FELIPE RELUCIO III, FELICISIMA RELUCIO MAKALINAO AND MARIA RELUCIO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE HON. SAMILO N. BARLONGAY, ACTING D…

Petitioners Felipe Relucio III, Felicisima Relucio Makalinao and Maria Relucio seek
to set aside in this petition for certiorari the decision dated October
6, 1987 of public respondent Executive Secretary Catalino
Macaraig, Jr. by authority of the President,
affirming the order dated February 19, 1986 of the then Minister of Agrarian
Reform Conrado P. Estrella
in MAR Case No. NJC-460, as well as the order dated January 29, 1988 of public respondent Acting
Deputy Secretary Samilo Barlongay
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of said assailed decision.

As found by the Office of the President, the facts of this case
are as follows:

In 1945, Arsenio Castro became a
tenant-farmer over a riceland with an area of two and
one-half (2 1/2) hectares, more or
less, situated at Sta. Rita, Cabiao, Nueva Ecija which is a portion of
a vast riceland with an area of 109.7269
hectares owned and registered in the name of
Felipe Relucio, Sr., the grandfather of herein
petitioners.

In 1946, Felipe Relucio, Sr. died
leaving as his forced heirs his two (2) children, namely, Felipe Relucio, Jr. and Lorenzo Relucio,
both deceased.

On May 18, 1953, pursuant to an Agreement of Partition, the heirs
of Felipe Relucio, Jr., namely:  Felicisima, Maria
and Felipe III, and the heirs of Lorenzo Relucio,
namely:  his surviving spouse Remedios and children Lorenzo Jr., Rolando and Violeta, caused the consolidation-subdivision of the
aforesaid riceland into Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
8; whereby Lot No. 1 with an area of 30.5680 hectares, was adjudicated to the
heirs of Felipe Relucio, Jr. while Lot Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7, consisting of 30.5680 hectares
were adjudicated to Rolando Relucio and Lot Nos. 5, 6
and 8 with a total area of 30.5680 hectares were adjudicated to the heirs of Lorenzo Relucio.

On September 7, 1953, T.C.T. No. ET-14-14583 was issued covering Lot No. 1 in the names of Maria, Felicisima and
Felipe III, who, as aforestated, are the heirs of
Felipe Relucio, Jr. and herein petitioners.

Upon the issuance of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 in 1972, the entire province
of Nueva Ecija
was declared a land reform area.

On October 15, 1973 Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) No. 138512 was issued to appellee Arsenio Castro
conferring upon him the title to the portion of the landholding in question
actually tilled by him, designated as Lot No. 030304-017-00806-2 with an area
of 2.470 hectares.

Meanwhile, appellee continued to pay
rentals to his landlord through administrator Rolando Relucio
and/or Lorenzo Relucio until 1976 when Castro was
dispossessed by appellant Felipe Relucio III of
one-half (1/2) hectare portion of his landholding, thereby reducing its area to
two (2) hectares.

Thus, on September 2,
1982, Castro filed a verified letter-complaint, MAR Case No.
NJC-460 entitled “Arsenio Castro v. Felipe Relucio III, et al.” for recovery of possession of said one-half (1/2) hectare portion of his
landholding.  Private respondent Castro
claimed among others, that the possession of said one-half hectare portion of
the 2.47 hectare landholding was forcibly taken from him when he was ejected therefrom sometime in 1976 by petitioners Felipe Relucio III, et al., grandchildren of the late Felipe Relucio, Sr.

An investigation was conducted by the MAR District Office at Cabanatuan City and the case was assigned to Atty. Romeo B.
Bello, MAR Hearing Officer, MAR District Office, Cabanatuan City.

While the case was pending hearing and even before private respondent could testify,
the latter filed a “Motion for the Issuance of an Interlocutory Order
Maintaining Complainant (private respondent) In the Status Quo as an Actual
Tiller of the Disputed Landholding”. 
Petitioners opposed this Motion.^[1]

Acting on the Motion, Hearing Officer Bello
issued an Order on August 5, 1983
holding, among others, that “there is no tenancy relationship between Arsenio Castro and Felipe Relucio
III, et al.”

From this Order, private respondent appealed to the Regional
Director, Ministry of Agrarian Reform, Region III, San Fernando, Pampanga, raising, inter alia, the issue that Hearing Officer Bello
prejudged
the case in holding that there
was no tenancy relationship.

Meanwhile, Bello submitted his report
dated September 16, 1983, stating, inter alia,
that the boundaries of the farmholdings of Arsenio Castro should be specifically defined with full
technical description limited to the landholding of Rolando Relucio
and Vicente Zerda; that although Arsenio
Castro is entitled to a homelot, he could not claim
from Felipe Relucio III and his sisters because they have no tenancy relationship; and
that the MAR has no power to deprive
Felipe Relucio III, et al. of their ownership over the subject land.

