8/30/2016

G.R.No.172400

TodayisTuesday,August30,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.172400June23,2009
ZOSIMOOCTAVIOandJESUSALBONA(substitutedbyhiswife,VIOLETAALBONA),Petitioners,
vs.
ENRICOR.PEROVANO,xRespondent.
DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:
Before us is the appeal of petitioners Zosimo Octavio and Jesus Albona (deceased and substituted by his wife
Violeta Albona) from the Decision1 dated January 18, 2006 of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, Eighteenth
Division, in CAG.R. SP No. 78843. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision2 dated April 14, 2003 and
Resolution3datedJuly3,2003oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofBacolodCity,Branch46inCivilCaseNo.01
11392 which affirmed intoto the Decision4 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Talisay City, Negros
Occidental in Civil Case No. 671 ordering petitioners to vacate a parcel of land registered in the name of
respondentEnricoPerovano.
Thefacts,asculledfromtherecords,areasfollows:
OnMarch9,1999,respondentEnricoPerovano(Enrico)filedaComplaint5forForcibleEntrywithDamagesand
Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against Zosimo
Octavio (Zosimo), Jesus Albona (Jesus), and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Dolores Gulmatico
(Dolores)beforetheMTCC.ThecomplaintwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.671.
Inhiscomplaint,EnricoallegedheisthelawfulandregisteredownerofLotNo.412situatedattheCityofTalisay,
Negros Occidental, comprising an area of 48,693 square meters, more or less, and covered by TCT No. T
179767. 6 He averred that on or before the first week of January 1999, Zosimo and Jesus, upon the instruction
anddirection,andinconnivanceandconspiracywithDolores,bythreat,intimidation,strategyandstealth,entered
the land, plowed it and started planting sugarcane plants inspite of the efforts of Myrna Ayudante, Enricos
AttorneyinFact,toprohibitthemfromtrespassingontheproperty.
In their Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Motion to Dismiss,7 Zosimo, Jesus and Dolores denied Enricos
allegationsandarguedthatthelandwasvoluntarilyofferedforsalebyEstefaniaPerovano,Enricosmother,tothe
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in 1992. By reason of the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS), the landowner
(Estefania) placed the land under the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657,8 otherwise known as the
"ComprehensiveAgrarianReformLawof1998."Theyfurtherallegedthatimmediatelythereafter,theprocessing
oftheVOSClaimFolderwasinitiatedbytheDARMunicipalOfficeofTalisay,NegrosOccidentalidentificationand
registrationofqualifiedfarmerbeneficiariespursuanttoSection229ofRep.ActNo.6657wasconductedbythe
DAR Municipal Office of Talisay and Zosimo and Jesus were among those identified and qualified as farmer
beneficiaries of the land. The VOS Claim Folder was elevated to the DAR Municipal Office for review and
evaluationandwhentheprocessingoftheClaimFolderwascompleted,thelatterwasforwardedtotheLandBank
ofthePhilippinesforvaluation.Afterwards,paymenttothelandownerwasmade.CertificatesofLandOwnership
Award (CLOAs) were then generated in favor of the farmerbeneficiaries. Accordingly, petitioners argue that
EstefaniaceasedtobetheownerofthelandanditisnottruethatEnricoisstillthelawfulandregisteredownerof
the landholding.10 Petitioners add that a Memorandum of Agreement11 was executed between Estefania
Perovano and the farmerbeneficiaries wherein they agreed that the farmerbeneficiaries are free to take
possession and cultivate the landholding after payment was made to the landowner by the Land Bank of the
Philippines.12 They posit that there is no iota of doubt that the landholding is within the coverage of the
ComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgram(CARP)anditisonlytheProvincialAgrarianReformAdjudicationBoard
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_172400_2009.html

