EIGHTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP Case No. 33796. October 24, 1997.]
ESTRELLA ARRASTIA, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, ALEJANDRO DANAN, TIRSO LINGAD, JR., AMADO BELLEZA, CARLITO SANTOS, LADISLAO DANAN, RUBEN SAMBAT, RODRIGO DANAN, ABEDNIDO DANAN, FELIX ESCUETA, ROMEO TALA, ADELMO BALUYUT, PEDRO TALA, RUBEN MANGANTI, PAQUITO CRUZ, RICARDO DIMARUCUT, RUFINO DEL ROSARIO, MARCOS PANGAN, LAURA MAMIAGO, LAMBERTO DANAN, FLORNARDO MANANSALA, DOMINADOR ARIOLA, ROBERTO ZUÑIGA, SR., JOSE MENDOZA, ROMAN BERNAL, BENEDICTO DANAN, JOEL DANAN, RODRIGO PAULE, JIMMY MAÑALAC, FELICIANO MACASPAC, MARIANO MANANSALA, SILVESTRE MANUEL, FAUSTINO PANCAN, FLORENCIO PANCAN, CONRADO CARLOS, RODRIGO PANCAN, MAXIMIANO DANAN, PESCACIO DIMARUCUT, DANIEL DANAN, LUCIANO MANLAPAZ, ARMANDO DANAN, FELICIANO MALLARI, REYNALDO MUSNI, RODEL ZUÑIGA, SOTERO MONTEMAYOR, RICARDO DANAN, ALFREDO MORALES, JESUS NUNAG, ABRAHAM MANUYAG, PEDRO MERCADO, OSCAR MANALILI, FORTUNATO MANUEL, ROSITA BERNAL, RUBEN MIRANDA, NICOLAS MANANSALA, JOSE MANLAPAZ, JR., DIOSDADO LINGAD, MONICA TALA, JULIE CORTES, ANDRES PAULE, RONNIE PAULE, CARLITO AGUILUS, ROMEO BALIÑGIT, BENIGNO PORTALES, ARNEL SAMBAT, ROBERTO ALFARO, ROMEO ALFARO, FELICIANO BUCOD, SR., ONADAB ISIP, CARLITO DIMACALI, JAIME BAUTISTA, ELIAS BALIÑGIT, REMY CARLOS, MARIANO SANTOS, FEDERICO MANLAPAZ, REYNALDO SANTOS, ADELAIDA CALMA, GREGORIO CALMA, PEPITO ALFARO, FERNANDO MANANSALA, JOE RAMIE EMILIA, ROGELIO CORTES, DOMINADOR MALIT, ELPIDIO TALA, RODRIGO TALA, SALVADOR TALA, ROMEO TALA, REMEO DANAN, EDUARDO DANAN, CEZAR DANAN, BENJAMIN PANCAN, DOMINGO SUMANDAL, MOISES SUSI, RODOLFO GERVACIO, SR., RODOLFO GERVACIO, JR., JESUS BERNAL, ALFREDO SANTOS, FORTUNATO DANAN, FRANCISCO MACASPAC, EDWIN MACASPAC, FELICISIMO MACASPAC, DIOSDADO MACASPAC, REYNALDO TIMBANG, EULOGIO MACASPAC, RICARDO CHAVEZ, RUBEN MANUYAG, DELFIN TALA, TOMAS PAULE, CLARO SUBA, DIOSDADO FLORES, FRANCISCO MORALES, VENANCIO FLORES, DOMINADOR FLORES, DANTE FLORES, AGUSTIN ARIOLA, ALFREDO MALLARI, MARCELO ARIOLA, RICARDO ARIOLA, ARTEMIO FLORES, FELICIANO BUCOD, JR., ROLANDO SERRANO, JUANITO LINTAG, TOMAS TALA, LEONARDO RONQUILLO, LAMBERTO TALA, RICARDO LINGAD, ANTONIO SANTOS, IGNACIO TRESVALLES, ERNESTO PITUC, TEOFILO MUÑOZ, BUENVINIDO BELLEZA, MANUEL MAGUIAT, OFELIA MIGUEL, PEDRO TALA, ALEJANDRO TALA, RODRIGO SERRANO, FRANCISCO BERNARTE, OSCAR SERRANO, CONSOLACION SERRANO, CEZAR SERRANO, JOSE BERNARTE, JESUS BERNARTE, CALIXTO SERRANO, ROBERTO MALLARI, ARNOLD PATRICIA, REYNALDO OSBUAL, WILFREDO TAPALLA, ELIZALDE FABREQUILAN, REYNALDO CASTRO, LUISITO MALLARI, ANTONIO ALCANTARA, CEFERINO MALLARI, ABRAHAM DATU, ROLANDO ZITA, SOTERO DATU, DANILO CASTRO, VALENTINE CASTRO, EDGARDO CASTRO, ISIDRO CASTRO, PAQUITO SERRANO, MELENCIO SERRANO, MELCHOR MANAHAN, ANTONIO CASTRO, MARCELO MANANSALA, MARFELA AQUINO, HERMOGENES LACAP, VIRGILIO MANANSALA, NESTOR DATU, ROMEO DATU, ALEGRIA BELLEZA, PURITA MIRANDO, MARIA PEREZ, ALBERTO DELA CRUZ, ARTURO DELA CRUZ, GENERITO TALA, CELESTINO TAPALLA, JIMMY TAPALLA, MIKE TAPALLA, REMIGIO OSBUAL, MYRNA MIGUEL, EDUARDO ESCUETA, CONRADO MALLARI, AVELINO MIGUEL, VICTORINO TALA, IGNACIO DELA CRUZ, ROLANDO OSBUAL and ORLANDO MASANQUE, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
ELBINIAS, J p:
