Luz Farms vs Sec of DAR
FACTS: Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the enforcement of some provisions of CAR! Luz Farms "uestions the follo#ing provisions of R!A! $$%&' insofar as they are made to apply to it: •
•
(a)
Section Section *(b) #hich includes includes the +raising +raising of livestock livestock (and poultry) poultry)++ in the definitio definition n of +Agricultural' +Agricultural'
Agricultural ,nterprise or Agricultural Activity! Activity! (b)
Section Section -- #hich defines defines +commercial +commercial farms+ farms+ as +private agricultur agricultural al lands devoted to commercial' commercial'
livestock' poultry and s#ine raising ! ! !+ (c)
Section -* #hich calls upon petitioner to e.ecute a production/sharing plan!
(d)
Section Section -$(d) and -& #hich vest on the 0epartme 0epartment nt of Agrarian Agrarian Reform Reform the authority authority to summarily summarily
determine the 1ust compensation to be paid for lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform La# (e)
Section *2 #hich spells out the production/sharing plan mentioned in Section -*
+! ! ! (3)hereby three percent (*4) of the gross sales from the production of such lands are distributed #ithin si.ty ($5) days of the end of the fiscal year as compensation to regular and other farm#orkers in such lands over and above the compensation they currently receive ... 6SS7,: The main issue in this petition is the constitutionality of Sections *(b)' --' -* and *2 of R!A! 8o! $$%& (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform La# of -9)' insofar as the said la# includes the raising of livestock' poultry and s#ine in its coverage ;,L0: • •
•
•
Said provisions are unconstitutional! uncon stitutional! The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of -9$ on the meaning of the #ord +agricultural'+ clearly sho# that it #as never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally/mandated agrarian reform program of the
Association =f Small Lando#ners >s! Secretary =f 0AR Case 0igest
Asso! =f Small Lando#ners >s! Sec! =f 0AR -&% SCRA *?* ictoria >ictoriass Bill 8egros =ccidental aga inst roclamation -*- and ,= 229! roclamation -*- is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund #ith initial fund of %5illion! c! A petition by o#ners of land #hich #as placed by the 0AR under the coverage of =peration Land Transfer! d! A petition invoking the right of retention under 0 2& to o#ners of rice and corn lands not e.ceeding seven hectares! 6ssue: 3hether or 8ot the aforementioned ,=s' 0' and RA #ere constitutional! ;eld: The promulgation of 0 2& by resident Barcos #as valid in e.ercise of olice po#er and eminent domain! The po#er of resident A"uino to promulgate roc! -*- and ,= 22 and 229 #as authorized under Sec! $ of the Transitory rovisions of the -9& Constitution! Therefore it is a valid e.ercise of olice o#er and ,minent 0omain! RA $$%& is like#ise valid! The carrying out of the regulation under CAR becomes necessary to deprive o#ners of #hatever lands they may o#n in e.cess of the ma.imum area allo#ed' there is definitely a taking under the po#er of eminent domain for #hich payment of 1ust compensation is imperative! The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the th e land! 3hat is re"uired re"uired is the surrender of the title and the physical possession possession of said e.cess and all beneficial beneficial rights accruing to the o#ner in favour of the farmer! A statute may be sustained under the police po#er only if there is concurrence of the la#ful sub1ect and the method! Sub1ect and purpose of the Agrarian Reform La# is valid' ho#ever #hat is to be determined is the method employed to achieve it!
>inzons/Bagana >inzons/Bagana vs! Binister of Agrarian Reform (-99-)
FACTS BA
,RS6TI =F SA8 CARL=S E R==B ?-5 (2559/25-5)Barianne Cabacungan -! 3hether the property sub1ect of the suit is covered by Rep! Act8o! $$%&' the Agrarian Reform La# (CARL)D 2! #hether the 0ARA had original and appellate 1urisdiction over the complaint of the petitioner FA6 against the privaterespondentD *! #hether the petitioners/members of the FA6 have a cause of action against the private respondent for possession andcultivation of the property in suitD ?! #hether the dismissal by the RTC of the complaint in Civil Case8o! C>/&/-* is a bar to the complaint of the petitioners/members of the FA6D and %!