1/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.172400

which has original and exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any action as per Section 50,13 Rep. Act No. 6657.14
Theyarguethatregularcourtswerealreadydivestedoftheirgeneraljurisdictiontotryagrarianreformmatters,15
and the filing of the case is pure and simple harassment with the purpose of preventing or obstructing the
implementationoftheCARP.16
OnDecember29,2000,theMTCCofTalisayCityrenderedaDecisioninfavorofEnricoandorderedpetitioners
ZosimoandJesustovacatethepremises.ThedispositiveportionoftheDecisionstates:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Defendants herein
areordered:
1. To vacate Lot 412, Talisay Cadastre, subject of the instant case, remove all improvements introduced
thereonandstopfurthercultivationofthelandandtoreturnpossessionofthesametotheplaintiff
2. Defendants Zosimo Octavio and Jesus Alb[o]na are ordered to pay solidarily herein plaintiff Enrico
Perovanotheamountofthirtytwothousandpesos(P32,000.00)asyearlyrentalofthelandfromthetimeof
thefilingofthecomplaintuntilplaintiffisrestoredtothepossessionofthelotsubjectofthiscase.
3. Defendants herein Zosimo Octavio, Jesus Alb[o]na and Dolores Gulmatico are ordered to pay or
reimbursesolidarilyplaintifftheamountoftenthousandpesos(P10,000.00) for attorneys fees as well as
P500.00percourtappearance.
Topaythecostofthesuit.
SOORDERED.17
Petitioners appealed to the RTC of Negros Occidental, Branch 46, which, in a Decision dated April 14, 2003,
affirmedtheMTCCDecisionintoto.ThedispositiveportionoftheRTCDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,thisCourtfindstheDecisionoftheMunicipalTrialCourtin
Cities, Talisay City, Negros Occidental, dated December 29, 2000 to be supported by law and evidence, and
finding no cogent reason to disturb, modify, revise or reverse the same, said Decision is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto.Withcostsagainstthedefendantsappellants.
SOORDERED.18
TheCourtofAppeals,inaDecisionpromulgatedonJanuary18,2006,affirmedtheRTCDecision,asfollows:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisDENIED.Accordingly,theDecisiondatedApril14,2003and
theResolutiondatedJuly3,2003oftherespondentRegionalTrialCourtofNegrosOccidentalareAFFIRMEDin
toto.
SOORDERED19.
Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
Petitionersraisethefollowingissuesforourresolution:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING LOT 412 IS COVERED BY THE
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM, THUS THE CONVEYANCE OF THE SUBJECT
LOT412BYESTEFANIA[PEROVANO]TOHERSON[ENRICOR.PEROVANO]THEEXECUTIONOF
ALEASECONTRACTBYENRICO[PEROVANO]INFAVOROFCARMELAVALLEYCORPORATION
ANDOTHERSUBSEQUENTTRANSACTIONSAREVOID.
II.
WHETHERORNOTTHECASEFILEDBYTHERESPONDENTAGAINSTTHEHEREINPETITIONERS
IS TANTAMOUNT TO A CASE OF DISQUALIFICATION OF THE LATTER AS DULY INSTALLED
FARMERBENEFICIARIESOFTHESUBJECTLOT412,HENCEAGRARIANINCHARACTER.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY GRAVELY ERRED IN
DENYING THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION DATED
APRIL 14, 2003 AND THE RESOLUTION DATED JULY 3, 2003 OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_172400_2009.html

