[O.P. Case No. 98-E-8335.  January 07, 2000.]

RE: PETITION TO RECALL OR TO DECLARE AS NULL AND VOID THE ORDER OF EXCLUSION OF TCT NO. 137121 WITH AN AREA OF 540.093 HECTARES OF SUPERIOR AGRO-INDUSTRIAL, INC. FROM THE OPERATION OF THE CARP AND TO DECLARE TENANTS-PETITIONERS ENTITLED TO LAND TRANSFER

CHARLIE A. MAHINAY, FIDEL B. NOTARION, JESUS R. RUGA, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. SUPERIOR AGRO-INDUSTRIAL, INC. and ELMER YAO, respondents-appellants.

D E C I S I O N

          This refers to the appeal of respondents-appellants Superior Agro-Industrial, Inc. (SAI for brevity) and Elmer Yao from the Order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary dated March 17, 1998, the dispositive portion of which reads:

          "WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued:

1.         EXCLUDING the 457.75 hectares, more or less, from CARP coverage;

2.         CANCELING the exclusion of the 82.2893 hectares, more or less, from CARP coverage; and

3.         ORDERING the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Quezon II to place the same under the coverage of [Republic Act] R.A. 6657, or otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), and immediately identify farmers qualified to become beneficiaries of the same.

SO ORDERED." (Emphasis supplied)

          The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

          On March 4, 1994, SAI owner and operator of Rancho Superior filed an application for the exclusion of its 540.1193 — hectare property situated at Pagsanghan, San Francisco, Quezon, from CARP coverage. The said application was forwarded on September 5, 1994 by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) to the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office (DARRO). In his memorandum dated October 17, 1994, Land Use Conversion and Exemption Committee (LUCEC) member Armando Polinag recommended the disapproval of the application for lack of official proof on the number of livestock and on the ground that the income statements of the applicant corporation show that the ranch-farm is not operating on a commercial level. The said application was returned to DARRO to PARO on November 29, 1994 for completion of the requirements and was resubmitted on February 6, 1995.

          On the basis of the certifications issued by Municipal Agricultural Officer Jaslito Abo and Livestock Inspector Felimon Carandang as well as the ocular inspection report of DAR field personnel showing that the subject property has 425 heads of cattle, 35 horses, 99 carabaos, 90 goats and 300 layers, the LUCEC recommended the approval of the subject application. Pursuant thereto, then Regional Director Percival C. Dalugdug issued an Order dated April 20, 1995, excluding the aforesaid 540.1193-hectare land from CARP coverage, with the proviso that DAR is reserving the right to withdraw or revoke the said order for misrepresentation of facts integral to its issuance and when the basis for exclusion no longer exists. Thereafter, on April 21, 1996, the late Regional Director A. Tabones issued a certification declaring that the order of exclusion has become final and executory.

          In a letter-request ("Sama-samang Kahilingan") dated August 8, 1996, petitioners-appellees sought the revocation of the aforementioned exclusion order, alleging that, owing to the good administration of the former SAI Farm Manager, they consented to the exclusion of the subject land from CARP coverage; that Mr. Elmer Yao, the new Farm Manager and one of the respondents-appellants, has treated them harshly and unjustly; that they were not given any salary and the sharing system being observed by Mr. Yao is 70%-30%; and that, per head count conducted by the DARRO personnel of San Francisco, there were only 422 heads of cattle, goats and horses in Rancho Superior.

          Meanwhile, in a letter addressed to Regional Director Tabones dated September 9, 1996, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Durante L. Ubeda stated that the DARMO personnel of San Francisco conducted on May 24, 1996 an ocular inspection as well as actual head count of livestock on the subject property and it was then found out that there were only 422 heads of livestock, itemized as follows:

Cattle (all ages)                                   390

Horses                                                    29

Goats(7:1/ha) 22 heads                           3

                                                           ———

Total:                                                    422

          Consequently, Mr. Ubeda recommended that the exclusion order be amended and the area in excess of 540.0393 hectares, more specifically 82.2893 hectares, be covered under RA 6657.

