SEVENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP. No. 37151. November 12, 1996.]
TEOFILO C. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CABANATUAN CITY, THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF LANDS, REGION III, MAXIMO C. DELA CRUZ, ARTURO D. AGUNOY, PERFECTO M. DELA CRUZ, JUANITO E. GAVINA, SEGUNDO O. ISIDRO, FRANCISCO C. ISIDRO, IRENEO T. TUBERA and VICENTE G. SUGAY, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
MONTENEGRO, J p:
The petition alleges grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents, more particularly the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, in subdividing the subject property owned by petitioner, into twenty-two (22) lots, in issuing emancipation patents over eight (8) of the twenty-two (22) lots in favor of private respondents, and causing the issuance of transfer certificates of title for the eight (8) lots in the name of private respondents which partially cancelled petitioner's TCT No. T-55103. ECTIHa
The antecedents:
Petitioner acquired from the Philippine Savings Bank a 30-hectare parcel of land situated in the barrio of Kalikid Sur, Cabanatuan City, formerly owned by one Melquiades Ronquillo (see Narrative Report RE: Teofilo Santos Estate, Rollo, p. 191). As a result of the sale, TCT No. T-42495 in the name of Philippine Savings Bank was cancelled and TCT No. T-55103 was issued to petitioner on May 15, 1992 (Annex A, Petition; Rollo, pp. 15-16).
According to petitioner, on April 27, 1995, he discovered the following entries annotated at the back of the original of his TCT No. T-55103:
"NOTE:
The property herein described was subdivided into 22 Lots, known as Lot 1 to Lot 22, Psd-03-026188 (OLT), approved by MIN. OF NATU. RESOURCES, Bu. of Lands Reg. III, San Fernando, Pamp. on July 15, 1988.
Cabanatuan City, Feb. 15, 1995.
Register of Deeds
(Initialed Illegible)
"Entry No. 4928/E.P. No. T-4453-Emancipation Patent — Executed by Benjamin T. Leong — Conditions — A portion of 20.223 sq.m. of the property described in this title equivalent to Lot 13 has been granted in favor of MAXIMO C. DELA CRUZ pursuant to E.P. No. 480807 this title is partially cancelled. See TCT No. T-4453, Vol. 21, Date of inst. April 5, 1991; Date of insc. Feb. 15, 1995 at 4:30 p.m.
"Entry No. 4929/T-4454-Emancipation Patent — Executed by Benjamin T. Leong Conditions — A portion of 28,084 sq.m. of the property described in this title equivalent to Lot 14, has been granted in favor of ARTURO D. AGUNOY.
"Entry No. 4930/T-4425-Emancipation Patent — Executed by Benjamin T. Leong Conditions — A portion of 16,225 sq. m. of the property described in this title equivalent to Lot 20 has been granted in favor of PERFECTO M. DELA CRUZ.
"Entry No. 4931/T-4456-Emancipation Patent — Executed by Benjamin T. Leong Conditions — A portion of 18,317 sq.m. of the property described in this title equivalent to Lot 22 has been granted in favor of JUANITO E. GAVINA.
"Entry No. 4932/T-4457-Emancipation Patent — Executed by Benjamin T. Leong Conditions — A portion of 12,831 sq.m. of the property described in this title equivalent to Lot 19 has been granted in favor of SEGUNDO O. ISIDRO. DETcAH
"Entry No. 4933/T-4458-Emancipation Patent — Executed by Benjamin T. Leong Conditions — A portion of 12,135 sq.m. of the property described in this title equivalent to Lot 18 has been granted in favor of FRANCISCO C. ISIDRO.
"Entry No. 4934/T-4459-Emancipation Patent — Executed by Benjamin T. Leong Conditions — A portion of 15,568 sq.m. of the property described in this title equivalent to Lot 12 has been granted in favor of IRENEO T. TUBERA.
"Entry No. 4935/T-4460-Emancipation Patent — Executed by Benjamin T. Leong Conditions — A portion of 27,470 sq.m. of the property described in this title equivalent to Lot 15 has been granted in favor of VICENTE G. SUGAY.
