April 15, 1998

DAR OPINION NO. 49-98

Mr. Solomon Manzano

Representative of Candelaria Valladolid

Kabatangan, Wao

Lanao del Sur

Dear Mr. Manzano:

This has reference to your letter dated 12 February 1998 seeking clarification as to who has jurisdiction in the determination of rights over Farmlot No. 337, Pls. 727 situated at Kabatangan, Wao, Lanao del Sur.

You state that sometime in 1956, Farmlot No. 337, Pls. 727 located at Kabatangan, Wao, Lanao del Sur, within the Lanao del Sur Resettlement Project was allocated to one Melencio Apiado by the defunct NARRA; that sometime in 1974, settler/allocatee Melencio Apiado got sick which necessitated hospitalization at Madona Hospital, Cagayan De Oro City, hence, his wife Adoracion Apiado was forced to mortgage the subject farmlot to a certain Candelaria Valladolid for Four Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P4,400.00) although said transaction was not reduced into writing; that Melencio Apiado offered to redeem the property but was refused by the mortgagee and was informed that his name was included in the Cancellation Order, Land Authority Abandonment Proceedings (LAAP) dated December 29, 1981, which led to the filing of administrative proceedings entitled: MELENCIO APIADO, Represented by ADORACION APIADO, Complainant, versus CANDELARIA VALLADOLID and BONIFACIO VALLADOLID, Respondents, before the Regional Director of which the latter rendered a decision dated 22 December 1994, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

"Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the undersigned opined and so holds that the heirs of Melencio Apiado be reinstated to the subject farmlot after paying the mortgage amount. The MARO is hereby directed to process the papers relative to the issuance of CLOA to said heirs."

that feeling aggrieved of the said decision, you appealed the same to the PARAD wherein the latter rendered a decision dated 25 August 1995, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, The resolution in the case entitled Melencio Apiado, represented by Adoracion Apiado, Complainant, Versus Candelaria Valladolid and Bonifacio Valladolid, Respondents, dated December 22, 1994, is hereby TOTALLY SET ASIDE and The entire Farmlot No. 337, Pls. 727, is further adjudged to the herein petitioner CANDELARIA VALLADOLID with no cost against the herein respondent Melencio Apiado."

Finding the two decisions to be contradictory with each other, you now pose the following queries, to wit:

1)        Who has jurisdiction over the controversy?

2)        Did you take the right course of action in appealing the decision of the Regional Director to the PARAD?

3)        Of the two contradictory decisions which one would prevail over the other?

4)        Can a Regional Director reinstate a former settler (whose right therein was declared cancelled under the Land Authority Abandonment Proceedings — 1981) to his NARRA Farmlot allocation after, more or less, fifteen (15) years from the date he abandoned the same considering that it has already an actual occupant for almost thirty (30) years?

Anent your first query, 2nd paragraph of DAR-Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1987 provides: "In view of the above cases within the jurisdiction of the Regional Offices shall henceforth be heard/investigated therein and thereafter resolved by the Regional Directors concerned. These cases include those arising from the implementation of Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27 and amendatory and related decrees, letters of instruction, rules and regulations, as well as conflicts of claim in landed estates and resettlement areas and such other lands as have been placed under the administration and disposition of this Department." The abovecited provision of DAR-Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1987 has been affirmed by DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1994. First paragraph of the abovementioned DAR Administrative Order provides in part: ". . . The Authority of the Regional Directors to decide protests against coverage under P.D. No. 27 pursuant to the Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1987 is hereby affirmed. Suffice it to say that from the abovecited provisions of law, jurisdiction over said controversy falls squarely within the domain of the Regional Director.

Anent your second query, the answer is in the negative. In consonance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, decisions of the Regional Director shall be appealable to the Office of the Secretary. The Provincial Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) has no jurisdiction over the said controversy. The Supreme Court in the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, held: "It is a settled rule that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down any time, even on appeal before the Supreme Court." From the aforequoted decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the decision of the PARAD has no force and effect, thus, it is as if no decision has been rendered at all on the said controversy.

Anent your third query, it is submitted that the decision of the Regional Director shall prevail over the decision of the PARAD. The fact that jurisdiction over the said controversy has been vested by law with the Regional Director, the decision rendered by him shall perforce be valid and binding upon all the parties involved and such shall be enforceable unless properly appealed. The decision rendered by the PARAD, which has no jurisdiction over the controversy, will have no force and effect.

Anent your last query, again it necessarily follows that the answer is in the affirmative. Since the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the said controversy, any decision rendered by him presumably on the merits thereof shall be valid and once it has become final and executory, the same should necessarily be executed as a matter of course.

Thank you for communicating with us and we hope to have enlightened you on the matter.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning

Copy furnished:

1)     The Regional Director

         Department of Agrarian Reform

         DAR — Region XIII Cotabato City

2)     The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer

         DAR — Provincial Office

         Quezon Avenue, Marawi City

3)     The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator

         DAR Adjudication Board

         Marawi City

4)     The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer

         DAR — Municipal Office

         Wao, Lanao del Sur