FOURTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 39604. May 9, 1997.]
PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICE, petitioner, vs. HON. LUCENITO N. TAGLE, as Judge RTC of Imus, Cavite Branch 20 and PEDRO G. CARAGAO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
ADEFUIN-DE LA CRUZ, B., J p:
This Petition for Certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the respondent Judge's Order dated 4, 1995 denying the motion to dismiss and the Order of December 28, 1995 denying the motion for reconsideration of the August 4, 1995 Order, issued in Civil Case No. 1121-95 entitled: Pedro S. Caragao vs. The Register of Deeds for Trece Martires City, et al., (Petition, Annexes "E" and "K", Rollo, pp. 53-56; 133-136), on the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant case.
The background facts of this petition are as follows:
On June 28, 1995, petitioner Pedro S. Caragao (private respondent hereint) filed a Petition for Annulment of Title with Preliminary Injunction and Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order against The Register of Deed for Trece Martires City, Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (herein petitioner), Land Bank of the Philippines, Alex Villanueva and Antonio G. Evangelista, in their respective private capacity, with the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 20, docketed as Civil Case No. 1121-95 (Petition, Annex "A", Rollo pp. 008-016).
Petitioner Caragao is a register owner of two (2) parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-343170 and T-343171 situated in the Municipality of Malinta, Sampaloc, Dasmariñas, Cavite.
On January 7, 1994, private respondent, Pedro S. Caragao filed an application for exemption/exclusion from the coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of these said properties (Rollo, p. 88) which was denied in the Order dated May 29, 1995, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, an Order is hereby issued denying the instant application for exemption for CARP coverage filed by Pedro Caragao involving the 847,794 square meters, more or less, landholding situated at Brgy. Malinta Dasmariñas, Cavite, Consequently, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Dasmariñas, Cavite is hereby directed to determined who among the proposed beneficiaries are the most qualified to become awardees of the subject properties.
SO ORDERED." (Id., Annex "E", p. 86)
A motion for reconsideration of the said Order dated May 29, 1995 was denied in the Order dated November 15, 1995 (Id., pp. 88-91).
Consequently, in a letter dated June 19, 1995, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) through PARO Officer Antonio G. Evangelista requested the Register of Deeds of the Trece Martires City to transfer the title of the property in favor of the Republic of the Philippines there being already the Land Bank certification that the amount of P6,822,074.14 has been reserved as compensation for the subject parcels of land (Annexes "C" and "D": Petition, pp. 20-21).
Accordingly, Alejandro R. Villanueva, the Register of Deeds of Trece Martires City effected the cancellation of TCT No. T-343171 and the issuance of a new TCT No. T-558222 in the name of the Republic of the Philippines (Annexes "A" and "B", Petition: id., pp. 18-19).
On June 27, 1995, when private respondent caused the verification on whether the restraining order issued by the First Division of this Court in its Resolution dated December 15, 1992 in CA-G.R. SP No. 28625, entitled "Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr., vs. Honorable Julieto P. Tabiolo, et al., enjoining both public and private respondents therein from "touching or dealing in any manner with the properties covered by TCT Nos. T-343170 in the name of respondent Pedro Caragao until further orders from this Court" (Comment to Petition, Annex, "A", Rollo, p. 152), is annotated in the said title, private respondent was surprised to learn that said parcels of land were placed under the compulsory acquisition pursuant to RA 6657 and that the land covered by TCT No. T-343171 had been cancelled and transferred in the name of Republic of the Philippines and a new title TCT No. 558222 was issued in its favor.
Hence, the petition docketed as Civil Case No. 1121-95, alleging among others: that the cancellation of private respondent's title and the transfer and issuance of new title in favor of the Republic of the Philippines is null and void ab initio due to the following:
1. It is effected by a mere letter request from the respondent Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) through PARO Officer Antonio G. Evangelista, not by the Department of Agriculture (DAR), together with a mere certification of the Land Bank of the Philippines that the amount of P6,822,074.14 has been reserved as compensation thereto, in violation of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1529 and Section 16 of RA 6657;
2. The Register of Deeds of Trece Martires City caused the said cancellation and transfer based on a mere non-registered letter request contrary to the mandatory requirement of a public document as provided in PD 1529; and
3. That said transfer and issuance of new title deprived private respondent of his right and ownership over the subject without due process of law and had made aforesaid CA-G.R. SP No. 28625 as well as Civil Case No. 630-92, entitled "Jose S. Ancero, et al. vs. Pedro Cagarao" pending before the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 20, moot and academic (Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 8-17).