2/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.172400

TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 46, BACOLOD CITY FOR THE INSTANT CASE INVOLVES THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP), WHICH IS
ANAGRARIANMATTER,THEREBYDIVESTINGTHEREGULARCOURTOFITSJURISDICTION.20
The issue boils down to whether or not the case is an ejectment suit within the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial
courtoranagrariandisputewithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheDAR.
PetitionersintheirMemorandum21arguethatthesubjectLotNo.412oftheTalisayCadastrewassubjectedtoa
voluntary offer to sell by no other than the previous owner, Estefania Perovano, on June 18, 1992 that on
September8,1992,aMemorandumofAgreementwasexecutedbetweenEstefaniaandthefarmerbeneficiaries
whichincludedZosimoandJesustheDARgeneratedaCLOAandtheprevioustitleinthenameoftheprevious
owner was canceled and thereafter the farmerbeneficiaries took possession of the same the former landowner
had already received payment for the land from the Republic of the Philippines through the Land Bank of the
Philippines.PetitionersclarifiedthatsincefarmerbeneficiariesArsenioBene,RicardoOrocioandMyrnaAyudante
whowereCLOAholdersofthesubjectLotNo.412abandonedthesubjectpropertyaftersellingtheirrightstothe
landowner,whichactsaregrossviolationsofRep.ActNo.6657,theywererecommendedfordisqualification.In
theirstead,ZosimoandJesuswereinstalledasfarmerbeneficiaries.TheypointoutthatRegionalDirectorElmoA.
Baares of DAR Region VI, in an Order22 dated March 11, 1997, denied the protest filed by Enrico Perovano
against coverage of Lot No. 412. On January 19, 1998, Regional Director Dominador Andres, DAR, Iloilo City,
issuedanordergrantingtheexemptionofthesubjectLotNo.412fromcoverageofRep.ActNo.6657,butsaid
orderwasreversedonFebruary3,2006,byDARSecretaryNasserC.Pangandaman.
Ontheotherhand,respondent,inhisMemorandum,23arguethattheexistenceorabsenceofanagrariandispute
is a question of fact which is not proper for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Respondent likewise
maintains that petitioners herein are not CLOA holders and hence, they have no basis to state that they are
farmerbeneficiaries. Further, no tenancy relationship exists between petitioners and respondent. Being an
ejectmentcase,onlytheissueofpossessionisinvolved.
At the outset, let us be clear that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is determined by the material
allegationsofthecomplaintandthelawatthetimetheactioniscommenced,irrespectiveofwhethertheplaintiffis
entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. It cannot be made to depend upon the
defensessetupintheansweroruponamotiontodismissotherwise,thequestionofjurisdictionwoulddepend
almostentirelyonthedefendant.24
AscrutinyofthematerialallegationsinrespondentscomplaintbeforetheMTCCshowsthatitinvolvespossession
defacto,theonlyissueinvolvedinejectmentproceedings.Enricoallegedheisthelawfulandregisteredownerof
Lot No. 412 and that on or before the first week of January 1999, petitioners Zosimo and Jesus, by threat,
intimidation,strategyandstealth,enteredthepremisesoftheland,ploweditandstartedplantingsugarcane.
UnderBatasPambansaBlg.129,25asamendedbyRep.ActNo.7691,26 the MTC shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure27
governstheremedialaspectsofsuchsuits.28
la w p h il.n e t

UnderSection50ofRep.ActNo.6657,theDARisvestedwith"primaryjurisdictiontodetermineandadjudicate
agrarianreformmattersandshallhaveexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoverallmattersinvolvingtheimplementation
of agrarian reform."29 An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to, inter alia, tenancy over lands
devotedtoagriculture.30UnderSection3(d)ofRep.ActNo.6657,anagrariandisputereferstoanycontroversy
relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to
agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing,maintaining,changingorseekingtoarrangetermsorconditionsofsuchtenurialarrangements.Itincludes
any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of
transferofownershipfromlandownertofarmworkers,tenantsandotheragrarianreformbeneficiaries,whetherthe
disputantsstandintheproximaterelationoffarmoperatorandbeneficiary,landownerandtenant,orlessorand
lessee.Itreferstoanycontroversyrelatingto,interalia,tenancyoverlandsdevotedtoagriculture.31
Petitioners argue that the subject landholding is covered by the CARP and thus the conveyance of the lot by
Estefania to her son Enrico after she voluntarily offered to sell her property to the DAR is void. There is no
questionthatthelandiscoveredbytheCARP.RecordsshowthatDARSecretaryNasserC.Pangandamanissued
an Order on February 3, 2006 reversing the order of DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres granting
Enricospetitionforexemptionoftheland.
However,whetherornotpetitionersaredulyinstalledfarmerbeneficiariesisafindingoffact.Itiswellsettledthat
inapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,onlyquestionsoflawmayberaised.We
havetimeandagainruledthatthefactualfindingsoffactbyadministrativeagenciesaregenerallyaccordedgreat
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_172400_2009.html

