HEIRS OF THE LATE RICARDO TENORIO, HEIRS OF THE LATE JUAN RAMOS, HEIRS OF THE LATE JOSE RAMOS, HEIRS OF THE LATE JUAN ROMERO, HEIRS OF THE LATE AMELIA ESPIRITU, LOIDA SAMSON, JU…
TIJAM, J.:
The facts of the case are as follows:
This controversy involves various parcels of land that were originally part of an agricultural land with an area of 35.5719 hectares, covered by TCT No. RT-51064 (182111), previously registered in the name of Felisa Tantoco (“Felisa”) who allegedly died intestate on February 6, 1970 without issue. Felisa’s land is located at Brgy, Pungo, Calumpit, Bulacan and was tenanted by herein Petitioners.
Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27[5], it appears that petitioners were issued Transfer Certificate of Titles (TCTs) on the basis of Emancipation Patents[6] (EPs) as follows:
EP No. Name of Grantee/Beneficiary Area (in sq. m.) 617018 Ricardo S. Tenorio 7,068 617006 Juan S. Ramos 7,496 743196 Heirs of Jose Ramos 4,025 617027 Heirs of Juan Romero 13,856 617020 Amelia T. Espiritu 5,446 704814 Loida Samson 8,869 617028 Juan Espino 9,760 617030 Rolando Espino 7,649
In a Notice[7] dated August 26, 2004, petitioners were asked by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to attend a meeting wherein respondents’ application for retention under Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) will be discussed. Petitioners failed to attend the meeting.[8]
In an Order[9] dated December 23, 2004, the Regional Director of DAR, Regional Office III approved respondents’ application for retention. The dispositive portion of the said Order states:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, an ORDER is hereby issued as follows:
- APPROVING the Application for retention of Antonio Luis Tantoco and Araceli B. Tantoco, as represented by Flordeliz M. Gomez of a maximum of seven (7) hectares, identified as Lot 25, pursuant to RA 6657 covering the landholding embraced by TCT No. RT-51064 (182111), with an area of 35.5719 hectares, more or less, situated at Pungo, Calumpit, Bulacan;
- ORDERING the landowner-applicant to cause the segregation survey of the retained area, at her own expense, and to submit within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof to this Office;
- ORDERING further the landowner-applicant to maintain the affected tenants in their peaceful possession as lessees thereof pursuant to RA 3844, as amended; and
- The coverage of the excess area under PD 27 is hereby maintained.
SO ORDERED.“[10]
Seeking for a higher retention area, respondents filed an appeal to the DAR Secretary. In an Order[11] dated October 9, 2006, the DAR Secretary granted respondents a maximum of seven hectares each as retention area. The DAR Secretary also directed the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer to cause the coverage of the excess area under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 9, 2006 Order. In an Order[12] dated August 13, 2007, the DAR Secretary partially granted the motion for reconsideration and modified its October 9, 2006 Order by maintaining the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) coverage of the area in excess of the landowner’s retention area.
Not satisfied with the DAR Secretary’s Order, the petitioners filed an Appeal to the Office of the President (OP) questioning the retention area granted to the respondents.
In an Order[13] dated September 25, 2007, the OP directed petitioners to submit their appeal memorandum within 15 days from notice.
Subsequently, the OP issued a Decision[14] dated June 11, 2008, denying petitioners’ appeal. The OP ruled that respondents, as the legal heirs of Felisa, are indeed, entitled to the retention of 7 hectares each since they submitted their application on March 25, 1985, which is before the deadline of August 27, 1985, as required by Administrative Order No. 2, s. 2003.
In an Resolution[15] dated February 16, 2009, the OP likewise denied petitioners’ motion seeking reconsideration of its June 11, 2008 Decision. The OP found, as one of the grounds for denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, that it was only petitioner Pedro Tenorio who filed an appeal memorandum. Hence, it ruled that the failure of the other petitioners, Heirs of the late Ricardo Tenorio, Heirs of the late Juan Ramos, Heirs of the late Jose Ramos, Heirs of the late Juan Romero, Heirs of the Late Amelia Espiritu, Loida Samson, Juan Espino and Rolando Espino (“Heirs of Ricardo Tenorio, et. al.”) to submit their appeal memorandum is failure to pursue the appeal.
To this finding, the Heirs of Ricardo Tenorio, et. al. filed a Manifestation with Motion[16], contending that they timely filed an appeal memorandum as shown by the registry receipts. They prayed that the June 11, 2008 Decision and February 16, 2009 Resolution of the OP be reconsidered and set aside.
In its Joint Resolution[17] dated September 6, 2011, the OP denied the Manifestation with Motion filed by Heirs of Ricardo Tenorio, et. al. Hence this petition raising the following errors:
Reformulating the issues raised by petitioners, We believe that the resolution of the instant case hinges on a determination of whether respondents were properly granted 7 hectares each as retention area.
