THE TENANTS OF THE ESTATE OF DR. JOSE SISON, REPRESENTED FERNANDO CAYABYAB, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS; SECRETARY PHILIP ELLA JUICO OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN…

This is a petition for review of the decision dated March 29,
1990 of the Court of Appeals upholding an order of the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, Philip Ella Juico, setting aside the previous orders of his
predecessors who had issued certificates of land transfer to the tenants of the rice and corn lands of the late
Dr. Jose Sison without due
regard for the right of his legal heirs to retain ownership of their shares if
they did not own more than seven
(7) hectares of rice or corn land.

Pursuant to the Operation Land Transfer Program of the Government
under Presidential Decree No. 27, certificates of land transfer were issued by
the Ministry of Agrarian Reform to the petitioners, tenants of the Estate of
Dr. Jose Sison, for their respective areas of cultivation. Upon discovering that certificates of land
transfer were being issued to the petitioners, the heirs of Dr. Sison protested
to the then Minister of Agrarian Reform, Conrado Estrella, who ordered that the
certificates of land transfer be marked, “UNDER PROTEST.”

Minister Estrella ordered an investigation of the case. The investigation report dated November 17,
1980, revealed that the landholdings of the late Dr. Jose Sison at Bayambang,
Pangasinan, were subdivided among his heirs pro-indiviso under a Deed of
Extrajudicial Partition dated April 2, 1966. Consequently, the acting MAR District Officer of Lingayen, Pangasinan,
recommended the cancellation of the certificates of land transfer that had been
issued to the petitioners-tenants.

However, a Reinvestigation Report, dated October 8, 1981
recommended that the landholdings be included in the Operation Land
Transfer. This was affirmed in a second
Reinvestigation Report dated February 9, 1982. Still another (third) Reinvestigation Report, dated September 29, 1986,
affirmed the previous recommendation that the landholdings of the Heirs be
covered by the Operation Land Transfer.

On February 17, 1987, then Minister Heherson Alvarez dismissed
the petition filed by Manuel Sison, as representative of all the Heirs of Dr.
Sison, for exemption of their landholdings from the coverage of Operation Land
Transfer. The heirs’ Motion for
Reconsideration of said Order was denied on July 6, 1987.

On December 8, 1987, the heirs reiterated their request for
reconsideration when Secretary Philip Ella Juico succeeded Secretary
Alvarez. They stressed the fact that
their individual landholdings were too small, not exceeding 7 hectares each, to
come under the coverage of the Operation Land Transfer.

After ordering a reinvestigation of the landholdings of the
individual heirs, an order was issued on September 7, 1988 by Secretary Juico,
modifying the orders of his predecessors. He ruled that the ricelands of Consuelo S. Nazareno and Peter Sison are
exempt from the Operation Land Transfer and that Elisa S. Reyes, Renato Sison,
Jose Sison, Josefina S. Zulueta and Jaime Sison, are entitled to retain not
more than seven (7) hectares of their ricelands, since they are not owners of more than seven (7)
hectares of other lands, and that Alfredo Sison and Manuel Sison are not
entitled to retention or exemption of their ricelands from the Operation Land
Transfer because they each own more than seven (7) hectares of other
agricultural land.

The tenants filed on October 27, 1988 a motion for
reconsideration which the Heirs of Dr. Sison opposed. On February 20, 1989, an order was issued by Secretary Juico
denying the motion for reconsideration.

Petitioners sought relief in the Court of Appeals which rendered
judgment on March 29, 1990, dismissing their petition for certiorari. Hence, this petition for review, alleging:

1. that the order dated September 7, 1988, of
respondent Secretary Philip Ella Juico, reconsidering and reversing the orders
of his predecessors dated February 17, 1987 and July 6, 1987, violates the rule
on estoppel, which prohibits the resurrection of a case after it has become
final and executory;

2. that the respondents Heirs of Dr. Jose Sison
having failed to file any application for retention within the period required
by law, and having filed their intentions to apply for retention and/or
exemption only on March 13, 1987, which was beyond the period required by law,
are estopped and totally barred from claiming such retentions or exemptions;

3. that even assuming that the said Heirs of
Dr. Jose Sison are still entitled to file such applications for retention
and/or exemption, still they are disqualified by law to be granted the same
under the provisions of P.D. 27, in relation to LOI 474, which grant such
retentions or exemptions only “if such landowner is cultivating such area
or will now cultivate it” (p. 6, Rollo); and

4. that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform had no
more authority or jurisdiction to cancel the Certificates of Land Transfer
after they have been issued to the tenants
beneficiaries.