After the lapse of six months
without action on his appeal, private respondent filed a petition for
reinvestigation.  Atty. Rustico M. Escoto, MAR Region III
Hearing Officer, San Fernando, Pampanga,
reinvestigated the case and submitted his report recommending, among others,
that the status of Arsenio Castro as the bona fide tenant-farmer of the 2.47 hectares be maintained and the
regularity and validity of CLT No. 138512 issued to him, covering the same, should be upheld.  His recommendation was anchored on the fact that Arsenio
Castro has been in possession and cultivation of the 2.47 hectares since 1945
when the entire 109.7269 hectares were still
owned by Felipe Relucio, Sr.; that after his death,
the estate was partitioned by his heirs on May 18, 1953, followed by a series of subdivisions of
agricultural and residential areas; and that there was a scheme by the heirs to
deprive Arsenio Castro and other tenants whose lands
were subjected to subdivision surveys.

In his 1st Indorsement dated July 27, 1984, the Regional Director,
MAR, Region III, San Fernando, Pampanga, concurred with the findings and recommendation of
Atty. Rustico M. Escoto,
stating therein, that Castro’s dispossession in 1976 of the 0.5000 hectares,
which includes the homelot portion thereof, of his farmholding covered by CLT is contrary to and in violation
of the agrarian reform laws as the complainant was already a tenant on the land
when this vast tract of land was still owned by herein petitioners’ late grandfather.

On February 19, 1986, then Minister of Agrarian Reform Conrado P. Estrella, issued an
order giving due course to the
complaint of Arsenio Castro for the recovery of
possession of the one-half (1/2) hectare of his farmholding
at Barangay Sta. Rita, Cabiao,
Nueva Ecija, and affirmed
the issuance and validity of CLT No. 138512 issued to Arsenio
Castro.  Felipe Relucio
III, et al. were directed to reconvey possession and
cultivation of the one-half (1/2) hectare to Arsenio
Castro, for the reason that:

“x x x The
subdivision of the estate and eventual transfer of ownership of the different portions thereof to
the heirs naturally results in having a new owner of the farmholding
of the tenant.  It was proven in the
investigation and in the subdivision plans submitted by the contending parties
that the farmholding of Castro is now located in the
boundary between Lot No. 1-C covered by TCT No. NT-11863 in the name of
respondent Felipe Relucio III and Lot No. 3 covered
by TCT No. NT-14566 in the name of Rolando Relucio,
another grandson of the former landowner.  Clearly, appellant was deprived of the
one-half (1/2) hectare of his landholding by the respondents because the other
portion of about 2.0000 hectares is now owned by Rolando Relucio.  The claim of respondent of non-tenancy with
the appellant is correct but that
will be begging the real issue which is the fact that the latter is a tenant in
the landholdings of the Relucio’s and the issuance of
the certificate of land transfer (CLT) covering an area of 2.4700 hectares
corresponding to Lot No. 030304-017-00808-2 bolster his claim of being a
beneficiary under PD 27.”^[2]

On appeal by Felipe Relucio III, et
al., the Office of the President, thru Acting Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, Jr., affirmed
on October 6, 1987 the
order of the Ministry (now Department) of Agrarian Reform.

Their motion for reconsideration having been denied on January 29, 1988, petitioners Felipe Relucio III, et al. filed the instant petition for certiorari
assailing the decision of Acting Executive
Secretary Catalino Macaraig
as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.

Upon due consideration of the allegations and arguments adduced
in the petition, and the respective comments
thereon by the Solicitor General and private respondent, as well as the
consolidated reply thereto by petitioners, the court finds that herein
petitioners failed to establish grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents in issuing the questioned orders of
October 6, 1987 and January 29, 1988.

The main thrust of this petition is against the declaration that private
respondent Castro is a bona fide tenant of the questioned
landholding.

This Court ordinarily accords respect, if not finality to factual
findings of administrative tribunals by reason of their special knowledge and
expertise gained from handling of specific matters falling under their
respective jurisdiction.^[3]
The exceptions to this rule where judicial power asserts itself are:  [1] The factual findings are not supported by
evidence; (2) the findings are vitiated by
fraud, imposition, or collusion; (3) the procedure which led to the
factual findings is irregular; (4) palpable errors are committed, or when a
grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifested.^[4]

Absent any showing of any important cause therefor,
the Court will not normally
substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body in a case or
controversy involving a question which is within its jurisdiction where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling
is essential to comply with the purposes of the statute administered.^[5]

A careful study of the records show that none of the above
circumstances is present in the case before us which would justify the
overturning of the findings of fact of the Minister (now Secretary) of Agrarian
Reform which were affirmed by the Office of the President that private
respondent Arsenio Castro has been in possession and
cultivation of the 2.470 hectares since 1945 when the entire 109.7269 hectares
were still owned by Felipe Relucio, Sr.; that after
his death in 1946, the said 109.7269 hectares were partitioned on May 18, 1953
among the heirs of his two (2) deceased children (Felipe Jr. and Lorenzo Relucio) and subsequently subdivided into several
agricultural and residential lots to deliberately dispossess private respondent
Arsenio Castro and the other tenants.  Petitioners vehemently dispute such
conclusion.