(SGD.) MIGUELITO L. ORTIZ"
(Rollo, p. 16)
Initially, only respondents Secretary of Agrarian Reform, Register of Deeds of Cabanatuan City and Bureau of Lands, Region III were required to comment on the petition through the Office of the Solicitor General.
The Office of the Solicitor General in its comment prayed that the petition be dismissed, invoking as reasons:
(1) There is no order, award or ruling of the DAR on which the petition may be anchored. Therefore, petitioner's petition for certiorari is premature and precipitate;
(2) Petitioner has not exhausted administrative remedies, more particularly prior resort to the DAR Adjudication Board.
On December 29, 1995, finding that the resolution, dated May 12, 1995, requiring comment was directed solely to public respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, another resolution was issued requiring private respondents Maximo C. de la Cruz, Arturo D. Agunoy, Juanito E. Gavina, Segundo O. Isidro, Francisco C. Isidro, Ireneo T. Tubera, Perfecto M. de la Cruz and Vicente G. Sugay to comment on the petition.
On January 5, 1996, another resolution was issued requiring the Department of Agrarian Reform: (1) to elevate to this Court the record or copies of document pertinent to the issuance of Emancipation Patent Nos. 480807/TCT 4453, 480808/TCT-4454, 480809/TCT-4425, 480810/TCT 4456, 489932/TCT-4457, 489933/TCT-4458, 605950/TCT-4459, and 605951/TCT-4460, entered in the Registry of Deeds of Cabanatuan City on February 15, 1995, covering parcels of land situated at Barangay Kalikid Sur, Cabanatuan City, in favor of private respondents; and (2) to inform this Court whether petitioner or the previous owner Melquiades Ronquillo has been duly paid due compensation in accordance with law for the parcels of land covered by said emancipation patents and titles (Rollo, pp. 93-94).
This resolution was never complied with, despite DAR's receipt of a copy of the resolution on January 11, 1996 (see Registry Return Receipt attached at back of page 92, Rollo; see also Certification, Annex B; Rollo, p. 113).
On February 17, 1996, private respondents filed by registered mail their comment with motion to dismiss, appearing on pages 122-159 of the Rollo.
Petitioner assails: (1) the subdivision of subject property into twenty-two (22) lots; (2) the issuance of emancipation patents over eight (8) of the twenty-two lots in favor of private respondents; and (3) the issuance of transfer certificates of title covering the eight (8) lots to private respondents.
We shall confine Ourselves to the issue of whether respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform and respondent Register of Deeds of Cabanatuan City have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the first for causing the issuance of, and the latter for issuing, transfer certificates of title in favor of private respondents which partially cancelled petitioner's TCT No. T-55103 without proper compensation first having been paid.
At the outset, it must be said that the record before Us is not adequate to determine whether the subdivision of petitioner's property into twenty-two (22) lots and the issuance of emancipation patents in favor of private respondents covering eight (8) of the twenty-two (22) lots was with grave abuse of discretion. ESTDcC
The implementation of land reform is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform and following settled principles of administrative law, petitioner must first exhaust administrative remedies. Moreover, the issues raised in connection with the subdivision of the property and the issuance of the emancipation patents are factual and not purely legal.
The pertinent law involved is PD No. 27. This is explicit from the emancipation patents, Nos. 480807, 480808, 480810, 489932, 489933, 605950, 480809, 605951.
On the basis of Annexes C, C-1, C-2 and C-4, of petitioner's reply to comment (Rollo, pp. 64-88), Emancipation Patent No. 480807 in the name of Maximo C. la Cruz, Emancipation Patent No. 480808 in the name Arturo D. Agunoy, Emancipation Patent No. 480810 in the name of Juanito E. Gavina and Emancipation Patent No. 480809 in the name of Perfecto M. de la Cruz were all issued on April 5, 1991 but entered in the Registry of Deeds only on February 15, 1995. Emancipation Patent Nos. 489932 in the name of Segundo O. Isidro and 489933 in the name of Francisco C. Isidro were issued on July 12, 1993 but entered in the Registry of Deeds also only on February 15, 1995. Emancipation Patent Nos. 605950 in the name of Ireneo T. Tubera and 605951 in the name of Vicente G. Sugay were issued on September 26, 1994 and just like the others were entered in the Registry of Deeds only on February 15, 1995.