The Petition lacks merit.
In this case, petitioners preliminary raise as error the OP’s finding that they failed to submit an Appeal Memorandum. Attaching Registry Receipts Nos. 5719, 5714 and 5715, petitioners insist that they timely submitted their appeal memorandum on October 25, 2007, which is the last day for the filing of the said memorandum.
True, in the OP’s Resolution[18] dated February 16, 2009, the OP denied the motions for reconsideration of petitioners Heirs of Ricardo Tenorio, et. al. due to their failure to submit their appeal memorandum. However, upon closer reading of the said Resolution, We find that the OP’s denial of the motions for reconsideration was also based on other substantive grounds. In the said Order, the OP noted that the motions were a mere rehash of the arguments it already considered in its Decision dated June 11, 2008. More importantly, the OP noted that even if Heirs of Ricardo Tenorio, et. al submitted their appeal memorandum, the same does not detract from respondents’ entitlement to retention of certain portion of the land subject of the case.
Considering the substantive grounds raised by the OP in denying petitioners’ appeal and motion for reconsideration, We do not believe that the OP’s finding that petitioners failed to pursue their appeal as a reversible error on the part of the OP. Evidently, the OP’s June 8, 2011 Decision and February 16, 2009 Resolution denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration were reached upon consideration of the totality of the facts established and the law governing the case at bar. In other words, petitioners’ arguments raised before the DAR Secretary which form part of the records submitted to the OP, were all considered by the OP in disposing the appeal before it. Incidentally, We note that the arguments raised by petitioners before the DAR Secretary were substantially identical to those raised in the appeal memorandum which were allegedly not submitted before the OP. Hence, We believe that independent of the issue on the timely filing of appeal memorandum by petitioners Heirs of Ricardo Tenorio, et. al., they were not deprived of the opportunity to be heard on their arguments on the case at hand.
In any case, the OP directly addressed petitioners’ arguments in their appeal memorandum in its Joint Resolution[19] dated September 6, 2011. Hence, any perceived defect or error raised by petitioners with respect to the OP’s February 16, 2009 Resolution is deemed to have been cured by the OP’s September 6, 2011 Joint Resolution.
We now go to the merits of the case.
At the outset, well-entrenched is the rule that courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency. Administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in the exercise of their adjudicative functions, latitude which includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within their special competence. In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion is required. Thus, findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality.[20]
A perusal of the questioned issuances of the OP reveals that they are based on the records of the case which constitutes substantial evidence, sufficiently proving that respondents are entitled to retain 7 hectares each from the land of their deceased aunt, Felisa Tantoco, which was distributed to herein petitioners pursuant to Our government’s agrarian reform program.
Concededly, the rule is that Certificates of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as indefeasible as TCTs issued in registration proceedings. We are not oblivious to the High Court’s ruling in Estrebillo v. DAR[21] which affirmed the prior pronouncements in Ybañez v. Intermediate Appellate Court[22] and Lahora v. Dayanghirang, Jr.[23] which states that “when land is granted by the government to a private individual, the corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is issued to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automatically brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act, the title issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all the safeguards provided in Section 38 of the said Act. In other words, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding.”
In this petition though, We are called upon to determine whether the indefeasibility of TCTs issued to farmer-beneficiaries, pursuant to EPs, deprives the landowner the right to retain a certain portion of the land given to the tenants-farmers thereof.
We answer in the negative.
In Mago v. Barbin[24], the High Court ruled that the mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation patents issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may be corrected and canceled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1994, which was issued in March 1994, enumerates the grounds for cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents or Certificates of Landownership Award:
“Grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs [Emancipation Patents] or CLOAs [Certificates of Landownership Award] may include but not be limited to the following:
Considering the foregoing grounds to correct TCTs/EPs, it can easily be deduced that petitioners’ insistence on the indefeasibility of their titles lacks merit. Indeed, the fact that TCT’s were already issued in favor of farmer-beneficiaries of the CARP does not mean that the landowner is deprived from choosing an area of the land for his retention.
It bears to be mindful that the right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to anymore leave the landowner’s dominion, thus sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process.[25]
In this case, what remains to be resolved is whether respondents have sufficiently proven that they are the heirs of the original landowner, Felisa Tantoco.
On this note, We see no error on the part of the DAR and the OP in finding that respondents are entitled to retain portion of the land given to petitioners as farmer-beneficiaries of the CARP.