#hether the appellate court committed a reversible error indismissing the petition for revie# in CA/
Natalia Realty Inc and Estate Developers & Investors Corp vs DAR
FACTS: etitioner 8atalia is the o#ner of three contiguous parcels of land located in anaba' Antipolo' Rizal! =n - April -9&9' residential roclamation 8o! -$*& set aside 25'*-2 hectares of land located in the Bunicipalities of Antipolo' San Bateo and Bontalban as to#nsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis #hich #ere designated as the Lung sod Silangan To#nsite! The 8atalia properties are situated #ithin the areas proclaimed as to#nsite reservation! • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,06C' developer of 8atalia' applied for and #as granted preliminary approval and locational clearances by the ;uman Settlements Regulatory Commission! etitioners #ere like#ise issued development permits after complying #ith the re"uirements! Thus the 8atalia properties later became the Antipolo ;ills Subdivision! =n -% @une -9' CARL #as enacted! 0AR' through BAR=' issued a 8otice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo ;ills Subdivision #hich consisted of roughly 95!**5& hectares! 8atalia and ,06C protested to this! Bembers of the Samahan ng Bagsasaka sa undok Antipolo' 6nc! (SABA)' filed a complaint against 8atalia and ,06C before the 0AR Regional Ad1udicator to restrain petitioners from developing areas under cultivation by SABA members! 0AR Regional ruled by temporarily restraining petitioners from further developing the subdivision! etitioners elevated their cause to 0ARA but the latter merely remanded the case to the Regional Ad1udicator for further proceedings 8atalia #rote respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform reiterating its re"uest to set aside the 8otice of Coverage! 8either respondent Secretary nor respondent 0irector took action on the protest/letters! ;ence' this petition! 8atalias contention: Sub1ect properties already ceased to be agricultural lands #hen they #ere included in the areas reserved by presidential fiat for to#nsite reservation! =S<s contention: The permits granted petitioners #ere not valid and binding because they did not comply #ith the implementing Standards' Rules and Regulations of !0! 9%&' other#ise kno#n as +The Subdivision and Condominium uyers rotective 0ecree'+ in that no application for conversion of the 8ATAL6A lands from agricultural to residential #as ever filed #ith the 0AR! 6n other #ords' there #as no valid conversion!
6SS7,: 3hether or not the sub1ect properties shall be included in the coverage of CAR ;,L0: 8=! Section ? of R!A! $$%& provides that the CARL shall +cover' regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced' all public and private agricultural lands!+ As to #hat constitutes +agricultural land'+ it is referred to as +land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral' forest' residential' commercial or industrial land! The deliberations of the Constitutional • •
Commission confirm this limitation! +Agricultural lands+ are only those lands #hich are +arable and suitable agricultural lands+ and +do not include commercial' industrial and residential lands!+ •
ased on the foregoing' it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo ;ills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as +agricultural lands!+ These lots #ere intended for residential use! They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation!
