SIXTEENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 54716. August 11, 2000.]
LEONCIO LUSPO and MARLENE LUSPO, petitioners, vs. JOSEPH REMENTIZO and CONSTANCIO SALVA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
UMALI, J p:
This is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board dated June 24, 1998.
In the petition before Us, petitioners adopted the names of the parties in the title of complaint filed in the Department of Agrarian Reform Board, (hereinafter referred to as DARAB) as "complainants-appellees" and "defendants-appellants". Pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 43, (supra) We will refer to the parties namely Leoncio Luspo and Marlene Luspo as "petitioners" and Joseph Rementizo and Constancio Salva as "respondents".
The petition was dismissed outright in Our resolution promulgated on September 15, 1999 for failure of petitioner to comply with the procedural rules, thus:
"1. The certification of non-forum shopping was signed by counsel and not by petitioners (Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 28-91 and Section 6[d], Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) which states:
"xxx xxx xxx
"(d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. . . ."
Section 2, Rule 42 (ibid.) provides:
"xxx xxx xxx
"The petitioner shall submit together with the petition a certification under oath that he has not theretofore commenced any other action . . ."
"The required certification of forum shopping must be signed by petitioners.
"xxx xxx xxx
"Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements . . . shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof." (Sec. 7, Rule 43, Ibid.)
"2. There is no explanation as to mode of service pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 (Ibid.), which provides:
"Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filling. — Whenever practicable, the service and filling of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filling was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed."
Later, petitioner filed an "AMENDED PETITION FOR REVIEW" but again the pleading was insufficient in form and substance. It does not allege facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review. In the interest of substantial justice, considering that the Agricultural Reform Code is designed to promote economic and social stability (Gonzales vs. Government Service Insurance System, 107 SCRA 492), We set aside technicalities and the petition was given due course.
As culled from the decision of the PARAB, petitioners were the owners and possessors of a parcel of land originally owned by their grandfather consisting of 1,386 sq. meters and classified as residential area in 1948. The lot was classified as a commercial land in 1955. The land was awarded to petitioner Leoncio R. Luspo in an extra judicial partition executed on April 1, 1963.
On October 21, 1977 when P.D. No. 27 (otherwise known as "Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants From the Bondage of the Soil Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till . . .") took effect, portions of the 1,386 sq. meters were placed under operation land transfer on October 6, 1987. An area of 74 sq. meters covered by Emancipation Patent No. 174 was awarded to respondent Rementizo, and, to Contancio A. Salva, an area of 598 and 201 square meters covered by Emancipation Patent Nos. 187 and 185, respectively.
Petitioner filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of OCT Nos. EP 185, 187 and 174 before the DARAB. It was dismissed by Regional Adjudicator Jimmy V. Tapangan on April 12, 1995. The motion for reconsideration was denied on May 16, 1995. Incidentally, in the petition before us, again the report of Adjudicator Tapangan was not attached, a relevant portion which was alleged by petitioner. On January 3, 1996 the cases were referred to the DARAB, Camiguin at the instance of petitioner who filed an administrative complaint against Adjudicator Tapangan.
On October 23, 1996, Provincial Adjudicator Fidel H. Borres, Jr. rendered a resolution, declaring as null and void the emancipation patents in the name of respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads.
"WHEREFORE, the Emancipation Patents Nos. EP 174, 185 and 187 issued in the name of defendants Joseph D. Rementizo and Constancio Salva are hereby declared as null and void ab initio; and ordering the defendants and other persons in possession, cultivation and occupation to turn over the land in litigation to the complainants, and vacate the area." (Rollo, p. 23)
On appeal, the DARAB set aside the decision of Provincial Adjudicator Fidel H. Borres, Jr. and reinstated the decision of Adjudicator Tapangan, thus:
"After thorough examination of the records of the case, the issue posed for determination in this case is whether or not Provincial Adjudicator Fidel H. Borres, Jr. erred in re-opening DARAB Case Nos. X-754 and X-755 and in rendering another decision despite the fact that Adjudicator Jimmy V. Tapangan has already passed upon the merits of the case in his decision dated 12 April 1995. Section 1(a), Rule XIII of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure provides that:
'An appeal may be taken from an order or decision of the Regional or Provincial Adjudicator to the Board by either of the parties or both, by giving or stating a written or oral appeal within a period of fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the resolution, order, or decision appealed from, and securing a copy thereof on the opposite or adverse party, if the appeal is in writing.'