Petition to review over the Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The judgment of the Provincial Adjudicator is hereby modified as follows:
'1. Declaring Dominador Flores, Rodrigo Serrano, Oscar Salazar, Alejandro Danan, Tirso Lingad, Francisco Santos, Dante Danan, Jesus Castro, Amado Escueta, Marcos Susi, Francisco Bernarte, Felix Escueta, Ladislao Danan, Lamberto Danan, Carlito Santos, Orlando Santos, Jose Manansala, Eulalio Danan, Eddie Escueta, Conrado Castro, Pedro Tala and Victorino Tala to be agricultural lessees on their respective tillages, and ordering their reinstatement on the land;
2. Ordering the rest of the plaintiffs-Appellees to be reinstated on the land and occupy their respective areas of cultivation;
3. Ordering the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Region III, San Fernando, Pampanga, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer for the Province of Pampanga and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer for the Municipality of Lubao, Province of Pampanga to immediately undertake administrative processes for the coverage of the land under Republic Act No. 6657 and other applicable agrarian laws, DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, DAR Department Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1993 and other DAR Rules and regulations taking into consideration the qualifications of Appellees to be beneficiaries of the program as well as the right of retention of the owners of the subject landholding and the last paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No. 6657 which provides:
'Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void; Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Registry of Deeds within a period of three (3) months afer (sic) the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Register of Deeds shall inform the DAR within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.'
4. Ordering Defendant-Appellant, or any person or persons acting for and in her behalf, to refrain from committing any act or acts which will disturb or in any way adversely interfere with the peaceful possession, occupation and farming activities of Appellees on the land itself;
5. Ordering Defendant-Appellant to pay Plaintiffs-Appellees the reasonable amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as attorney's fees plus costs of the suit; and
6. Ordering the Regional Sheriff of the DAR Regional Adjudication Board, Region III, to implement this order and submit a return to this Board within seven (7) days from receipt of this Order.
This decision is immediately executory pursuant to Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657.
SO ORDERED."
The facts are as follows:
Sometime in 1976, the land in dispute, a 210 hectare sugar plantation called the TRA Farms, owned by the Arrastia and Reinares heirs, was leased by one Rustico Coronel for a period of twelve (12) years, until the crop year 1987-88.
On September 27, 1986, persons claiming to be farmers and residents of Barangays Lourdes and San Rafael, anticipating the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARP), signed a joint resolution to enter the land in dispute and to lease it from the Arrastia and Reinares heirs, Governor Bren Guiao of Pampanga favorably endorsed the same to then Minister of Environment and Natural Resources Heherson Alvarez.