T;6R0 06>6S6=8 J
resolved to grant their Botion for Reconsideration and to re"uire the solicitor general to comment on the etition #ithin ten days from notice! =n =ctober 9' 255*' the =ffice of the Solicitor illasor' represented by 6rving >illasor' are bulldozing and leveling the sub1ect property for the purpose of converting it into a residential subdivisionD that as prospective CAR beneficiaries of the land in "uestion' being former laborers' actual occupants and permanent residents of arangay ahanocoy' their rights #ill be pre1udiced by the illegal conversion of the land into a residential subdivision . . .! =n April -*' -99?' the 0ARA =6C ,.ecutive 0irector for#arded the complaint to Jrovincial Agrarian Reform Ad1udicator (ARA0)K' 0AR' Region >6' acolod City for appropriate action . . .! efore any hearing could be conducted thereon' the Secretary of the 0epartment of Agrarian Reform issued an =rder dated September -*' -99? in R,: ,T6T6=8 F=R ,,BT6=8 FR=B CAR C=>,RA<, 7RS7A8T T= 0=@ =686=8 8=! ??' S,R6,S =F -995' 6R>68< ! >6LLAS=R' et al!' Rep! by Atty! Angel Lobaton' @r!' etitioners' portions of #hich read as follo#s: After a careful study of the facts of the case and the evidences presented by the parties' this =ffice finds the petition for e.emption to be #ell founded! 7nder 0=@ =pinion 8o! ??' Series of -995' it provides that lands #hich has already been classified as mineral' forest' residential' commercial and industrial areas' prior to @une -%' -9 shall be e.cluded from CAR coverage! To this' it is an JiKnescapable conclusion that the sub1ect property is e.empted from CAR coverage considering the fact that the same #as classified as residential as evidenced by the Resolution 8o! %-%*/A' Series of -9&$ of the City Council of acolod and as approved by the ;uman Settlements Regulatory Commission (no# ;L7R) in its Resolution dated September 2 ?' -95 as per Certification dated @une 22' -99? issued by the said Commission! The Certification of the 8ational 6rrigation Administration (86A) dated @une 9' -99? stated that the sub1ect land is not irrigable or is outside the service area of the irrigation system in the locality! 6n effect the said application had conformed to the re"uirements of the la# on e.emption! 6n accord thereto' the stand of Br! ,spanola that the portion' #hich he planted to trees and developed into mini/forest should be covered by CARJ'K is beyond recognition as the program does not apply to those #hich are already classified as residential lands prior to the effectivity of CARL on @une -%' -9! 6nstead' it is confined only to agricultural lands' #hich under R!A! $$%&' Sec! *(c)' it defines agricultural lands as lands devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral' forest' residential or industrial land! 3ith the above stated definition' it is beyond reason that the placing of the said portion under CAR coverage (-!% hectare) is devoid of legal and factual basis!JK
As earlier said' the ,.emption =rder #as challenged before the appellate court via a etition for Certiorari! Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals sustained the ,.emption =rder issued by public respondent! 6t found that prior to @une -%' -9' Lot *%/ had been reclassified from agricultural to residential land! 6t relied on the Courts pronouncement in Natalia Realty v. Department of Agrarian ReformJ9K that lands #ere outside the coverage of the CARL if they had been converted to non/agricultural uses by government agencies' other than the 0AR' prior to the effectivity of that la#! Further' the CA ruled that neither the CARL nor the Local
The meaning of agricultural lands covered by the CARL #as e.plained further by the 0AR in its Administrative =rder 8o! -' Series of -995'J-2K entitled Revised Rules and Regulations
non/agricultural before the enactment of Republic Act $$%&! 0esigned to streamline the issuance of e.emption clearances' based on 0=@ =pinion 8o! ??' the A= provided guidelines and procedures for the issuance o f e.emption clearances! Thereafter' 0AR issued A= -2'J-9K Series of -99?' entitled Consolidated and Revised Rules and rocedures