In any event, while it may be conceded that petitioners became
the absolute owners of the land alloted to them in the partition of their grandfather’s
estate, nonetheless private respondent undisputably
remained in continuous possession of the
lot in question,
undeniably a part of the original riceland of Felipe Relucio, Sr.

Furthermore, the basis of CLT No. 138512 issued to private
respondent covering the area of 2.47 is an aerial survey (PMS No. 017) relied
on more heavily by the Bureau of Lands as the more faithful indication of the
exact area of Castro’s landholding than per DAR Survey Form No. 1 which was
based on mere
approximations.  For this reason, there
appears to be no ground to annul or cancel said CLT.

Relative thereto, petitioners laid too much stress on the fact
that in their supposed tenancy relationship, private respondent failed to prove
consent and consideration.^[6]

As aforestated, the questioned tenancy
relationship started with the original owner and persisted despite the change
of ownership.  The act of subdividing the
whole land into several agricultural and residential lots between and among the
heirs of the original owner thereby resulting in a substantial change in the
boundaries of the lot awarded to
private respondent pursuant to Land Reform Law^[7]
cannot be invoked by petitioners to justify
their claim that there is no tenancy relation between petitioners and
private respondent.  The fact is that
private respondent is and has been a tenant of the Relucios
since 1945.  The tenancy relationship was not affected by the transfer of the
ownership of the landholding, as the new owner assumes the rights and
obligations of the previous owner.^[8] Otherwise stated, tenancy right
attaches to the landholding regardless of whoever may subsequently become the
owner thereof.^[9]
Furthermore, under the Land Reform Code, tenants are entitled to the enjoyment
and possession of their landholdings except when their dispossession has been
authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory.^[10]

Finally, petitioners cannot claim that they have been deprived of
due process.  It will be recalled that a full blown hearing was conducted
before Atty. Romeo Bello in the Nueva
Ecija Agrarian
Reform District Office where both parties presented oral and documentary
evidence.  The reinvestigation conducted by Atty. Rustico
M. Escoto was upon appeal by private
respondent from Bello‘s order.  The
evidence and records of the case were forwarded by Bello‘s
district office to Atty. Escoto, which in turn were
considered by the latter in the questioned report.  Aside from the fact that petitioners were furnished a copy of the appeal, the
same was resolved on the basis of position papers, memoranda and the evidence
previously presented to Atty. Bello.^[11]

It has already been settled that what due process abhors is not lack of previous notice but absolute
lack of opportunity to be heard.^[12]
To satisfy due process, official
action must be responsive to the supremacy of reason and the dictates of
justice.^[13]
There is no denial of due process where petitioner was afforded every
opportunity to present its case.^[14]

Petitioners claim that “prior to the issuance of private
respondent’s CLT said private respondent never paid a single centavo of lease
rental to petitioners.  After the
issuance of the CLT, neither the government nor private respondent paid a
single centavo to petitioners as consideration for the one-half hectare now
being confiscated x x x.”^[15]

The records show however, that private respondent had been
religiously paying the landowner’s share of the produce as well as the rentals
to Rolando Relucio who acted as administrator of the
estate of Felipe Relucio, Sr.^[16]

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant
petition for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 125.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 55.

^[3]
Ateneo de
Manila v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 100 (October 16, 1986).

^[4]
Id. at 106.

^[5]
Antipolo Realty Corp. v. NHA, 153 SCRA 399
(1987 citing Pambuhan Sur
United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., Inc.,
94 Phil, 932, 941 (1954).

^[6]
Rollo, p. 172.

^[7]
P.D. 27.

^[8]
Dimitui v. CAR, 21 SCRA 933.

^[9]
Rollo, p. 32.

^[10]
Quilantang v. Court of Appeals, 48 SCRA 294,
298; Tiongson v. Court of Appeals, 49 SCRA
429; Paulo v. Court of Appeals, 54 SCRA 253.

^[11]
Rollo, pp. 147-148.

^[12]
Tajonero v.
Lamoroza, 110 SCRA 438 (1981).

^[13]
Venzon v.
Ardoles, 56 SCRA 493 (1974).

^[14]
Municipality of Daet v. Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., 138 SCRA 265 (1985).

^[15]
Rollo, pp. 150-151.

^[16]
Rollo, p. 151.