"Complainants-Appellees did not file a notice of appeal when their motion for reconsideration of the decision dated April 12, 1995 was denied. Instead, three (3) months after the issuance of an order denying said motion, they filed an administrative complaint dated August 11, 1995 before the Department of Agrarian Reform (Provincial Office).
"Procedurally, said administrative complaint is not the proper remedy that should have been taken by Complainants-Appellees. Instead, they should have filed a Notice of Appeal within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Decision dated April 12, 1995. Considering that no appeal was filed by Complainants-Appellees within the reglementary period allowed under the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, the Decision dated April 12, 1995 rendered by Adjudicator Jimmy V. Tapangan has long attained its finality. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal as legally required renders the judgment of the court below final and executory (Alto Sales Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 197 SCRA 618)
"We have examined the records of the case with great care and find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Honorable Adjudicator Jimmy V. Tapangan that the subject Emancipation Patents (EPs) issued in favor of the Defendants-Appellants are valid." (Rollo, pp. 23-25)
and finally resolved, the dispositive portion of which is quoted:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision of the Hon. Fidel Borres, Jr. is SET ASIDE and the Decision dated April 12, 1995 of the Hon. Jimmy Tapangan is hereby restored." (Rollo p. 25)
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner raised the following issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM HAS JURISDICTION OVER RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL LOTS; AND
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT PARCEL OF LAND OF COMPLAINANTS-APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL LOTS.
(Rollo, p. 3)
Petitioner contends that:
"xxx xxx xxx
"7. We respectfully submit that the subject parcel of land of complainants-appellants are palpably residential and commercial lot; as evidenced by its actual location in Tabalig, Centro, Camiguin for which an Occular Inspection is sought but denied by Honorable Jimmy Tapangan of the provincial Agrarian Reform of Camiguin and by the incumbent members of the Adjudication Board; and by its Tax Declaration of 1948 in Mambajao, Camiguin; the Certification of the Provincial Assessor of Camiguin; and the Document of Partition among appellant and his brothers and sister, all of which confirmed its classification as residential or commercial, certified xerox copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes 'A', 'B' and 'C', respectively, forming part hereof by reference; on the basis of which Land Taxes have been paid since then up to the present;" (Rollo, p. 3)
Respondents on the other hand claimed that:
"There is no doubt that agrarian reform coverage consist of two things; namely: Under PD 27, the covered areas are only tenanted rice and corn lands; while under the new law, RA 6657, what is covered are any agricultural lands, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produce;
"There is no doubt also that the real property subject this case is covered by PD 27 and not by RA 6657, this is so, on the simple ground that the respondents herein are tenants of the subject landholding which was a riceland at the time it was subjected to Operation Land Transfer under PD 27; the two requisites therefore that a real property will be covered by PD 27 are met;
"On the other hand, there is no contest that the said landholdings is already classified as Commercial area; however that argument will not put to waste nor as under the legality of its coverage under Operation Land Transfer of PD 27, considering inter alia that the queried property was covered at the time when the same was classified as Agricultural area, the classification that it was a commercial area came too late; the same will not be given a retroactive effect;
"The Regional Adjudicator in the Province of Camiguin is correct in his findings which was the basis of his decision, that:
"As to the claims that these landholdings are now classified as commercial and residential districts, it may be so, but the same is immaterial because at the time these lands were subjected to OLT (Operation Land Transfer) clearly it was then agricultural"; (Please see Records)
"More so, the Emancipation Patents issued to the herein respondents was dated October 6, 1987, despite such registration with the office of the Register of Deeds, which a notice to the whole world, the petitioners never questioned nor assailed such issuance within one year thereof; it took the petitioners more or less ten years to questioned (sic) the same which is too late in the day;
"Section 32 of PD 1529 provides, 'upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontestable.'
