HILDA RALLA ALMINE, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MINISTRY OF AGRARIAN REFORM (MAR) AND SULPICIO BOMBALES, RESPONDENTS.

This case involves the
issue of the power of review of the Court of Appeals over the administrative
decision on the transfer of the
land to the tenant-farmer under
Presidential Decree No. 27 and the amendatory and related decrees.

The facts are few and
simple.  On December 25, 1975, petitioner filed a sworn application for
retention of her riceland
or for exemption thereof from the Operation Land Transfer Program with the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform
(MAR), Regional Office in Tabaco, Albay.  After due hearing, Atty. Cidarminda
Arresgado of the said office filed an investigation
report dated June 26, 1980 for the cancellation of the Certificate of Land
Transfer (CLT) of private
respondent who appears to be petitioner’s tenant over her riceland.  Upon failure of the Ministry to take the
necessary action, petitioner reiterated her application sometime in 1979-1985
alleging that her tenant deliberately failed and refused to deliver her
landowner’s share from 1975 up to the time of the filing of the said
application and that the latter had distributed his landholding to his
children.  A reinvestigation was
conducted this time by Atty. Seth Evasco who on October 31, 1985 filed his report
recommending the cancellation of private respondent’s CLT.  Said report was elevated to the MAR.  In an endorsement dated November 25, 1985, Regional Director Salvador Pejo manifested his concurrence with the
report of Atty. Evasco holding that the properties of the petitioner consist of 4.3589 hectares as
evidenced by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 27167, 27168 and 27344 and
hence not covered by the Operation Land Transfer Program.  Juanita L. Lorena, the Officer-in-Charge of
MAR likewise concurred therewith. 
However, in the order
dated February 13, 1986,
then Minister Conrado Estrella
denied petitioner’s application for retention.

On April 17, 1986,
petitioner appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC).  The case was entitled Hilda Ralla Almine vs. MAR and docketed
as AC-G.R. SP No. 08550.  Private
respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.  However, it was denied in an order dated May 28, 1986.  A motion for reconsideration thereof was
likewise denied.  After the parties filed
their respective pleadings, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision dated June
29, 1987^[1]
dismissing the appeal on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction holding that questions as to whether a landowner should or should not be allowed to
retain his landholdings, if administratively decided by the Minister of
Agrarian Reform, are appealable and could be reviewed
only by the Court of Agrarian Relations and now by the Regional Trial Courts
pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.^[2]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in a
resolution dated October 22, 1987.^[3]

Hence, the present petition.

Petitioner’s posture is that it is an error for the respondent
appellate court to dismiss the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
since under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, said appellate court is vested with the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over all decisions,
resolutions, or orders of quasi-judicial
agencies except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court.  Petitioner argues that since the
appeal involves both calibration of the evidence and the determination of the laws applicable thereto, then an
appeal to the Court of Appeals is the appropriate remedy and hence her appeal
should not have been dismissed. 
Petitioner argues further that on the assumption that the Court of
Appeals has no jurisdiction on the matter, still the appeal should not have
been dismissed but should have been certified
to the proper court citing Section 3 of Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.

The Court of Agrarian Relations has original and exclusive
jurisdiction as follows:

“Jurisdiction over
Subject Matter. – The Courts of Agrarian Relations shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over:

a)      Cases involving the
rights and obligations of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural
land except those cognizable by the National Labor Relations Commission;
Provided, That no case involving the determination of rentals over any kind of tenanted agricultural land shall be
taken cognizance of by the Courts
of Agrarian Relations unless there has been a prior fixing of provisional
rental by the Department of Agrarian Reform, except that the tenant-farmer may
directly bring the case for immediate determination by the Courts of Agrarian
Relations;

b)  Questions involving
rights granted and obligations imposed by laws, Presidential Decrees, Orders,
Instructions, Rules and Regulations issued and promulgated in relation to the
agrarian reform program; Provided, however, That matters involving the
administrative implementation of the
transfer of the land to the tenant-farmer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and
amendatory and related decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations,
shall be exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, namely:

(1) classification and identification of landholdings;

(2) identification of tenant-farmers and landowners, and
determination of their tenancy relationship;

(3) parcellary mapping;

(4) determination of the total production and value of the land to
be transferred to the tenant-farmer;

(5) issuance, recall or cancellation of certificates of land
transfer in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree No. 816;

(6)  right of retention of
the landowner;

x x
x       x x x     x x x

Provided, further, That the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform may be appealed to the President of the Philippines.”^[4]

A perusal of the provision above cited reveals that questions as
to whether a landowner should or should not be allowed to retain his
landholdings are exclusively cognizable by the Minister (now Secretary) of
Agrarian Reform whose decision may be appealed to the Office of the President
and not to the Court of Agrarian Relations. 
These cases are thus excluded from those cognizable by the then CAR, now
the Regional Trial Courts.  There is no
appeal from a decision of the President. 
However, the said decision may be reviewed by the courts through a
special civil action for certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus, as the case may be under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court.

Thus, the respondent appellate court erred in holding that it has
no jurisdiction over the petition for review by way of certiorari
brought before it of a decision of the Minister of Agrarian Reform allegedly
made in grave abuse of his discretion and in holding that this is a matter within the competence of
the Court of Agrarian Reform.  The Court
of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction with this Court and the Regional Trial
Court over petitions seeking the extraordinary remedy of certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus.^[5]

The failure to appeal to the Office of the President from the decision of the Minister of Agrarian
Reform in this case is not a violation of the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies as the latter is the alter ego of the President.^[6]

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 29, 1987 and its resolution
dated October 22, 1987, in
CA-G.R. SP NO. 08550 are set aside and the records of the case are remanded to
said appellate court for further proceedings. 
No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Pronove, Jr., and
concurred in by Associate Justices Esteban Lising and
Bonifacio A. Cacdac, Jr.

^[2]
Pages 14-16, Rollo.

^[3]
Page 17, Rollo.

^[4]
Section 12, P.D. No. 946, (Reorganizing the Courts of Agrarian Relations, Streamlining Their Procedures And For
Other Purposes).

^[5]
Sections 9 (1) and 21(1), B.P. Blg. 129; Section 5
(1); Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.

^[6]
Tulawie vs. Provincial Agriculturist of Sulu, 11 SCRA 611 (1964); Santos
vs. Secretary of Public Works and Communications, 19 SCRA 636 (1967);
Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 (1963).