certified that the area #here the aforecited property is located #as like#ise identified for residential use under the To#n lanning' ;ousing Moning rogram of the 8ational Coordinating Council of the then Binistry of ;uman Settlements as approved under the City Council Resolution 8o! %&92' Series of -9&&! . . .!J2K These Certifications carried the presumption of regularity in their issuance! etitioners did not present any evidence to overcome that presumption!J29K The letter of the deputized zoning administrator of acolod City // cited by petitioners to contradict the Certifications // did not touch on' much less corroborate' their claim that the sub1ect landholding remained classified as agricultural! 6t merely restated #hat #as already provided in the la# // that only the Sangguniang anlungsod of acolod City could reclassify lands! etitioners ne.t assert that' for ta. purposes' the sub1ect property #as declared by its o#ners as agricultural land since time immemorial until at least -99?!J*5K 6t is settled' ho#ever' that a ta. declaration is not conclusive of the nature of the property for zoning purposes!J*-K 6t may have been declared by its o#ner as residential for real estate ta.ation purposes' but it may #ell be #ithin a commercial zone!J*2K 6n the determination of the nature of a piece of property' a discrepancy #ould thus e.ist bet#een its classification for real estate ta.ation purposes vis""vis that for zoning purposes! 7nder the Real roperty Ta. Code' a ta. declaration serves only to enable the assessor to identify a property for assessment levels'J**K not to bind a provincialEcity assessor! 7nder Section 225 of the Real ,state Ta. Code' appraisal and assessment are based on the actual use' regardless of any previous assessment or ta.payers valuation thereon #hich' in turn' is based on a ta.payers declaration! Repulic v. Court of AppealsJ*?K ruled thus: There is no la# or 1urisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the ta. declarations is conclusive and final nor #ould proscribe any further in"uiry! Furthermore' the ta. declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of a land! 6n fact' 0AR Administrative =rder 8o! $ lists other documents' aside from ta. declarations' that must be submitted #hen applying for e.emption from CAR! 6n #alili v. Court of Appeals, #e sustained the trial court #hen it ruled that the classification made by the Land Regulatory oard of the land in "uestion out#eighed the classification stated in the ta. declaration! Conse"uently' even if the sub1ect landholding has been declared as agricultural for ta.ation purposes' once a local government has reclassified it as residential' that determination must prevail for zoning purposes! !EREF"RE' the etition is D$N%$D' and the assailed 0ecision A!!%R&$D. Costs against the petitioners!
S= =R0,R,0! Sandoval/
#.R. No. L$%'() *arc+ ),- ),, CELS" /A#0AL1NAN and /A1LINA /. /A#0AL1NAN- petitioners' vs! !"N. R"21E A. 0A*A3"- /residin4 5ud4e of t+e CFI of 6ulacan- 6ranc+ 7I- RE/16LIC "F 0!E /!ILI//INES and 01RAND"0- 0RA7IA0A- *ARCELI0A- *ARLENE /ACI0A- *A00!E and R"SAR3- all surnamed ALDA6A- respondents!
$milio '. 'arcia for petitioners.
C"R0ES- !%&
=n @anuary -&' -9&' respondent Republic of the hilippines filed a co mplaint #ith the Court of First 6nstance of ulacan for e.propriation of a parcel of land located in o! Tikay' Balolos' ulacan' and o#ned by private respondents herein as evidenced by TCT 8o! 2?55 $' issued by the Register of 0eeds of the province of ulacan Jetition' p! 2D Rollo' p! -5K! The complaint #as docketed as Civil Case 8o! %2%&/B and entitled +Republic of the hilippines v! Turandot Aldaba' et al!+ =n Barch 2' -9&' the Court of First 6nstance issued a #rit of possession placing the Republic in possession of the land' upon its deposit of the amount of Seven Thousand T#o ;undred esos (&'255!55) as provisional value of the land! =n @une ' -9&' petitioners herein filed a supplemental motion for leave to intervene' #ith complaint in intervention attached thereto' alleging that p etitioner Celso agtalunan has been the ona fide agricultural tenant of a portion of the land! etitioners asked the trial court to order payment to Celso agtalunan of 1ust compensation for his landholding o r' in the alternative' to order payment of his disturbance compensation as ona fide tenant in an amount not less than Fifteen Thousand esos (-%'555!55) per h ectare! =n 0ecember ' -9&' respondent @udge Ro"ue A! Tamayo issued an order denying the petitioners supplemental motion' holding that to admit petitioners complaint in intervention #ould be tantamount to allo#ing a person to sue the State #ithout its consent since the claim for disturbance compensation is a claim against the State! =n @anuary -2' -9&9' petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but this #as denied by respondent 1udge in an order dated February -*' -9&9! =n @uly 2*' -95! the instant petition #as filed and #as docketed as
e.propriation case! =n August -9' -9-' this Court issued a resolution granting the motion for reconsideration and gave due course to the petition! Bean#hile on 0ecember 22' -9&' the =ffice of the Solicitor
