[DARCO ORDER NO. CASE-11-02922. December 23, 2010.]
A-9999-11-CV-003-09
IN RE: ANNULMENT OF CARP COVERAGE OF TCT NO. T-44595 CONTAINING AN AREA OF 5.5000 HECTARES, DARAB CASE NO. LV-1912-DC-2005 AND ITS DERIVATIVE TITLES ISSUED TO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND DAR FARMER BENEFICIARIES, COVERED BY TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NO. CL-6257, CLOA NO. 00753993
HEIRS OF VIRGENCITA C. ANGELES, NAMELY: FELICIANO ANGELES SR., JANNNIE C. ANGELES, GRACE C. ANGELES, for themselves, FELICIANO C. ANGELES, JR. AND ANDREW C. ANGELES, represented by JANNIE C. ANGELES, AND FELVIRSON C. ANGELES, represented by FELICIANO ANGELES, SR., complainants-appellants, vs. CELESTINO T. GOCOTANO, SALVACION G. LAPIZ, FERNANDO J. DUMANAYOS, RUBEN B. FONTILLERA, MARIO T. GOCOTANO, BUREAU OF AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND PARO DAVAO CITY, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DAVAO CITY, respondents-appellants.
ORDER
For resolution is an Appeal 1 dated 2 November 2008 interposed by herein Complainants-Appellants, through counsel, from the Order 2 dated 9 July 2008 issued by the Regional Director of Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Region X.
The dispositive portion of the assailed Order is quoted, as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued:
1) UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE CARP COVERAGE OF THE SUBJECT LAND;
2) DENYING THE PETITION TO DISQUALIFY CELESTINO T. GOCOTANO, SALVACION G. LAPIZ, FERNANDO J. DUMANAYOS, RUBEN B. FONTILLERA, MARIO T. GOCOTANO AS AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES OF THE SUBJECT LAND
Davao City, Philippines, July 9, 2008."
The pertinent and undisputed facts of the case are set forth below:
The subject landholding was formerly embraced under Transfer of Title Certificate (TCT) No. T-44595 3 with an area of 5.5000 hectares registered in the name of Feliciano Angeles, married to Virgencita Angeles. The Spouses Angeles also owned another property with an area of 8.1726 hectares and covered under TCT No. 481214. 4
Sometime in August 1974, private respondents and their respective families allegedly evacuated from their place in Lambayong, Sultan Kudarat to escape the armed conflict between the military and Muslim rebels in the area. They sought refuge at the subject land and were permitted to stay therein on the condition that they will vacate the subject land as soon as the peace and order situation in their former residence improves. They were not made to pay any rent or consideration for their stay, and were prohibited from planting any permanent crops, except vegetables, corn, and other seasonal crops for their personal consumption.
When Virgencita Angeles died on 20 August 2003, she left the two (2) parcels of land abovementioned, and four (4) other parcels of residential lots, as part of her conjugal estate. Said conjugal estate became the subject of a civil case entitled "Sps. Angeles vs. Maximo Yap, et al.", which allegedly prevented the heirs from extrajudicially dividing the estate.
On August 2004, TCT No. T-44595 with an area of 5.5000 hectares was covered under CARP and a Notice of Coverage 5 was served upon Feliciano Angeles, Sr. Upon receipt thereof, Feliciano, through counsel, filed his vehement objection 6 to the coverage. However, despite this opposition, the DAR proceeded with the coverage, and the questioned CLOA 7 was generated in favor of private respondents.
Thus, on 26 May 2006, complainants filed the instant complaint initially before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Davao City assailing the coverage. They alleged that they were denied due process of law as they were never notified of any proceedings concerning the coverage. Moreover, the aggregate area of their property is merely 13.6726 hectares, whereas under the law, they should be entitled to a total of twenty (20) hectares consisting of the spouses Angeles' retention of 5 hectares, and the five (5) children's award of 3 hectares each. With respect to the qualifications of private respondents, they alleged that they are not their tenants and are merely staying at the property out of the benevolence of the Angeleses, as confirmed by the Certifications 8 executed by them. More importantly, they are disqualified to become farmer beneficiaries as they are not "landless" as envisaged under Republic Act (R.A.) 6657. They likewise sought the disqualification of Mario Gocotano, who is the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) Chairman, alleging that he manipulated the screening and identification process.
Private respondents, on the other hand, stated that the coverage was in accordance with RA 6657 considering that the spouses Angeles owned more than five (5) hectares at the time of the effectivity of CARP. They likewise averred that they are tenants/farmworkers who had been personally cultivating the subject land since 1974. In fact, they had been religiously giving to the landowners their share 9 in the coconut harvest at the ratio of 75-25, as evidenced by a "Kasulatan" 10 dated 6 August 2002.