The petition has no merit.

Petitioners herein question the propriety and legality of the
order of former Secretary Philip Ella Juico of the Department of Agrarian
Reform dated September 7, 1988, reversing and modifying the orders of his
predecessors which allegedly had attained finality after the lapse of more than
five (5) months since the order sought to be reconsidered therein contained a
proviso that “so far as this Office is concerned, this case is considered
already closed” (p. 26, Rollo). Respondent Secretary allegedly violated the rule on estoppel, which
prohibits the resurrection of a case after the decision has become final and
executory.

The first and fourth grounds of the petition for review are not
well-taken. The orders for the issuance
of Certificates of Land Transfer to the petitioners had not become final and
executory because the certificates had been marked “under protest” on
orders of Secretary Estrella.

The Court of Appeals correctly observed that the technical rules
of court practice and procedure do not apply to administrative proceedings in
the Department (formerly Ministry) of Agrarian Reform:

“x x x In the present case, respondent Secretary was not in
estoppel when it reconsidered the previous ruling of his predecessor, because
the latter’s ruling is plainly and directly against the law. As the order of September 7, 1988, stated,
and to repeat, the concerned heirs are entitled under the law to a retention of
seven (7) hectares of agricultural lands which is mandatory and the office had no discretion to alter the
disposition on the retention limits accorded by law to the landowners. No one, not even the petitioner’s tenants,
nor any court of justice, can deprive or deny the land owners of the retention
of seven (7) hectares which the law has reserved for them. Otherwise, the law would be set to naught or
would lose its very reason for being. Besides, there is no administrative rule or regulation, and Our
attention has not been called to it, which would preclude the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, to change the decision of his predecessor if the ruling is
patently against the law; on the contrary, justice and equity demand, that the
wrong should be righted and the error should not be made to prevail over what
is correct and legal. x x x.” (p.
22, Rollo.)

The failure of the private respondents to apply for retention of
seven (7) hectares each of their agricultural landholdings did not constitute
an estoppel or waiver of their respective right of retention. The omission was cured by their timely
protest against the issuance of the certificates of land transfer to the petitioners. In the Ist Indorsement by Gregorio Sapera,
Legal Officer of the Kagawarang Pangsakahan, it was noted that as early as
December 20, 1973, the Heirs of Dr. Jose Sison had been seeking exemption of
their landholdings from the Operation Land Transfer.

Whether or not each of the Heirs of Dr. Jose Sison owns more than
seven (7) hectares of riceland and other
agricultural lands, is a factual issue which we generally do not review. We
are bound by Secretary Juico’s finding, affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, that their respective landholdings are as follows:

Secretary Juico and the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that:

“Consequently, the landholdings of Consuelo and Peter, are
exempted from the OLT Coverage, and Elisa, Renato, Jose, Josefina and Jaime are
entitled to a retention of not more than seven (7) hectares of their ricelands
since they are not the owners of more than seven (7) hectares of other
agricultural lands. However, the excess
areas of the retained portion are covered by Operation Land Transfer. With respect to Alfredo and Manuel, they are
not entitled to the exemption and/or retention of their ricelands because they
are owners of more than seven (7) hectares of other agricultural lands.

“Anchored on the rule of law, the applicability of LOI No. 474
(Oct. 21, 1976) as the Implementing measure of P.D. No. 27 (Oct. 21, 1972) on
the foregoing facts and circumstances is mandatory. This office does not even have the discretion to alter the above
disposition on retention limits accorded the landowners as the law is clear and
explicit on this point.

“xxx                                       xxx                                           xxx.