On the basis of such resolution, members of the Aniban ng mga Manggagawa sa Agricultura (AMA), without the consent of the owners, entered the disputed land, cleared portions of the same and planted corn, peanuts and sweet potatoes. This culminated in a violent confrontation on May 21, 1988 that resulted in the filing of various criminal charges against the AMA members.
On June 2, 1988, members of the AMA filed a complaint with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed as DARAB Case No. 0001. The complaint sought to prevent respondents from demolishing their houses and existing crops and from fencing the property. (Petition, Annex C) On July 14, 1988, the AMA members filed a motion praying that they be allowed to continue their farming on the disputed land. (Petition, Annex D)
On August 15, 1988, the DARAB ordered the DAR Regional Director to conduct an ocular inspection of the land in question. The report submitted on August 24, 1988 stated thus:
"4. At present, there is no sign of maintenance because "talahib" and weedy furrows can be seen except a portion containing an area of 500 square meters, more or less in the alleged area of Felicisimo Macaspac, camote on the flowering stage are planted.
5. A bigger portion of the land in question is not planted to crop. Dried standing corn stalks, uprooted camote plants, stunted okra, bananas and squashes can be seen." (Petition, Annex E)
On September 21, 1989, Lubao Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Josefina S. Vidal issued a report charging the AMA members with violation of Sections 22 and 23 of Executive Order No. 229 and recommending that, as such, they be disqualified as CARP beneficiaries.
On October 5, 1988, the DARAB, headed by then Secretary Philip Ella Juico denied AMA's Motion for Authority to Cultivate. (Petition, Annex G) AMA's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on April 20, 1989. (Petition, Annex H) The said orders became final and executory on July 29, 1989.
The respondents in the above case filed a Motion for Execution of the DARAB's order, but the same was denied by PARAD Toribio E. Ilao on September 21, 1992.
On October 9, 1989, petitioner, acting on her own behalf and as attorney-in-fact of the other landowners of the disputed lands, filed an action with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, Pampanga, docketed as Agrarian Case No. 2000, against AMA members including herein private respondents, charging them with violation of Section 23 (b) of R.A. 6657 (CARL). (Petition, Annex I) The RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing defendants herein to desist from entering the land in question and from cultivating the same. (Petition, Annex J) Later, the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction. (Petition, Annex K)
It appearing that the AMA members continued to defy the orders of the RTC, the latter cited them for contempt on January 20, 1994. (Petition, Annex M)
On November 29, 1989, AMA members filed a case against petitioner with the DARAB Region III office docketed as DARAB Regional Case No. 161-P'89. (Petition, Annex N) In this petition, they sought to restrain petitioner from preventing their re-entry and re-occupation of the disputed land.
On December 7, 1990, the Hearing Officer issued an order (1) declaring the disputed-300 hectare land to be within the coverage of the CARL, (2) declaring the AMA members in possession of the same to be qualified farmer beneficiaries, and (3) directing the MARO and DAR personnel to proceed with the administrative processes mandated by the CARL to put the disputed land under CARL coverage.
On June 30, 1991, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion questioning the DARAB's jurisdiction over the case, in light of the earlier decision of the DARAB in Case No. 001 which allegedly disposed of the same causes of action raised by the AMA members, and had already become final and executory. The Provincial Adjudicator denied the motion on June 9, 1992.
On September 22, 1992, the PARAD Region III granted the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by the AMA members.
Sometime in early 1993, petitioner was shot, allegedly by AMA members. She survived the attack with serious injuries.
On March 3, 1993, petitioner filed a Motion to Change Venue and Adjudicator, citing the attempt on her life and inability to attend the hearings. (Petition, Annex O)
On May 13, 1993, without ruling on that motion, the Provincial Adjudicator rendered a decision (1) confirming that the subject properties are agricultural lands subject to RA 6657, and that the AMA members are qualified beneficiaries of the law, (2) making permanent the September 22, 1992 injunction, and (3) ordering petitioners to pay attorneys' fees.