In the proceedings before the Regional Director of DAR, it appears that respondents submitted a copy of an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Felisa S. Tantoco[26] dated March 29, 2000, notarized and acknowledged before one Regalado P. Castillo. In the said document, it appears that herein respondents, along with their other cousins, agreed to divide a parcel of land with an aggregate area of 355, 729 sq.m., covered by TCT No. RT-51064. This land was allegedly the estate of their late aunt Felisa S. Tantoco.
Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They enjoy the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. To overcome the presumption, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than preponderant. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld.[27]
To Us, the deed of extra-judicial settlement speaks for itself. The said document was acknowledged before a Notary Public. The document suffices to prove respondents’ claim to the portion of the land given to petitioners. They are owners of the land by succession to the original owner Felisa.
Interestingly, aside from their bare attack on the DAR’s appreciation of the said document, petitioners failed to submit proof which would contradict the facts stated in the said deed of extra-judicial settlement.
As to the grant of 7 hectares of land to each of herein respondents, the DAR and the OP gave weight to the Letter[28] dated March 25, 1985 addressed to then DAR Secretary Conrado F. Estrella, signed by herein respondents manifesting their intention to retain portion of Felisa’s land.
The case of Daez v. Court of Appeals[29], citing Association of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform[30], is in point:
“In the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we held that landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No. 27 are entitled to the new retention rights under R.A. No. 6657. 24 We disregarded the August 27, 1985 deadline imposed by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1985 on landowners covered by OLT. However, if a landowner filed his application for retention after August 27, 1985 but he had previously filed the sworn statements required by LOI Nos. 41, 45 and 52, he is still entitled to the retention limit of seven (7) hectares under P.D. No. 27. 25 otherwise, he is only entitled to retain five (5) hectares under R.A. No. 6657.” (Emphasis supplied)
This rule is echoed in DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 2, Series of 2003, entitled “2003 Rules and Procedures Governing Landowner Retention Rights, specifically Sec. 8.2 thereof, which states:
8.2 Landowners affected by P.D. 27 who filed their applications for retention before 27 August 1985, the deadline set by AO No. 1, Series of 1985, may retain not more than seven (7) hectares of their landholdings regardless of whether or not they complied with Letters of Instruction (LOI) Nos. 41, 45 and 52. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the rule is that if the landowner files an application for retention before August 27, 1985, he may retain 7 hectares of his land which was subjected to P.D. 27. In this case, considering the uncontroverted fact that Felisa died on February 4, 1970, and the legal principle that the rights of succession are transmitted from the death of decedent[31], respondents can thus be said to have asserted ownership over a portion of Felisa’s land, in their own right, when they applied for retention on March 25, 1985. Since respondents’ application was filed before August 27, 1985, the inescapable conclusion is that they may rightfully claim 7 hectares each from Felisa’s land.
In sum, We find that the Extra-Judicial Deed of Settlement and the Letter dated March 25, 1985, constitute as substantial pieces of evidence for the grant of 7 hectares retention area to each of herein respondents. This is especially true in this case considering the absence of evidence to the contrary.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision[32] dated June 11, 2008, the Resolution[33] dated February 16, 2009, and Joint Resolution[34] dated September 6, 2011 of the Office of the President in OP Case No. 07-1-359 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Baltazar-Padilla, and Reyes-Carpio, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 8-32.
[2] Rollo, pp. 91-93.
[3] Rollo, pp. 115-117.
[4] Rollo, pp. 38-44.
[5] Entitled, “Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor.”
[6] Rollo, pp. 45-59.
[7] Rollo, p. 60.
[8] Rollo, p. 13.
[9] Rollo, pp. 62-66.
[10] Rollo, pp. 65-66.
[11] Rollo, pp. 67-71.
[12] Rollo, pp. 84-87.
[13] Rollo, pp. 88-90.
[14] Rollo, pp. 91-93.
[15] Rollo, pp. 115-117.
[16] Rollo, pp. 120-127.
[17] Rollo, pp. 38-44.
[18] Supra.
[19] Supra.
[20] Quiambao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128305, March 28, 2005.
[21] G.R. No. 159674, June 30, 2006.
[22] G.R. No. 68291, 6 March 1991, 194 SCRA 743.
[23] 47 Phil. 301, 304 (1971).
[24] G.R. No. 173923. October 12, 2009.
[25] Danan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132759 and G.R. No. 132866, October 25, 2005.
[26] Rollo, pp. 103-106.
[27] Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, G.R. No. 148635. April 1, 2003.
[28] Supra.
[29] G.R. No. 133507, February 17, 2000.
[30] G.R. No. 133507, February 17, 2000.
[31] Art. 777 of the New Civil Code.
[32] Rollo, pp. 38-45.
[33] Rollo, pp. 116-117.
[34] Rollo, pp. 38-44.
[35] G.R. No. 128305. March 28, 2005.