"Also in the case of Pagtalunan V. Hon. Roque Tamayo, GR No. 54281, The Highest Court said, 'that upon the issuance of Emancipation Patents, there arise vested rights;'
"Furthermore, what will apply is PD 27, the law which is existing and valid at the time of the coverage of the subject landholding and that as a matter of fact RA 6657 did not repeal PD 27;
"That is why rules must be absolute, any variation would lead to endless confusion and useless litigations;
"Consequently, the coverage of the questioned landholding was valid, done in accordance with PD 27, and was not affected by the reclassification of the area which was undertaken after such coverage;
WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT PARCEL OF LAND OF COMPLAINANTS-APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL LOTS
"In view of the foregoing discussion, it is imperative that the second issue will no longer be discussed same being connected with the first issue as raised by the petitioners" (Rollo, pp. 69-71)
The issues raised will be discussed jointly, being interrelated.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Obviously, the DARAB found procedural infirmities in the appeal filed by petitioner from the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator. On this score, Our Supreme Court had occasion to rule that the 1973 Constitution and the Agricultural Reform Code should be liberally construed not only in favor of the tillers of the land but to the land owners as well (Gonzales vs. Government Insurance System, supra).
According to the resolution of provincial adjudicator (Annex "D"), the land herein involved has a total area of 873 sq. meters, a portion of the 1,386 sq. meters which has been admittedly possessed by petitioners. The DARAB in its decision (Annex "E") mentioned that the parcels of land consist of 1) Lot 972-A with an area of seventy-four (74) square meters; and 2) Lot 972-B with an area of two hundred one (201) square meters, both situated at Tabulig, Poblacion Mambayao, Camiguin. The litigated portions of the land were placed under operation land transfer, awarded and emancipation patents issued to respondents. In 1948, the land was classified as within the residential area. In 1959, it was classified as a commercial land as shown in the tax declarations (Exhs. "A-1-A" and "A-1-B") and the certification of the Provincial Assessor of Mambayao, Camiguin (Exh. "A-1"). P.D. No. 27, which took effect on October 21, 1972 decrees the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil. It has for its objective the transfer of the ownership of the land to tenant-farmer who shall be deemed the owner of a portion constituting a family size farm of five (5) hectares, if not irrigated and three (3) hectares if irrigated. It also provides that the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if the landowner is cultivating the area. It was also incorporated in the 1973 Constitution (de Chavez vs. Zobel, 55 SCRA 26). The land has been classified as a residential lot in 1948 and declared as a commercial land in 1955. The Agricultural Reform Code applies only to agricultural lands. In the case of Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals (87 SCRA 263) Our Supreme Court pertinently ruled: SHaATC
". . . Neither can We find merit in petitioner's claims that with the advent of Presidential Decree No. 27, he has become the owner of the land. Firstly, said decree applied only in favor of bona fide tenants. It cannot be denied, however, that at the time of the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 (October 21, 1972), the Appellate Court had already rendered its judgment finding that the tenancy relationship between petitioner and private respondent had been extinguished. Secondly, the decree cannot operate retroactively in favor of petitioner who had surrendered one-half of the land in July 1966 and, by virtue of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction issued by the court of Agrarian Relations, was dispossessed of the other half in February 1967.
Patently, since the lot has been declared as a residential and commercial area, P.D. 27 will not apply. Furthermore, the land area owned by petitioner or by his predecessors in interest which consists of only 1,386 square meters is not an agricultural tenanted land and therefore not within the coverage of P.D. No. 27.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appealed decision is ordered REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another judgment entered declaring Emancipation Patent Nos. EP 174, 187 and 187 issued in the names of respondents Joseph O. Rementizo and Constancio Salva, null and void. Respondents and other persons in possession of the lands are further ordered to turn over to petitioners the land and to vacate the premises.
SO ORDERED.
Vasquez, Jr. and Rosario, Jr., JJ., concur.