On 16 April 2007, Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) Sinsona dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule I, Section 2 of DAR A.O. No. 3, Series of 2003, and referred the same to the Regional Director of DAR Region XI.
Consequently, after a thorough examination of the claims of both parties, the Regional Director issued the assailed Order on 9 July 2008, upholding the validity of the CARP coverage and the identification of private respondents as beneficiaries of the subject land.
Aggrieved, Complainants-Appellants filed the instant appeal where they challenged the propriety of the coverage of the subject property, as well as the qualifications of private respondents as farmer beneficiaries.
After a careful consideration of the facts and applicable laws in this case, this Office finds the instant appeal bereft of merit.
Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 partly states that "no person may own or retain, directly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall the retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares". Based on the foregoing provision, it is clear that the coverage of TCT No. T-44595 was proper and in order, considering that the spouses owned more than five (5) hectares of agricultural land when the CARP took effect. In fact, as correctly pointed out by private respondents, they still own more than five (5) hectares to date, since the DAR allowed them to retain the property covered under TCT No. T-48214 with an area of 8.1726 hectares.
Complainants-Appellants likewise cannot claim that they have not been notified of any proceedings with respect to the coverage. The records show that the Notice of Coverage dated 25 August 2004 was personally received by Feliciano Angeles, Sr., and he filed his objection thereto with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Davao City and the DARAB. The pleadings attached to the records of the case prove that herein Complainants-Appellants actively pursued their claim over the property as well as interposed their objections to the identification of private respondents as beneficiaries.
On the allegation that the children are qualified as preferred beneficiaries, Section 6 of RA 6657 further states that to be entitled to the grant of three (3) hectares per child, it must be shown that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age and that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm. In the case under consideration, there is no proof that the children of the Spouses Angeles possess the second qualification. Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2009, paragraph III, item (12) thereof, states that:
"xxx xxx xxx
12. Direct Management in so far as preferred beneficiaries are concerned, refers to the cultivation of the land through personal supervision under the system of labor administration. It shall be interpreted along the lines of farm management as an actual major activity being performed by the landowner's child from he/she derives his/her primary source of income
xxx xxx xxx"
The Affidavits of Wilfred C. Lago and Niesierin T. Lumba 11 which complainants-appellants presented before this Office, to prove that they are qualified as preferred beneficiaries are grossly insufficient to establish the facts necessary and requisite for a determination of the complainant-applicants' qualifications. The affidavits merely stated that affiants "frequently saw almost every Sunday Virgencita Angeles and her children visiting their farmland . . .". Clearly, "visiting the farm almost every Sunday" is not the kind of "direct management" envisaged in item 12 of A.O. 2 (Series of 2009) above.
With respect to the assertion that herein private respondents are not qualified as farmer beneficiaries, the records are replete with evidence that their identification as such was done in accordance with Section 22 of R.A. 6657. Based on the field investigation 12 conducted by the DAR with the concurrence of BARC Representatives, "the area is agricultural and tenanted and is recommended for distribution to qualified beneficiaries". Further, being the actual occupants of the property at the time the coverage thereof commenced, a Notice to Conduct Field Investigation dated 18 October 2004 13 was given to private respondents. There was therefore religious adherence to Section 22 of RA 6657 and other pertinent DAR rules when private respondents were named as qualified beneficiaries.
Insofar as the disqualification of Mario Gocotano as farmer beneficiary is concerned on the ground that he is the BARC Chairman, this Office finds that there is no sufficient basis for such disqualification. As aptly pointed out by private respondents, there is no proof that his acts as BARC Chairman in any way influenced the outcome of the identification, screening, and selection proceedings. However, this Office observed that the appearance of impropriety or irregularity in the conduct of his duty could have been avoided had the BARC Chairman inhibited himself from the proceedings.
Lastly, regarding the claim that herein private respondents are not landless since they allegedly own the land from which they evacuated in 1974, however, the title to the said property, denominated as TCT No. T-21494 (T-2319), 14 belie such claim. A perusal of said title shows that the same is registered in the name of Julian Gocotano, private respondents' uncle. Thus, save for the bare allegations of Complainants Appellants, no proof exists that the said property is now owned by private respondents' father.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Order issued by the Regional Director of DAR Region XI is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Diliman, Quezon City, December 23, 2010.
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Secretary
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 229.
2. Rollo, p. 184.
3. Rollo, p. 99.
4. Rollo, p. 97.
5. Rollo, p. 95.
6. Rollo, p. 94.
7. Rollo, p. 93.
8. Rollo, pages 100-102.
9. Rollo, p. 59.
10. Rollo, p. 66.
11. Rollo, pages 169-170.
12. Rollo, p. 73.
13. Rollo, p. 72.
14. Rollo, p. 92.