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the orders dated February 17,
1987 and July 6, 1987 of this Office are hereby modified in the following
manner as it is declared and ordered that:

“1. The ricelands of Consuelo S. Nazareno
situated at Labrador, Pangasinan, and the ricelands of Peter Sison situated at
Labrador and Bayambang, Pangasinan, are exempted from the coverage of Operation
Land Transfer;

“2. Petitioners Elisa S. Reyes, Renato Sison,
Jose Sison, Josefina S. Zulueta and Jaime Sison are to retain not more than
seven (7) hectares of their respective ricelands situated in Bayambang,
Pangasinan, but the excess areas thereof, situated in Labrador, Pangasinan,
which are covered by the OLT and the CLTs already issued, if any, to the
tenants are hereby affirmed;

“3. Petitioners Alfredo Sison and Manuel Sison
are not entitled to this exemption and/or retention of their ricelands as they
are owners of more than seven (7) hectares of other agricultural land, and the
tenant-tillers thereon, if they have not yet been issued the Certificates of
Land Transfer, shall be issued such Certificates by the Regional Director of
Region I, DAR, San Fernando, La Union;

“4. The tenants in the exempted and retained
riceland areas of the petitioners shall remain as agricultural lessees thereon
and the Certificates of Land Transfer issued to them, if any, shall be as they
are hereby recalled/cancelled; and

“5. The tenant-farmers within the exempted and
retained riceland areas are hereby ordered to pay to the landowners the lease
rentals due them; or if such lease rentals were deposited with the Land Bank,
the landowners are therefore, authorized to withdraw the said deposits.”
(pp. 19-20, Rollo.)

There is no merit in the petitioners’ contention that the Heirs
of Dr. Sison are disqualified to retain their shares of the agricultural lands
of the estate for failure to comply with the requirement that “such
landowner is cultivating such area, or will now cultivate it” (p. 23,
Rollo). The Secretary interpreted that
provision to mean “that the tenants in the exempted and retained riceland
areas of the concerned Heirs of Sison, shall remain as agricultural lessees
therein. Which means, that while
ownership of the exempted and retained riceland areas shall pertain to the
concerned Heirs of Sison, the petitioners-tenant, as agricultural lessees,
shall remain as such and cultivate the same. The concerned Heirs of Sison therefore,
do not have to cultivate the retained
and exempted areas, unless the petitioners,
as agricultural lessees, would voluntarily relinquish
the task of cultivation and vacate and
surrender the said areas to the Heirs”
(p. 23, Rollo; Underscoring ours).

Respect should be accorded to the Secretary’s construction of the
law which his department administers and implements (Asturias Sugar Central
Inc. vs. Com. of Customs, 29 SCRA 617; Atlas Consolidated Mining and
Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 166; Sierra Madre Trust vs.
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 121 SCRA 384).

Hence, personal cultivation by the Heirs of Sison is not a
mandatory precondition for them to be entitled to their retention right.

Secretary Juico’s interpretation of the owner’s right of
retention conforms with our own construction in Association of Small
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs.
Secretary of Agrarian Reforms, G.R. No. 78742,
August 23, 1990, where we ruled that:

“x x x in case the area selected for retention by the
landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to
remain therein or be a beneficiary
in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable
features. In case the tenant chooses to
remain in the retained area, he shall be considered as leaseholder and shall
lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another
agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by
the landowner. The tenant must exercise
this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the land owner
manifests his choice of the area for retention.” (En Banc, Minute Resolution.)

Petitioners’ contention that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform had
no more authority or jurisdiction to cancel the Certificates of Land Transfer
after they had been issued to the tenants-beneficiaries, is not correct. The issuance,
recall or cancellation of certificates of land transfer fall within the Secretary’s administrative jurisdiction
as implementor of P.D. 27. Having found
that certain heirs of Dr. Sison were
entitled to retain their ricelands (which did not exceed seven [7] hectares) and had been illegally denied that
right, Secretary Juico properly ordered the cancellation of the Certificates of
Land Transfer which had been erroneously issued to the petitioners.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of
the Court of Appeals, the Court hereby AFFIRMS it in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Medialdea, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.