          Subsequently, petitioners-appellees filed a petition dated March 16, 1997, therein praying that the order of exclusion be recalled or declared null and void on the ground that the same has no factual and legal basis; was not the result of honest, truthful and correct assessment of the area; and was issued without any hearing and notice to them. To support their allegations, they submitted their respective affidavits stating their claim of tenancy or status as workers over the subject landholding.

          Respondents-appellants denied the foregoing allegations in their answer filed on May 27, 1997.

          Thereafter, the DAR Secretary issued an Order dated March 17, 1998, the dispositive portion of which was quoted at the outset. Explaining his ruling, the DAR wrote:

          "After a careful review of the records of this case, this Office admits that the plain petition of herein petitioners is not sufficient to prove that indeed there are no infrastructures, cattle or other livestock, or at least the number of such livestocks and cattles have decreased or the infrastructures over the subject land no longer exist.

          However, this Office took cognizance of a letter dated 9 September 1996 sent by PARO Durante L. Ubeda of Quezon II, and addressed to the then Regional Director for Region IV Remigio Tabones, informing the latter that on 24 May 1996, the DARMO personnel of San Francisco, Quezon conducted an ocular inspection and actual headcount of livestock on the said property and it was found out that based on the case report forwarded to DAR-Provincial Office, Quezon II, that at present there are only 422 heads of livestocks itemized as follows: 1.) Cattle (all ages) — 390; 2) Horses — 29; Goats (7:1/ha) 22 heads — 3. That based on Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993, No. III letter B, in determining the areas qualified for exclusion, the following ratios of land, livestock, poultry and swine raising shall be adopted: CATTLE, CARABAO and Horse Raising regardless of age — the maximum is one (1) head to 1 hectare. SHEEP and GOAT Raising regardless of age the maximum ratio is seven (7) heads to one (1) hectare, and for infrastructure of Cattle, Carabao, Horses Raising, a ratio of 21 heads for every 1.7815 hectares of infrastructure. Based on these stated facts, PARO Ubeda recommended that the Exclusion Order dated 20 April 1995 be amended and the area in excess of 540.0393 hectares which is 82.2893 hectares be covered under CARP.

          This Office after a careful study of the abovestated recommendation is inclined to adopt the same for being regular and unrebutted by the evidences submitted by herein respondent Superior Agro-Industrial Inc..

          Further, the contention of the respondent that the letter of PARO Ubeda was based on erroneous report by the MARO and somehow made a deliberate intent to suppress the actual number of animals by failing to include in the report the number of carabaos which were inoculated by the Municipal Agricultural Officer Mr. Dominador delos Santos, totaling ninety one (91) heads is bereft of merit. A meticulous examination of the said report/certification reveals that the same did not specify the date of the alleged inoculation of ninety one (91) heads of carabao. Hence, this Office considers the same as a doubtful credibility to support the respondent's contention.

          Moreover, the contention of herein respondent that the exclusion Order issued by Director Percival C Dalugdug had already acquired its finality based on certification dated 22 April 1996, issued by Regional Director Remigio A. Tabones cannot be given credit. It must be noted that the Order itself granting the exclusion of the subject property from CARP coverage explicitly provides that the DAR reserves the right to withdraw or revoke the said Order for misrepresentation of facts integral to its issuance and when the basis for which the exclusion was granted no longer exist."

          Hence, this appeal.

          The main issue posed for consideration and resolution is whether or not an order of exclusion from CARP coverage could still be revoked or cancelled despite its having been declared final.

          We rule in the affirmative.

          It bears stressing that the certificate of finality of the exclusion order was issued pursuant to Department Memorandum Circular (DMC) No. 10 ("Procedure in the Issuance of Finality of Orders/Resolutions of Cases Arising from the Administrative Implementation of Agrarian Reform Law Issued by the Secretary") dated May 28, 1994.