3/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.172400

respect,ifnotfinality,bythecourtsbecauseofthespecialknowledgeandexpertiseofadministrativedepartments
over matters falling under their jurisdiction.32 As held by this Court in Sta. Rosa Realty v. Court of Appeals, et
al.,33 the identification of farmerbeneficiaries is best left to the discretion of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
throughitsauthorizedoffices,asthisisamatterinvolvingstrictlytheadministrativeimplementationoftheCARP,
andunlesstheCourtfindsthattherewasgraveabuseofdiscretioncommittedbytheagencyinvolved,whichthe
Courtfindsabsentinthiscase,itwillnotsubstituteitsjudgmenttothatoftheagencys.34
RecordsshowthattheDepartmentofAgrarianReformAdjudicationBoard(DARAB)promulgatedonJune3,2005
aDecisionrulingthatZosimoandJesusarenotrecognizedfarmerbeneficiaries.TheDARABruled:
Itappearsthatcomplainantsappellants(whichincludedZosimoandJesus)werenotamongthosethree(3)non
CLOAholdersoccupyingportionsofLotNos.412and04whoweregivenonehectarelandeachasdisturbance
compensation.Otherwise,theywouldhavenotfiledthiscaseon23February1999.Itmustberememberedthe19
January1998Orderwasdeclaredfinalon19October1998andtheoriginalcomplaintwasfiledon23February
1999.
Thus, this Board is of the opinion that complainantsappellants were not recognized as farmer
beneficiaries of the subject landholding. Their continued possession thereof was through stealth.
Even if they were not identified as farmerbeneficiaries and not awarded any CLOA, they arrogated unto
themselvestheportionsofthesubjectlandholding.Asadmittedbytheminthehearing,theycameintothe
land on the premise that they are farmerbeneficiaries. Without waiting for an award of any CLOA,
complainantsappellants occupied the landholding. In the process, "expropriating" the property of the
landowner without due process of law, prejudicing the rights of the landowner and the legitimate farmer
beneficiarieswhoweredulyawardedwithCLOA.
The acts of the complainantsappellants are similar to that of land grabbing. The agrarian reform law is not
enacted to give license to anybody to grab somebody elses land. Neither [is it] enacted to protect the land
grabbersorthesquatters.35(Emphasissupplied.)
Petitioners argument that the case involves an agrarian matter divesting the regular courts of jurisdiction
thereforehasnomerit.Theyarenotfarmerbeneficiariesbutmereusurpersoftheland.
TheMTCCproperlyruledthat:
x x x Defendants [petitioners herein] claim of ownership [as] farmerbeneficiaries is not evidenced [by] any
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) for nothing is shown that they are CLOA holders. Likewise, it is
clearlyestablishedthatdefendantshereinZosimoOctavioandJesusAlb[o]naremainedatplaintiffs[L]ot414and
didnotresideonLot412fortheywereresidentsofLot414formorethan20yearstodateasdeclaredbythemin
theirJointAffidavitsexecutedonNovember20,2000atIloiloCity.36
Clearly,therefore,theactionisoneforejectmentandtheMTCChasjurisdictionoverit.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheDecisiondatedJanuary18,2006oftheCourtofAppeals,CebuCity,
EighteenthDivision,inCAG.R.SPNo.78843isAFFIRMED.Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO*
AssociateJustice
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO**
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO***
AssociateJustice
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_172400_2009.html

4/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.172400

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
xSpelledasPirovanoinsomepartsoftherecords.
* Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 645 in place of Associate Justice

ConchitaCarpioMoraleswhoisonofficialleave.
**DesignatedmemberoftheSecondDivisionperSpecialOrderNo.658.
*** Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 635 in view of the retirement of