All the said Emancipation Patents now TCT No. T-4453, TCT No. T-4454 , TCT No. T-4456, TCT No. T-4457, TCT No. T-4458, TCT No. T-4459, TCT No. 4460 and TCT No. T-4425, bear the annotation:
''A N N O T A T I O N
THE FARM/HOME LOT DESCRIBED IN THIS EMANCIPATION PATENT IS ENCUMBERED IN FAVOR OF:
Teofilo Santos/LBP
LBP LANDOWNER
TO ENSURE FULL PAYMENT OF ITS VALUE UNDER PD 27/LOI 705 BY THE FARMER BENEFICIARY NAME HEREIN.
DATE: ________________
______________________________
PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER"
In paragraph 4 of their comment with motion to dismiss (Rollo, p. 122), private respondents admitted that the "distribution" of the subject property was made without compensation, thus:
"4. That paragraph 10 is admitted that the distribution and/or subdivision of the premises were made without notice, hearing and compensation, considering that even before the petitioner supposedly become the owner of the land on May 15, 1992, the private respondent are already the owner as per entry at the back of TCT No. T-55103 (Annex A petition) inscribed as 'NOTE', which states:
'The property herein described was subdivided into 22 Lots, known as Lot 1 to 22, Psd-03-026188 (OLT), approved by MIN. OF NAT. RESOURCES, Bu. of Lands Reg. III, San Fernando, Pamp. on July 15, 1988.'
"Cabanatuan City, Feb. 15, 1995.
Register of Deeds"
And in their comment to manifestation (Rollo, pp. 187-188) private respondents alleged:
"2. That the allegation respecting due compensation to Melquiades Ronquillo, connotes that payments must be made thru direct sale by land Tenure payment Agreement (LTA) or thru BCLP (Barangay Committee on Land Production), as shown there is none yet a consummated agreed price, henceforth it logically follows, that there is none yet a report, but respondents will secure a certification as to whether there is already a fixed price of the premises;" (Rollo, p. 187)
From the annotation on the transfer certificates of title issued to private respondents quoted in the preceding pages 7 and 8, it would appear that on the respective dates of the annotation, the landowner, petitioner herein, has not been paid the compensation due, otherwise "the farm/home lot" would not have been encumbered in favor of the landowner Teofilo C. Santos, petitioner herein, together with the LBP. Thus, the annotation states, "the farm/home lot described in the emancipation patent (EP) is encumbered in favor of Teofilo Santos/LBP . . . to ensure full payment of its value under P.D. 27/LOI 705 by the farmer-beneficiary named herein".
The arrangement undoubtedly was for the farmer-beneficiaries to pay to the Land Bank.
Who among private respondents have paid the compensation in full to the Land Bank, and who have not, may be gleaned from the annexes of private respondents' comment with motion to dismiss (Rollo, pp. 122-160).
From Annexes B, B-1 to H of the comment with motion to dismiss it appears that only private respondents Perfecto de la Cruz (see Annexes B & B-1; Rollo, pp. 132-133) and Maximo C. de la Cruz (see Annex C; Rollo, p. 134) have paid in full to the Land Bank.
Out of the full payment due of P5,897.64 (Annex D; Rollo, p. 136) private respondent Arturo D. Agunoy has paid only the amount of P1,028.36 on November 15, 1993 (Annex D-1; Rollo, p. 137). Out of the full amount of P2,548.35 (Annex E; Rollo, p. 138), private respondent Francisco Isidro has paid only the amount of P500.00 (Annex E-1; Rollo, p. 139). Segundo C. Isidro has paid only the amount of P469.82 (Annex F-1; Rollo, p. 141) out of the amount due from him in the sum of P2,694.51 (Annex F; Rollo, p. 140). There is no showing whether Juanito Gavina has made any payment out of the total amount due from him (Annex G; Rollo, p. 142). Annex H (Rollo, p. 142-A) shows payment of P300.00 from private respondent Vicente Sugay. How much compensation he is supposed to pay is not shown. There is no proof whatsoever of payment from Ireneo T. Tubera.