The Court is fully a#are that the phrase +deemed to be the o#ner+ is used to describe the grantee of a certificate of land transfer! ut the import of such phrase must be construed #ithin the policy frame#ork of res! 0ecree 8o! 2&' and interpreted #ith the other stipulations of the certificate issued pursuant to this decree! res! 0ecree 8o! 2& (other#ise kno#n as the +Tenant ,mancipation 0ecree+) #as anchored upon the fundamental ob1ective of addressing valid and legitimate grievances of land o#nership giving rise to violent conflict and social tension in the countryside! Bore importantly' it recognized the necessity to encourage a more productive agricultural base of the countrys economy! To achieve this end' the decree laid do#n a system for the purchase by small farmers' long recognized as the backbone of the economy' of the lands they #ere tilling! Lando#ners of agricultural lands #hich #ere devoted primarily to rice and corn production and e.ceeded the minimum retention area #ere thus compelled to sell' through the intercession of the government' their lands to "ualified farmers at liberal terms and conditions! ;o#ever' a careful study of the provisions of res! 0ecree 8o! 2&' and the certificate of land transfer issued to "ualified farmers' #ill reveal that the transfer of o#nership over these lands is sub1ect to particular terms and conditions the compliance #ith #hich is necessary in order that the grantees can claim the right of absolute o#nership over them! A certificate of land transfer issued pursuant to res! 0ecree 8o! 2& provides: ... ... ... 6' Ferdinand ,! Barcos' resident of the hilippines' declare that NNNNNNNNN having manifested his desire to o#n the land under his cultivation and having complied #ith the implementing rules and regulations of the 0epartment of Agrarian Reform' is hereby deemed to be the o#ner of the agricultural land described as follo#s: ... ... ... su(ect to t)e conditions t)at t)e cost of t)e portion )erein transferred to t)e tenant farmer as fi*ed y t)e aut)orities concerned, including t)e interest rate at t)e rate of si* percentum +- per annum s)all e paid y t)e tenant farmer in fifteen +/0 e1ual annual amorti2ation, t)at t)e tenant framer must e a memer of a Barrio Association upon organi2ation of suc) association in )is locality, and t)at t)e title to t)e land )erein s)all not e transferred e*cept y )ereditary succession or to t)e 'overnment in accordance 3it) t)e provisions of Presidential Decree Numer 45, t)e Code of Agrarian Reform and ot)er e*isting la3s and regulations! ... ... ... JAnne. ++ to the etitionD Rollo' p! 2$' ,mphasis suppliedK! And under res! 0ecree 8o! 2$$ #hich specifies the procedure for the registration of title to lands ac"uired under res! 0ecree 8o! 2&' full compliance by the grantee #ith the abovementioned undertakings is re"uired for a grant of title under the Tenant ,mancipation 0ecree and the subse"uent issuance of an emancipation patent in favor of the farmerEgrantee JSection 2' res! 0ecree 8o! 22$K! 6t is the emancipation patent #hich constitutes conclusive authority for the issuance of an =riginal Certificate of Transfer' or a Transfer Certificate of Title' in the name of the grantee! ;ence' the mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the farmerEgrantee o#nership of the land described therein! The certificate simply evidences the governments recognition of the grantee as the party "ualified to avail of the statutory mechanisms for the ac"uisition of o#nership of the land tilled by him as provided under res! 0ecree 8o! 2&! 8either is this recognition permanent nor irrevocable! Failure on the part of the farmerEgrantee to comply #ith his obligation to pay his lease rentals or amortization payments #hen
they fall due for a period of t#o (2) years to the lando#ner or agricultural lessor is a ground for forfeiture of his certificate of land transfer JSection 2' res! 0ecree 8o! -$K! Clearly' it is only after compliance #ith the above conditions #hich entitle a farmer6grantee to an emancipation patent that he ac"uires the vested right of absolute o#nership in the landholding G a right #hich has become fi.ed and established' and is no longer open to doubt or controversy JSee definition of vested right+ or +vested interest+ in albao v! Farrales' %- hil! ?9 (-92)D Republic of the hilippines v! de orkan' , T;=7SA80 ,S=S (%'555!55) to compensate the latter for improvements introduced on the property' and e.penses for relocating his home Jetitioners Reply to the =pposition to their Botion for Reconsideration' p! 2D Rollo' p! 9! And also rivate Respondents Comment' p! *D Rollo' p! 9*K! Considering' therefore' that petitioners are not entitled to 1ust compensation for the e.propriation of the sub1ect property' nor to disturbance compensation under Rep! Act 8o! *??' as amended' the Court finds that the trial court committed no reversible error in denying petitioners motion for leave to intervene in the e.propriation proceedings belo#!
