**Facts:**
1. **Background:** Deogracias Janeo was a declared farmer-beneficiary of a 2.5-hectare parcel of land, holding Certificate of Land Transfer No. 077984 in San Vicente, Leganes, Iloilo. Deogracias passed away on May 15, 1976, leaving behind nine heirs, including petitioner Merlita Janeo Ramos and respondent Emelita Janeo Sol.
2. **Initial Steps:** After Deogracias’ death, Emelita cultivated the land and applied to the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office (DARRO) for confirmation of her as successor, seeking the cancellation of the existing CLT and issuance of a new one under her name.
3. **Regional Director’s Order (1987):** The DAR issued an order designating Emelita as the sole owner-cultivator, evidenced by a Waiver of Rights favoring her, signed by the majority of heirs.
4. **Ricardo’s Motion for Reconsideration (1988):** Filed to challenge Emelita’s designation; this was denied by the DAR Secretary noting the Waiver of Rights and directing compensation to the other heirs by Emelita.
5. **Opposition by Other Heirs:** Siblings, including Merlita, filed a motion arguing the waiver was fraudulent. Consequently, the DAR canceled its previous order pending further investigation.
6. **Regional Director’s Reversal (1996):** Found that no valid unanimous waiver existed and designated Merlita as the new successor, based on age priority, per administrative guideline, Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978.
7. **Subsequent Appeals and OP Decision (2010):** The decision in favor of Merlita was upheld, citing issues of waiver validity.
8. **Court of Appeals Ruling (2016):** Reversed preceding findings, ruled in Emelita’s favor, stating the DAR Secretary lacked authority post-issuance of an Emancipation Patent (EP) and a TCT to Emelita.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the DAR Secretary retained jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter post-registration of the EP and TCT.
2. Determining if the administrative implementation decision invalidating the Waiver of Rights and reallocating ownership was a collateral attack on Emelita’s TCT.
3. The applicability of Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978 concerning succession matters in choosing the rightful farmer-beneficiary among heirs.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Jurisdiction:** The Supreme Court ruled that the identification and selection of agrarian reform beneficiaries involve strictly the administrative implementation of the program, thus are within the DAR Secretary’s jurisdiction. The DARAB’s judicial jurisdiction covers registered titles related agrarian disputes, but not administrative allocations.
2. **Collateral Attack:** It held that reviewing the issuance of the EP in terms of beneficiary qualification is not a collateral attack on a TCT. The challenge was primarily to Emelita’s qualifications rather than to the title itself, hence administrative actions were valid.
3. **Application of Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1978:** The Court recognized the circular’s relevance in governing the succession rules, emphasizing the validity of age-based succession if consensus among the heirs isn’t achieved.
**Doctrine:**
– Jurisdiction over the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, such as selecting rightful beneficiaries of agrarian lands, lies with the DAR Secretary.
– A title’s facial indefeasibility does not override the administrative need to verify and validate beneficiary rights under pertinent agrarian laws.
**Class Notes:**
– Key Elements: Agrarian reform beneficiary selection, administrative vs. judicial roles (DAR Secretary vs. DARAB), collateral attack on land titles.
– Statutory Provisions: Section 50, Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law); EO Nos. 229 and 129-A.
– Simplified: Administrative functions (DAR Secretary) cover beneficiary selection; disputes involving agrarian titles require DARAB adjudication.
**Historical Background:**
This case arises from the Philippines’ Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) which sought to redistribute land to tenant farmers post-1986. It reflects the perennial administrative and legal tension in agrarian reforms between heir-claimants and the government’s determination of deserving beneficiaries under evolving agrarian statutes.
Leave a Reply