          There were, however, rules and regulations specifically issued to govern the exclusion of agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry and swine raising from the coverage of CARP. These are set forth under Administrative Order (AO) No. 9 dated December 27, 1993, Sections III-D and V of which respectively read as follows:

          "D.       The MARO shall conduct a continuing review and verification of excluded lands to ascertain which of the areas or portions thereof are no longer used for livestock, poultry and swine raising purposes. If the area or portion thereof is no longer used for livestock, poultry and swine raising the area or portion involved shall automatically revert to the category of agricultural land, and shall be covered under CARP pursuant to A.O. No 9, Series of 1990, as amended by A.O. No. 1, Series of 1992, on land acquisition and distribution, and Section V of this Administrative Order." (Emphasis supplied)

          "V.       REVIEW AND REVISION/REVOCATION OF EXCLUSION ORDER

          The Office of the Undersecretary for Field Operations shall monitor through reports of the MARO's cases wherein the bases for which exclusions were granted no longer exist. He shall recommend the revision or revocation of the Certificate of exclusion as the case may be, thereby automatically reverting the subject land or portion thereof to the category of agricultural land covered under CARP. The Secretary shall decline that the subject land is no longer for the purpose."

          Rules and regulations issued by administrative or executive officers, in accordance with, and as authorized by law, such as AO 9 and DMC 10, have the force and effect of law or partake the nature of a statute (Victorias Milling Company, Inc. v. Social Security Commission, 4 SCRA 627, 630 [1962]). Hence, a basic principle in legal hermeneutics applies, that is, where there are two acts, one of which is special and particular and the other general, which if standing alone, would include the same matter and thus conflict with the special act, the special must prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than that of a general statute and must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the general act (Lichauco & Company, Inc. v. Apostol and Corpus, 44 Phil. 138, 147 [1922]; De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760, 767 [1983]).

          A general law is one which embraces a class of subjects and does not omit any subject naturally belonging to such class, while a special act is one which relates to particular persons or things of a class (Villegas v. Subido, 41 SCRA 190, 198 [1971]). DMC 10 partakes the nature of a general law since it deals with orders/resolutions of cases arising from the administrative implementation of agrarian reform law issued by the DAR Secretary. Upon the other hand, AO 9 should be considered a special act because it specifically applies to orders of exclusion from CARP coverage.

          Thus, the orders susceptible of finality under DMC 10 do not include an order of exclusion from CARP coverage. The latter is governed instead by AO 9, which explicitly states that excluded lands shall be subject to continuing review and verification for the purpose of ascertaining whether said lands or portions thereof are still being used for livestock, poultry and swine raising; otherwise, the order of exclusion shall be revised/revoked. Likewise, there is nothing in the operating procedures of AO 9 which provides that absent any appeal therefrom, an order of exclusion shall become final after the lapse of a certain period.

          Undoubtedly, the subject order of exclusion could, therefore, be revised/cancelled despite the declaration of its finality in question.

          Apropos the question of whether the diminution of the original 540.0393 hectares excluded area has factual basis, suffice it to state that, as aptly observed by the DAR in justification for such exclusion "the ninety-one (91) heads of carabao originally included and counted in the Exclusion Order no longer exist at the time actual headcount of the livestocks in the subject property was made". It is settled that the findings of the office a quo are to be accorded respect in view of its acquired expertise on a particular field. Hence, absent any clear and convincing evidence that an error had been committed by the DARMO personnel in conducting a review and verification on the actual number of livestock being raised in the involved SAI property, this Office must uphold the results thereof.

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

          SO ORDERED.

          Manila, Philippines.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) RONALDO B. ZAMORA

Executive Secretary

Copy furnished:

Atty. Dante P. Mercado

Mr. Charlie A. Mahinay, et al.

Attys. Jovito E. Talabong
& Oscar Santos

The PARO, DAR, Gumaca, Quezon

DAR-Region IV

Department of Agrarian Reform