On May 21, 1993, petitioner appealed said decision to the DARAB. On March 28, 1994, the DARAB rendered its assailed decision affirming with modification the appealed decision. Hence, this petition.
The petitioner now comes before us by this instant petition for review, raising the following issues:
I
RESPONDENT DARAB GRAVELY ERRED IN IGNORING FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS BY ITS FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO CONSIDER SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY PETITIONER IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW RESULTING IN FINDINGS WHICH ARE NOT ONLY CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, BUT ARE FURTHER PATENTLY PARTIAL TO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.
II
RESPONDENT DARAB GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AS FALLING WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW (RA 6657) NOTWITHSTANDING THAT —
A. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE STATUTE.
B. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN SUBDIVIDED INTO SMALL AREAS GENERALLY WITHIN THE RETENTION LIMIT UNDER RA 6657.
C. A NUMBER OF THE SUBDIVIDED LOTS ARE RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER AND HAVE BEEN SO CHARACTERIZED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVITY OF RA 6657 FOR WHICH TAXES UNDER THE NEW CLASSIFICATION HAVE BEEN PAID.
D. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.
III
RESPONDENT DARAB GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THE PHYSICAL REINSTATEMENT OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES DESPITE THE FACT THAT —
A. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, BEING MERE INTERLOPERS, HAVE NO ACTUAL NOR LEGAL POSSESSION OVER THE SUBJECT PREMISES.
B. THERE IS AN EXISTING LEASE CONTRACT INVOLVING THE SUBJECT PREMISES IN FAVOR OF RUSTICO CORONEL.
IV
RESPONDENT DARAB COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN ORDERING THE DAR, PARO AND MARO TO IMMEDIATELY TAKE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES TO PUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDER THE COVERAGE OF RA 6657 IN THAT —
A. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES OF LAND UNDER RA 6657.
B. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN SUBDIVIDED INTO SMALL AREAS GENERALLY WITHIN THE RETENTION LIMIT UNDER RA 6657.
V
RESPONDENT DARAB SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO DESIST FROM INTERFERING WITH THE POSSESSION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AS THEY DO NOT QUALIFY AS FARMER BENEFICIARIES UNDER RA 6657.
VI
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING.
VII
RESPONDENT DARAB GRAVELY ERRED IN ANNULLING AND SETTING ASIDE ITS OWN RESOLUTION IN DARAB CASE NO. 001, AND IN INTERFERING WITH THE ORDERS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PAMPANGA, BRANCH 48, ACTING AS A SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT.
VIII
RESPONDENT DARAB GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO PAY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS OF SUIT.
The petition should be granted.
We find that the DARAB erred in declaring private respondents to be qualified beneficiaries under the CARL when in fact, the reports made by the DAR's own officers show that they should have been disqualified from being such.
MARO Josefina Vidal reported on September 21, 1989 thus:
"III. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:
1. T.R.A. Farms and V.A. Farms, now virtually non-existent, are owned by the heirs of Arrastia and Reinares family. The vast sugarcane plantation about 210 hectares was leased to Mr. Rustico Coronel of Sta. Rita, Lubao, Pampanga, ten (10) years prior to the EDSA Revolution.
2. September 27, 1986. — Farmers and residents of barangays, namely Lourdes, (Lauc Pao), San Rafael (Baruya), San Isidro, and Santiago (Culubasa), Lubao, Pampanga, signed a Joint Resolution, to lease the property of the Arrastia-Reinares planted to sugarcane, whose civil law lessee was Rustico Coronel. This resolution was presented to Governor Bren Guiao, who endorsed the petition favorably to former Minister Heherson Alvarez last October 24, 1986.
Encouraged by the recommendation of the Governor, some of the petitioners, members of A.M.A. (Anibang Manggagawa Sa Agrikultura) started clearing some portions of the land and planted cash crops, such as, sweet potatoes, peanuts, and corn.