AssociateJusticeDanteO.Tinga.
1Rollo,pp.4250.PennedbyAssociateJusticeArsenioJ.Magpale,withAssociateJusticesVicenteL.Yap

andApolinarioD.Bruselas,Jr.concurring.
2Id.at7490.PennedbyJudgeGeorgeS.Patriarca.
3Id.at108113.PennedbyJudgeGeorgeS.Patriarca.
4Id.at152156.DatedDecember29,2000.PennedbyJudgeAntonioL.Jayobo.
5Id.at14.
6Records,p.210.
7Rollo,pp.121133.
8DoneandadoptedonDecember26,1998.
9 SEC. 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
samemunicipalityinthefollowingorderofpriority:
(a)agriculturallesseesandsharetenants
(b)regularfarmworkers
(c)seasonalfarmworkers
(d)otherfarmworkers
(e)actualtillersoroccupantsofpubliclands
(f)collectivesorcooperativesoftheabovebeneficiariesand
(g)othersdirectlyworkingontheland.
Provided,however,ThatthechildrenoflandownerswhoarequalifiedunderSection6ofthisActshall
begivenpreferenceinthedistributionofthelandoftheirparentsAndprovided,further,Thatactual
tenanttillersinthelandholdingshallnotbeejectedorremovedtherefrom.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_172400_2009.html

5/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.172400

Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned
theirlandaredisqualifiedtobecomebeneficiariesunderthisProgram.
Abasicqualificationofabeneficiaryshallbehiswillingness,aptitudeandabilitytocultivateandmake
the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or
performanceofeachbeneficiary,sothatanybeneficiaryguiltyofnegligenceormisuseofthelandor
any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall
submitperiodicreportsontheperformanceofthebeneficiariestothePARC.
If, due to the landowners retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the
land,thereisnotenoughlandtoaccommodateanyorsomeofthem,theymaybegrantedownership
ofotherlandsavailablefordistributionunderthisAct,attheoptionofthebeneficiaries.
Farmersalreadyinplaceandthosenotaccommodatedinthedistributionofprivatelyownedlandswill
begivenpreferentialrightsinthedistributionoflandsfromthepublicdomain.
10Rollo,pp.122123.
11Id.at141142.
12Id.at124.
13 SEC. 50. QuasiJudicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to

determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
mattersinvolvingtheimplementationofagrarianreform,exceptthosefallingundertheexclusivejurisdiction
oftheDepartmentofAgriculture(DA)andtheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR).
It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and
decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable
meanstoascertainthefactsofeverycaseinaccordancewithjusticeandequityandthemeritsofthe
case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and
inexpensivedeterminationofeveryactionorproceedingbeforeit.
Itshallhavethepowertosummonwitnesses,administeroaths,taketestimony,requiresubmissionof
reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to interrogatories and issue
subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly
deputizedofficers.Itshalllikewisehavethepowertopunishdirectandindirectcontemptsinthesame
mannerandsubjecttothesamepenaltiesasprovidedintheRulesofCourt.
Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers or their
organizations in any proceedings before the DAR Provided, however, That when there are two or
morerepresentativesforanyindividualorgroup,therepresentativesshouldchooseonlyoneamong
themselvestorepresentsuchpartyorgroupbeforeanyDARproceeding.
NotwithstandinganappealtotheCourtofAppeals,thedecisionoftheDARshallbeimmediately
executory.
14Rollo,p.127.
15Id.at129.
16Id.at130.
17Id.at156.
18Id.at8990.
19Id.at50.
20Id.at287288.
21Id.at281310.
22Id.at197203.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_172400_2009.html

6/7

8/30/2016

G.R.No.172400

23Id.at319343.
24Rimasugv.Martin,G.R.No.160118,November22,2005,475SCRA703,712.
25TheJudiciaryReorganizationActof1980,approvedonAugust14,1981.
26AnActExpandingtheJurisdictionoftheMetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourts,andMunicipal

Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Otherwise Known as the
"JudiciaryReorganizationActof1980",approvedonMarch25,1994.
27EffectiveonNovember15,1991.
28Riverav.Santiago,G.R.No.146501,August28,2003,410SCRA113,120.
29Id.at120121.
30Id.at122.
31Amuraov.Villalobos,G.R.No.157491,June20,2006,491SCRA464,474.
32Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142359, May 25, 2004, 429

SCRA109,130131.
33G.R.Nos.112526&118338,September28,2005,p.1(UnsignedResolution).
34Id.at34.
35Rollo,p.231.
36Id.at155.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_172400_2009.html

7/7