration as an appeal, the DAR Secretary, in an Order dated July 12, 1996 set aside the Order dated May 29, 1995 of the Regional Director, Region V, on the rationale that the wife of the original beneficiary or her children should be the beneficiary. As additional ground, the DAR Secretary stated that the "procedure . . . on surrender and waiver . . . was not strictly followed".

          His motion for reconsideration having been denied by the DAR in an order dated February 28, 1997, the dispositive portion of which is quoted at the outset, Vinzons has interposed this appeal on the submission that the DAR erred:

"1.        IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE OIC REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION IV, DATED MAY 29, 1995, DECLARING THAT THE TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OVER THE DISPUTED LANDHOLDING FROM VENTURA CARRASCAL TO THE HEREIN RESPONDENT-APPELLANT WAS PROPER AND LEGAL, THE SAME HAVING BEEN DONE IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH PERTINENT LAWS, ORDERS RULES AND REGULATIONS.

2.         IN SETTING ASIDE THE AFORESAID ORDER BY GIVING MUCH WEIGHT AND CREDIT TO THE BARE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER-APPELLEE THAT THEY WERE MISLED INTO SIGNING THE KASUNDUAN WITHOUT GIVING THE HEREIN RESPONDENT-APPELLANT COPY OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFUTE THESE ALLEGATIONS IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS."

          The main issue in the instant case centers on the question of whether or not non-compliance with the DAR rules and regulations governing transfer action of areas covered by P.D. 27 by reason of abandonment, waiver of rights and/or illegal transaction renders the consequent re-allocation/disposition of the subject area to another beneficiary null and void.

          The appeal is without merit.

          On the first ground, records show that, contrary to the allegations of appellant, the transfer of rights over the disputed landholding from Ventura Carrascal to appellant was not made in strict observance and compliance with the requirements of the pertinent orders, rules and regulations on the matter, notably, Memorandum Circular (MC) Nos. 7-79, 8-80 and 4-83.

          We fully agree with the holding of the DAR that the instant case does not involve abandonment, as the term is under MC No. 4-83, infra, but one involving a "transfer of rights, ownership of the farm lot" which should be governed by MC Nos. 7-79 and 8-80.

          Memorandum Circular No. 4-83 lists the situations, i.e., abandonment, waiver of rights and illegal transaction, which shall constitute the basis for a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) transfer action, as follows:

"1.        ABANDONMENT

Farmlots shall be considered abandon under any of the following grounds:

a.         Failure to cultivate the lot due to reasons other than the non-suitability of the land to agricultural purposes, for at least two (2) calendar years and to pay the amortizations for the same period.

b.         Permanent transfer of residence by the beneficiary and his family which has rendered him incapable of cultivating the lot.

c.         Relinquishment of possession of the lot for at least two (2) calendar years and to pay amortizations for the same period.

"2.        WAIVER OF RIGHTS

Waiver of rights over the farmlot by a beneficiary in favor of the government for redistribution/disposition shall be in writing and duly notarized by any person authorized to administer oath.

"3.        ILLEGAL TRANSACTIONS

The following transactions shall be considered illegal:

a.         Transfer of rights, ownership of the farmlot except through hereditary succession and to the government; (Memo Circular No. 7, series of 1979).

b.         Surrender of the farmlot to the former landowner.

c.         Employment of a tenant in the cultivation of the lot."

          The same issuance provides that investigation procedures on illegal transaction proceedings shall be governed by MC Nos. 7-79 and 8-80 providing "Guidelines in the disposition and re-allocation of farmholdings of tenants-farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries of P.D. 27".

          Guided by the foregoing issuances, the re-allocation in appellant's favor of the disputed farmlots on the ground of abandonment of the area by Ventura Carrascal is not proper. While Ventura appeared to have vacated the farm lots, his family (wife/children) remained thereat. They in fact continued with cultivation of the area. In fine, the area in question was not abandoned, as the term is used in MC 4-83.

          Memorandum-Circular No. 8-80 — the "Guidelines in the disposition and re-allocation of farmholdings of tenants-farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27" — deals with tenants-farmers who have abandoned or surrendered their farmholdings. Although DAR Regional Office viewed the transfer action of Ventura Carrascal as a case of "abandonment of the farm-lot", the investigation procedure corresponding thereto was not properly and strictly observed.

          Memorandum Circular No. 8-80, Section III thereof, prescribes that ". . . all efforts shall be exerted to convince the tenant-farmer to become a beneficiary and to comply with his obligations as such beneficiary. If the tenant-farmer still persists in refusing to become a beneficiary, it must be ascertained whether any immediate member of his family has assisted in the cultivation of the land, and whether such member is entitled to be substituted to all the rights and obligations of said tenant-beneficiary . . .", (emphasis supplied).

          Other than the single letter-notice dated October 8, 1985, sent by the Team Leader I, Agrarian Reform Team 141, Daet, Camarines Norte, to Ventura Carrascal inviting him to attend a meeting on the matter of the farm lots which he was about to be deprived of for abandonment, the records are bereft of any other documentary evidence to show that: 1) all efforts were exerted to convince the tenant-farmer to become a beneficiary and to comply with the commitment obligations; and 2) to ascertain/identify any immediate member of his family willing to be substituted as tenant-beneficiary. Be that as it may, it can be stated that the DAR municipal/regional offices were amiss in their obligation to observe strictly the rules of procedure prescribed under the aforesaid issuance, which in part provides:

"IV       Investigation Procedure

xxx                      xxx                      xxx

          If the parties deny the existence of the transaction or should they refuse or fail to attend the investigation despite due notice, he should obtain sworn statements of witnesses, preferably the neighboring cultivators of the land involved and/or from at least two (2) members of the Samahang Nayon or Barangay Council, who have knowledge of the transaction."

xxx                      xxx                      xxx

          Thereafter, on the basis of the evidence obtained, the parties shall be confronted and given a chance to present their side. In all cases the proceedings of the investigation shall be recorded and proof of service of notice to the parties or their representatives shall be attached to the record."

          There is nothing in the records to prove that the required confrontation of the parties involved ever took place. There is also no records of the proceedings of the investigation nor proof of service to the parties. Accordingly, the re-allocation of the farm lots in favor of appellant is void. The subsequent issuance of emancipation patents in favor of appellant must also be struck down, emanating as it does from a void re-allocation of the farm lots.

          On the second ground, the appellant contends that he was denied due process because the Order declaring him as not the rightful beneficiary was issued ex-parte and the same was issued beyond the reglementary period. We found the appellant's contention to be incorrect, noting, as the DAR Secretary explained, that when appellee filed with the DAR Office a third motion for reconsideration which was considered as an appeal by the DAR, "on these occasions, respondent was properly appraised (sic) of the pendency of the case, . . . A motion for reconsideration or an appeal that may cure alleged denial of due process (Rosales vs. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 43)."

          In all, this Office finds, as did the DAR, that appellee, being the wife and/or immediate member of the original beneficiary, Ventura Carrascal, and who is willing to be substituted in his stead and place, is the rightful beneficiary of the land subject of this instant action in accordance with existing rules and regulations.

          WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

          SO ORDERED.

          Manila, Philippines.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) RONALDO B. ZAMORA

Executive Secretary