3. May 21, 1988. — The first violent confrontation was recorded by the A.M.A. members of the landowners. The Station Commander of Lubao, Police Station investigated the forcible removal of the fence by the A.M.A. members. The length of the barb wire which was removed and stolen by about 100 men and women was approximately 1,000 meters with undetermined value. Consequently, they were sued for robbery and a Warrant of Arrest was issued May 26, 1988 for Reyna Timbang y Vizcayno, et. al.
4. June 22, 1988. — Prompted by the need to shield its members from the criminal case, the A.M.A. filed a complaint in the DARAB Central Office, Quezon City. The case was numbered 001, dated June 22, 1988.
After mediation with the landowners and A.M.A. members, a Status Quo Order was issued.
5. October 5, 1988. — Honorable Philip Juico, Secretary and Chairman of DARAB denied the petition of the complainants, A.M.A. members, to cultivate the land at issue.
6. April 20, 1989. — The DARAB again denied the motion of the A.M.A. members to cultivate the land at issue. The A.M.A. members never complied to all the orders ever since and until now have been planting and occupying the land without giving due considerations to the landowners. They also refused dialogue in the municipal level.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
1. The A.M.A. members are in clear violation of E.O. 229, Section 22 and 23 and should be disqualified as CARP beneficiaries.
2. The case is close (sic) as far as the MARO is concerned, since the DARAB have given their decision." (Petition, Annex F)
The pertinent portion of DARAB Case No. 0001 as cited in MARO Vidal's report states:
"The foregoing report, while revealing some sparse plantings of short-maturing cash crops on different small portions of the land in question, does not show substantially significant plantings on the land that need to be cared for until harvest. The sporadic existing plantings thereon have been described to be either "dried up", "stunted" or "wilted". These findings militate against the granting of the motion."
The DARAB erred when it gave scant consideration to the Vidal report. Such lack of consideration is evident when it merely quoted the first three (3) paragraphs of the Vidal report (Rollo, p. 26), as opposed to the ten (10) paragraphs we quoted above, thus presenting an inadequate picture of the events.
The private respondents' evident bad faith is shown by the fact that they even refused to comply with the TRO and the preliminary injunction issued by the RTC of Pampanga, Branch 48, in Agrarian Case No. 2000. Despite the same, they still entered and cultivated the land, prompting the RTC to cite them for contempt. A petition for habeas corpus seeking the release of the A.M.A. members who were caught by the police entering and cultivating the disputed land, filed with this Court (CA G.R. SP No. 29284) was dismissed for lack of merit, such dismissal being affirmed by the Supreme Court in Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals (GR No. 107741, Oct. 18, 1996). Neither does it appear that the DAR and private respondents complied with the TRO issued by this Court on April 13, 1994. Indeed, the photographs taken by petitioner at around May 25, 1994 (Rollo, p. 161) show that private respondents ignored the order of this Court.
Clearly, the above facts show that private respondents, by their actuations, should have been disqualified from becoming CARP beneficiaries. Section 22 of E.O. 229 states:
"Sec. 22. Permanent Disqualification. — Persons, associations or entities who prematurely enter the land to avail themselves of the rights and benefits hereunder, shall be permanently disqualified from receiving benefits and shall forfeit their rights hereunder."
In view of the foregoing, the DARAB erred when it declared private respondents to be CARP beneficiaries, instead of disqualifying them pursuant to the aforequoted Sec. 22 of E.O. 229, but more importantly, private respondents should have been disqualified, based on the reports of its own officers. Considering that private respondents are, and should have been, disqualified as CARL beneficiaries, it is no longer necessary to determine if they are tenants or agricultural tillers.
While courts should accord respect, or even finality, to the findings of administrative agencies, this is premised on the proposition that their findings "are backed up by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." (Ynson vs. Court of Appeals, GR Nos. 117018-19, 257 SCRA 411 [1996]) In the case at bar, however, we find that the DARAB's decision cannot be viewed as having been supported by substantial evidence when it ignored an uncontroverted and crucial evidence that private respondents, for their unlawful actuations described above, had rendered themselves disqualified as CARL beneficiaries under said E.O. 229.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The appealed Decision of the DARAB affirming with modification the decision of the PARAD is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Barcelona and Tuquero, JJ., concur.