[O.P. Case No. 4607.  September 2, 1993.]

IN RE: PETITION TO EXEMPT FROM THE COVERAGE OF OPERATION LAND TRANSFER AND/OR RETENTION PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27

SEVERINA M. BENZON, petitioner-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

          This refers to the appeal filed by Severina M. Benzon, thru counsel, from the order of the Department of Agrarian Reform, dated May 20, 1991, the decretal portion of which reads:

          "WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Order is hereby issued dismissing the instant appeal for lack of merit, and thereby affirming the Resolution dated March 12, 1987 issued by the OIC, DAR, Regional Director of Region V."

          On July 27, 1982, Severina N. Benzon filed a petition before the Ministry, now Department, of Agrarian Reform (DAR) praying that she "be allowed pursuant to PD 27 to retain the afore-mentioned riceland parcels and whatever Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the afore-mentioned tenants be recalled".

          Acting thereon, a notice of investigation was issued by the DAR Regional Office on June 21, 1983. On August 14, 1985, an investigation report was submitted containing these pertinent facts:

          "In a sworn statement on the Declaration of Ownership of Agricultural Lands submitted by Santiago Benzon, husband of the petitioner and in the Certificate of Assessment issued by the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Sorsogon, dated October 26, 1982, the herein petitioner and her husband does own more than seven (7) hectares of other agricultural lands other than rice/or corn.

          The petitioner also executed an affidavit to the effect that aside from the agricultural lands mentioned in the Certificate of Assessment, the petitioner does not own other agricultural lands in other municipalities.

          IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the undersigned recommends for the approval of the above-entitled petition."

          However, the Officer-in-Charge of the DAR District Office in a 1st Indorsement of May 14 1986, recommended the reversal of the recommendation made on the investigation report arguing that:

          "This office beg to disagree with the Legal Officer's recommendation for the approval of the petition. Records of the Sorsogon Provincial Assessor's Office showed that petitioner and her husband has a total of 40.4146 hectares of other agricultural lands, of other agricultural lands, of these 17.7203 .hectares has been transferred to their children Tito, Leticia and Estrella after P.D. 27 (see attached Letter dated April 18, 1986)."

          On November 11, 1986, the DAR issued an order denying the petition of Benzon for lack of merit.

          On December 5, 1986, Benzon moved for a reconsideration of the aforesaid order, but the motion was denied by the DAR in a resolution, dated March 12, 1987, ruling that:

          "From a careful review of the record it appears that as of October 21, 1972, the spouses Santiago Benzon and Severina Benzon owned 7.9200 hectares of riceland situated at Gabao, Irosin, Sorsogon and 33.3018 hectares of other agricultural lands as borne out by the certification issued by the Provincial Assessor of Sorsogon, dated February 13, 1987. Petitioner alleged that she and her late husband Santiago Benzon had already sold their lands to their children and that what remains in her ownership is an area of not more than seven (7) hectares . . . and that LOI cannot repeal a Presidential Decree because prior to its approval on October 21, 1976 they do not own the agricultural lands which will cover their tenanted riceland holdings. However, this Office in a series of decisions has ruled that transfer made after October 21, 1972 constitute an act to circumvent P.D. No. 27. Moreover, the clarificatory guidelines on coverage of P.D. No. 27 and retention by small landowners Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 18-81 provides: 'For purposes of determining whether or not a small landowner is entitled to retention his ownership of other agricultural lands or urban lands shall be. reckoned as of October 21, 1972. Alienations of such other agricultural lands or urban lands after said date shall not entitle the landowner to retain.'"

          On April 13, 1987, Benzon filed a "PETITION APPEAL" from the aforesaid resolution, but the same was also denied by the DAR in an order, dated May 20, 1991, the decretal portion of which was quoted at the threshold hereof.

          Hence, this present recourse.

          The appeal deserves no merit. We are in accord with the appealed order denying appellant's petition for exemption from the coverage of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27 "Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenant from the Bondage of the Soil". Under PD 27, the tenant-farmer shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a family size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and three (3) hectares if irrigated. In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it.

          The appealed order is supported by the evidence on record which shows that, as of October 21, 1972 (issuance of PD 27), appellant owned a total of 40.4146 hectares. The 1987 Constitution emphasizes that property ownership is impressed with a social function. This means that the owner has the obligation to use his property not only to benefit himself but society as well. Hence, the Constitution provides under Section 1 paragraph 2 of Article XIII thereof that in the promotion of social justice, the State "shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments. "Thus, the State has the authority to limit property holdings (Secs. 4, 9: see Article XII, Secs. 1, 3 of the Constitution); to abolish land tenancy and replace it with a system of landholding (see Sec. 4).

          The issues as to when appellant transferred her landholding and whether or not she owned a total of 40.4146-hectare landholding are clearly factual. Accordingly, this Office will not disturb the findings of the office a quo that are supported, as here, by substantial evidence. The findings of the trier of facts, when supported by substantial evidence, are well-nigh conclusive on an appellate tribunal (De Chavez vs. Zobel, 55 SCRA 26).

          WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

          SO ORDERED.

          Manila, Philippines.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING

Senior Deputy Executive Secretary