In their Answer (with Motion to Dismiss) dated July 14, 1995, herein petitioner alleged, among others, that the Court a quo has no jurisdiction to hear the instant case on the ground that it involves the implementation of agrarian reform program of the government which was the domain of the DAR through the DAR Adjudication Board which was created under Executive Order No. 129-A dated July 26, 1987 and as provided in Section 50 of RA 6657 (Petition, Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 25-33).
In his assailed Order dated August 4, 1995, public respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss filed by herein petitioner (Petition, Annex E, id., pp. 53-56).
The motion for reconsideration dated August 23, 1995 filed by herein petitioner was likewise denied by respondent Judge in his other assailed Order dated December 28, 1995 (Petition, Annex "K"; id., pp. 133-136).
Hence, the instant petition.
In an action for certiorari, the main issue is the jurisdiction of the inferior court, board or officer against whom the writ is prayed for.
In the instant case, the court a quo has indeed acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. The complaint questioned the precipitate manner of cancellation of private respondent's title in violation of the rules on compulsory acquisition of the lands under CARP and disregard of due process for the private respondent was not notified or informed that his property will be placed under compulsory land acquisition, and in fact had been transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Further, private respondent seeks damages against two (2) defendants, Alex (Alejandro) Villanueva and Antonio Evangelista not only in their official capacity as Register of Deeds of Cavite and as Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, respectively, but, also in their private capacity having acted beyond their official duties and functions, which case of actions are not within the jurisdiction of the DAR but of the regular courts. As correctly pointed out by the respondent Judge, to wit:
". . . the matters alleged in the petition are cognizable by ordinary courts of justice and not by DAR. For, if truly said defendants acted illegally and arbitrarily, in excess of their official functions and duties, their acts are not, and can never be consider as, the official acts of the DAR in the implementation and enforcement of CARL." (Third par., Order dated August 4, 1995, id., p. 54)
Section 16, of Republic Act 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, provides:
'Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
'a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding valued in accordance with the valuation set forth in Section 17, 18 and other pertinent provisions hereof.
'b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
'c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
'd) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduce summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.
'e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. In DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
'f) Any party who disagree with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation." (Emphasis supplied)
And, to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, the DAR put in place the following operating procedures:
". . .
II. OPERATING PROCEDURES
A. The Municipal Agrarian Officer, with the assistance of the pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall:
1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area of responsibility. The masterlist shall include such information as required under the attached CARP Masterlist Form which shall include the name of the landowner, landholding, are TCT/OCT number, and tax declaration number.
2. Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) or landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except those for which the landowners have already filled applications to avail of other mode of land acquisition. A Case Folder shall contain the following duly accomplished forms:
a. CARP CA Form I — MARO
Investigation Report
b. CARP CA Form 2 — Summary
Investigation Report of Findings
And Evaluation
c. CARP CA For 3 — Applicant's
Information Sheet
d. CARP CA Form 4 — Beneficiaries
Undertaking
e. CARP CA Form 5 — Transmittal
Report to the PARO
The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the abovementioned forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same are true and correct.
3. Send a Notice of Coverage and a Letter of Invitation to a conference/meeting to the landowner covered by the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder. Invitations to the said conference/meeting shall also be sent to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the BARC representative (s), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative, and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property. He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the views, objections, agreements, or suggestions of the participants thereon. The landowner shall be also asked to indicate his retention area. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by all the participants in the conference and shall form an integral part of the CACF.
4. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).
B. The PARO shall:
1. Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs.
2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of the land in accordance with AO No. 6, Series of 1988. The valuation worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all the personnel who participated in the accomplished of these forms.
3. In all cases the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular inspection and verification of the property. The ocular inspection shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds P5,000.00 per estate.
4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder, together with the duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations, to the Central Office. The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each of his report.
C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall:
1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO, review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property covered by the case folder. A summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly certified by the BLAD Director and the personnel directly participating in the review and final valuation.
2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized representative, a Notice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject property. Serve the notice to the landowner personally or through registered mail within three (3) days from its approval. The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and the amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
3. Should the landowner accept the DARs offered valued, the BLAD shall prepare and subject to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation, in accordance with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1989. Immediately upon receipt of the (DARABs) decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition.
4. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the Land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries, . . . " (DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989)
It is clear therefore, that the said procedures for the compulsory acquisition of private lands was not observed, and, therefore petitioners could not invoke that their questioned acts are within the domain of the DAR and not with the regular courts. Further, the DAR exclusive jurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters, with the exception of question of just compensation and criminal jurisdiction, presupposes that the exercise and implementation of CARP is done regularly and within the bounds of law.
Thus, respondent Judge in point, stated:
"The Secretary of DAR himself, in implementing Rep. Act No. 6657, issued Adm. Circular No. 2 which was superseded by Adm. Order No. 12. These administrative orders laid down the rules, regulations and procedures governing compulsory acquisition of private lands. In said circulars, it is explicitly stated that it is the DAR Central Office through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) that reviews the case folder received from PARO and that prepares for the signature of the Secretary of DAR a Notice of Acquisition for subject property. This Notice of Acquisition signed by the DAR Secretary is served to the landowners personally or through registered mail. If the notice is rejected by, or there is no reply from the landowners, the DARAB shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation. Upon receipt DARAB's decision, BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition. Again, in case of rejection or non-response by the landowner, it is the Secretary of DAR who shall immediately direct the Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding transfer certificate of title to the Republic of the Philippines. From these circulars, it is crystal clear that it is only the Secretary of DAR who could order the compulsory acquisition of private lands and the one who would direct the Register of Deeds to cancel one's title and issue a certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
"The duty of MARO under Adm. Order No. 12 is only to send a notice of coverage and letter of invitation to the landowner. On the other hand, the only duty of the PARO is to compute the valuation of the land and conduct an ocular inspection thereof after receiving the case folder from MARO. Thereafter, the PARO forwards the case folder to DAR Central Office.
"Clearly, therefore, the petition at bar does not involved the implementation of the CARL. Rather, it is questioning the precipitate manner by which respondents cancelled petitioner's property and the precipitate issuance of another title in lieu thereof, in violation of the rule on acquisition of lands under CARP and of elementary due process. (Annex "E", p. 3, Order dated August 4, 1995; Rollo, p. 55)
xxx xxx xxx
"Clearly, therefore, respondents PARO and Evangelista have acted beyond the scope of their jurisdiction amounting to excess of jurisdiction when they subjected the land of petitioner to comprehensive acquisition on the basis merely of a Land Bank Certification. Their act in canceling the title of petitioner and transferring it to the Republic violated the settled rule that there must be full payment of just compensation first before the title to the expropriated property is transferred (Association of Small Landowners, Inc. vs. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343). In the LBP vs. CA., et al., ibid, the Supreme Court in the said case declared that a mere certification by the Land Bank that a certain sum has been reserved by it to the landowner as compensation is not in accordance with the provision of RA 6657 and DAR has clearly overstepped the limits of its power to enact rules and regulations when it issued Adm. Circular No. 9. This particular DAR Adm. Order was ever declared null and void. In the same vein, the Supreme Court stated that DAR can not invoke LRA Circulars Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 relating to the cancellation of a landowner's title and issuance of another in the name of Republic based on the reservation compensation certification alone of the Land Bank because these implementing regulations can not outweigh the clear provision of the law." (Annex "K"; Order dated December 28, 1995; Rollo, pp. 55, 136)
Said illegal acts of herein PARO Officer Evangelista and the Register of Deeds Villanueva prompted private respondent to file the instant case for Annulment of Title No. T-558222 issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines and reinstate TCT No. T-314171; claim for moral damages in the amount of P5,000,000.00; exemplary damages in the sum of P10,000,000.00; attorney's fees in the amount of P500,000.00 and a further sum of P3,000.00 as appearance fee for court attendance and to pay the cost of suit litigation against petitioners. This cause of action is within the jurisdiction of the respondent court. As ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 162-163, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
". . . The Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) has jurisdiction over actions for annulment of title, reversion and damages (Heirs of Tanak Pangawaran v. Martinez, 142 SCRA 252 [1986]). The nature of an action in court is determined by facts alleged in the complaint . . . and not by the facts averred in the answer or opposition of the adverse parties (Salao v. Crisostomo, 138 SCRA 17 [1982]). . . "
All told, the respondent Judge having jurisdiction over the case, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing who assailed Orders dated August 4, 1995 and December 28, 1995.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DENIED DUE COURSE and is accordingly DISMISSED for lack of merit.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Paras and Galvez, JJ., concur.