LEOPOLDO ANZANO, CRISTITA HALASAN, JOSEPHINE MANDALUNES, RUBEN SARABIA, DELILAH VILLACORTEZA AND VIRGINIA VILLACORTEZA, PETITIONERS, VS. ANASTACIO ANCAY, NESTOR LAGRIMAS, BONIFA…

Anzano versus Ancay

The Case

This is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court, brought by Leopoldo Anzano, Cristita Halasan, Josephine Mandalunes, Ruben Sarabia, Delilah Villacorteza and Virginia Villacorteza against Anastacio Ancay, Nestor Lagrimas, Bonifacio Gador, Victor Betalmos and Colito Romero. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul the Decision of the Office of the President dated 7 May 2009, which dismissed their appeal, and the Resolution dated 3 January 2012, which denied their Motion for Reconsideration. The case matters because it fixes the decisive moment for determining who qualifies as an agrarian reform beneficiary under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program: the time of the Department of Agrarian Reform's actual investigation and documentation, not the later date when the Certificate of Land Ownership Award is issued.

Procedural History

The dispute began before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, through the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator, which on 31 March 1997 declared several named persons, including the petitioners, as qualified and lawful agrarian reform beneficiaries to be included in the two Certificates of Land Ownership Award, directed the Register of Deeds to correct the awards, and dismissed the claims of forty nine other petitioners for lack of merit. That decision was appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Regional Director of Region Eleven.

On 24 October 2005, Regional Director Rodolfo Inson declared Anastacio Ancay, Nestor Lagrimas, Bonifacio Gador, Victor Betalmos and Colito Romero as additional qualified beneficiaries, and directed the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office to initiate the correction or amendment of the awards to include them. Motions for reconsideration were denied in a Resolution dated 9 January 2006. The petitioners and an association appealed to the Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary. On 13 March 2007, Officer in Charge Secretary Nasser Pangandaman denied the appeals and affirmed the Regional Director's Order; a motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on 19 December 2007. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Office of the President, which dismissed the appeals on 7 May 2009 and denied reconsideration on 3 January 2012. From that denial, the petitioners filed this petition for review under Rule 43 before the Supreme Court.

Facts

In 1994, the Department of Agrarian Reform placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program two tracts of land owned by Davao Abaca Plantation Company, Incorporated, with an aggregate area of one thousand four hectares in Panabo, Davao del Norte. The land was then leased to DOLE Philippines, Incorporated, STANFILCO Division. Upon the expiration of the lease contract on 7 February 1994, the Department conducted an identification, verification and validation of all potential agrarian reform beneficiaries among the workers of STANFILCO.

After screening, four hundred eighty two farmworkers were found qualified, and two Certificates of Land Ownership Award were issued to the STANFILCO Employees Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Incorporated, an association of identified beneficiaries, on 6 October 1994 and 29 December 1994. Fifty eight former STANFILCO employees, retrenched or terminated between 1992 and 1994, were declared disqualified, and these included both the petitioners and the respondents.

On 18 September 1996, the petitioners and respondents together filed a petition for inclusion as farmer beneficiaries, claiming qualification because they were already STANFILCO employees when Republic Act Number 6657 took effect on 15 June 1988. The adjudication board granted the petition in part in 1997, and the matter eventually reached the Regional Director, who in 2005 declared the five respondents as additional qualified beneficiaries. The petitioners objected that the respondents were no longer STANFILCO employees when the awards were issued in late 1994, since they had been separated from work earlier that year.

Issues

• Whether or not the Office of the President committed serious and reversible error in affirming the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary declaring the respondents qualified as agrarian reform beneficiaries.
• Whether or not the respondents, who were no longer employees at the time the Certificates of Land Ownership Award were issued, are disqualified from being agrarian reform beneficiaries.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph two, letter A of Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order Number 02, Series of 1993 provides:

Qualified farmworkers shall include all those who are found to be directly working on the land at the time the DAR conducts actual investigation and documentation. However, other workers who are employed directly by the agricultural enterprise or corporation may be considered as beneficiaries provided they meet the basic qualifications as provided under Section 22 of RA No. 6657.

This fixes the qualifying moment at the time of actual investigation and documentation, which is the very test the Court applies to the respondents.

Section 22 of Republic Act Number 6657 provides:

Section 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. – The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; (b) regular farmworkers; (c) seasonal farmworkers; (d) other farmworkers; (e) actual tiller or occupants of public lands; (f) collective or cooperative of the above beneficiaries, and; (g) others directly working on the land.A basic qualification of a beneficiary is his willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.

This supplies the basic qualifications of a beneficiary, which the respondents are measured against.

Republic Act Number 6657 likewise provides on lands held under lease by multinational corporations:

Lands leased, held or possessed by multinational corporations, owned by private individuals and private non-governmental corporations, associations, institutions and entities, citizens of the Philippines, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution upon the expiration of the applicable lease, management, grower or service contract in effect as of August 29, 1987, or otherwise, upon its valid termination, whichever comes sooner, but not later than after ten (10) years following the effectivity of this Act.

This explains why the coverage process began immediately upon the expiration of the lease on 7 February 1994.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Office of the President committed no error. The respondents were all former STANFILCO employees, and all were separated from work before the awards were issued in 1994. The petitioners did not question the factual findings that Anastacio Ancay, Bonifacio Gador and Colito Romero were severed from work in September 1994, 7 April 1994 and 15 March 1994, respectively, while Nestor Lagrimas and Victor Betalmos were terminated on 9 April 1994. The petitioners also did not question that the documentation of the coverage commenced immediately after the expiration of the lease on 7 February 1994.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that separation before issuance of the awards disqualified the respondents. The respondents were still working on the land as STANFILCO employees when the Department commenced its actual investigation and documentation on 7 February 1994. They therefore possessed the important qualification of a potential beneficiary, namely employment with STANFILCO at the time of actual investigation and documentation. The Court added that only the Department Secretary can identify and select beneficiaries, and that courts cannot substitute their judgment absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. On the objection that Nestor Lagrimas had been retrenched and was already sixty eight years old, the Court answered that no law or jurisprudence makes such age a ground for disqualification.

Doctrine

The qualification of a farmworker as an agrarian reform beneficiary is determined as of the time the Department of Agrarian Reform conducts its actual investigation and documentation, not as of the later issuance of the Certificate of Land Ownership Award. A worker who is directly working on the land at that qualifying moment remains qualified even if subsequently retrenched or terminated before the award is issued. Under Section 22 of Republic Act Number 6657, the basic qualification is the beneficiary's willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible, and age is not a statutory ground for disqualification. Finally, the identification and selection of beneficiaries is lodged with the Department Secretary and the Regional Directors, whose factual findings are binding on reviewing offices and courts absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or contrary evidence.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Decision of the Office of the President dated 7 May 2009 was affirmed in toto, so the respondents remain declared qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: qualification as an agrarian reform beneficiary is measured at the time of the Department's actual investigation and documentation, not at the issuance of the award. Examiners use this case to test the qualifying moment for beneficiaries and the deference owed to the Department's findings of fact.