But all told, the record shows no payment having been made to petitioner for the lots described in the emancipation patents prior to the issuance of the assailed transfer certificates of title in favor of private respondents which partially cancelled petitioner's TCT No. 55013. It must be recalled that in Our resolution of January 5, 1996, We required the Department of Agrarian Reform to inform this Court whether petitioner or the previous owner Melquiades Ronquillo has been duly paid due compensation in accordance with law for the parcels of land covered by the emancipation patents and transfer certificates of title. This was completely ignored by the Department of Agrarian Reform.
In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343, the Supreme Court ruled: "(i)t is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer as of October 21, 1972 and declared that he shall 'be deemed the owner' of a portion of land consisting of a family-sized farm except that 'no title to the land owned by him was to be actually issued to him unless and until he had become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmers' cooperative.' It was understood, however, that full payment of the just compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional requirement. When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its Section 1 that: All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of October 21, 1972 of the land they acquired by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27 (Emphasis supplied.) it was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired under the said decree, after proof of full-fledged membership in the farmers' cooperatives and full payment of just compensation. Hence, it was also perfectly proper for the Order to also provide in its Section 2 that the 'lease rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer-beneficiary after October 21, 1972 (pending transfer of ownership after full payment of just compensation), shall be considered as advance payment for the land.' The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with landowner (Sec. 16(d). No outright change of ownership is contemplated either." (at pages 390-391, emphasis supplied).
In Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 149, it was said: ". . . The ruling in the 'Association' case merely recognized the extraordinary nature of the expropriation to be undertaken under RA 6657 thereby allowing a deviation from the traditional mode of payment of compensation and recognized payment other than in cash. It did not, however, dispense with the settled rule that there must be full payment of just compensation before the title to the expropriated property is transferred." (at page 160)
It appearing that petitioner has not been paid the just compensation due him for the lots described in the emancipation patents, We declare the issuance of TCT Nos. T-4453, T-4454, T-4456, T-4457, T-4458, T-4459, T-4425, and T-4460 all of the Registry of Deeds of Cabanatuan City, a substantial deviation from the procedural mandate, illegal, and said titles issued null and void.
The contention that the petition is premature and that petitioner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies available cannot save from invalidity the transfer certificates of title in question all issued without prior payment of compensation due petitioner. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It yields to many accepted exceptions, among which: (1) where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, (2) where the controverted act is patently illegal or was done without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, (3) where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the latter's implied or assumed approval, unless actually disapproved, or (4) where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention (Industrial Power Sales, Inc. vs. Duma Sinsuat, 160 SCRA 19, 21; Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230; Pagara, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 96882, March 12, 1996). As stated earlier, public respondents have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing transfer certificates of title to private respondents without compensation having been paid to the landowner. The act sought to be reviewed on certiorari is the act of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter. No decision, order, resolution, award or ruling of the DARAB is being questioned in this petition. Petitioner has been deprived of the use and enjoyment of the subject lots and the same taken from him in violation of his constitutional rights to due process and just compensation and in contravention of procedure prescribed under P.D. 27, thus the need of judicial intervention.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is given due course and granted. Judgment is rendered declaring Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-4453 in the name of Maximo C. de la Cruz, T-4454 in the name of Arturo D. Agunoy, T-4456 in the name of Juanito E. Gavina, T-4457 in the name of Segundo O. Isidro, T-4458 in the name of Francisco C. Isidro, T-4459 in the name of Ireneo T. Tubera; T-4425 in the name of Perfecto M. de la Cruz and T-4460 in the name of Vicente G. Sugay, all of the Registry of Deeds of Cabanatuan City, NULL and VOID for having been issued in violation of law and in excess of jurisdiction; and ordering respondent Register of Deeds to cancel said transfer certificates of title and reinstate TCT No. 55013 of petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Cui and * Asuncion, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Acting Third Member vice J. J. de la Rama who retired.