66! =n the issue of 1urisdiction' petitioners contend that since their motion to intervene alleges as 1ustification therefor that petitioner Celso agtalunan is the ona fide tenant of the sub1ect property' the case should have been referred to the Court of Agrarian Relations #hich has original and e.clusive 1urisdiction over e.propriation proceedings for public purpose of all kinds of tenanted properties! The Court finds no reason to d#ell on this point! The issue of #hat court has 1urisdiction over the e.propriation proceedings in this case has been rendered moot and academic by !! lg! -29! 7nder aragraph &' Section -9 of !! lg! -29' all civil actions and special proceedings #hich #ere then under the e.clusive 1urisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations #ere placed under the e.clusive and o riginal 1urisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts Jformerly the Courts of First 6nstanceK! 3;,R,F=R,' the present petition is hereby 0,86,0 for lack of merit! S= =R0,R,0! !ernan, C.J., 'utierre2, Jr., !eliciano and Bidin, JJ., concur.
DAR vs Delia Sutton
FACTS: The case at bar involves a land in Aroroy' Basbate' inherited by respondents #hich has been devoted e.clusively to co# and calf breeding! =n =ctober 2$' -9&' pursuant to the then e.isting agrarian reform program of the government' respondents made a voluntary offer to sell (>=S) their landholdings to petitioner 0AR to avail of certain incentives under the la#! =n @une -5' -9' CARL took effect! •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6n vie# of the Luz Farms ruling' respondents filed #ith petitioner 0AR a formal re"uest to #ithdra# their >=S as their landholding #as devoted e.clusively to cattle/raising and thus e.empted from the coverage of the CARL! BAR= inspected respondents land and found that it #as devoted solely to cattle/raising and breeding! ;e recommended to the 0AR Secretary that it be e.empted from the coverage of the CARL! 0AR ignored their re"uest 0AR issued A!=! 8o! 9' series of -99*' #hich provided that only portions of private agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock' poultry and s#ine as of @une -%' -9 shall be e.cluded from the coverage of the CARL! 6n determining the area of land to be e.cluded' the A!=! fi.ed the follo#ing retention limits' viz: -:- animal/land ratio! 0AR Secretary
6SS7,: 3hether or not 0AR A!=! 8o! 9' series of -99*' #hich prescribes a ma.imum retention limit for o#ners of lands devoted to livestock raising is constitutional!
;,L0: • •
Assailed A= is unconstitutional! 6n the case at bar' #e find that the impugned A!=! is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution! The A!=! sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a ma.imum retention limit for their o#nership! ;o#ever' the deliberations of the -9& Constitutional Commission sho# a clear intent to e.clude' inter alia' all lands e.clusively devoted to livestock' s#ine and poultry/ raising!
0,ARTB,8T =F Aicente O! 7y' 3ellington O! =ng' @aime Chua' and 0aniel Sy' among others' are o#ners of a *?9!999$/ha parcel of land located in arangay Camaflora' arrio of San Andres' Bunicipality of San 8arciso' rovince of Puezon! The property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 8o! -$59! Sometime in -99*' some ?? farmers #ho occupied portions of the property filed petitions in the 0AR' seeking to be declared as o#ners/ beneficiaries! The 0AR issued a 8otice of Coverage un der the CAR over the property! For his part' respondent' in behalf of the co/o#ners' filed an Application for ,.clusion in the form of a letter' through rovincial Agrarian Reform =fficer (AR=) 0urante L! 7beda! To substantiate his re"uest to e.clude their landholding from CAR coverage under the Luz Farms ruling' respondent declared that their property had been e.clusively used for livestock/raising for several years prior to @une -%' -9! The rovincial Task Force on ,.clusion led by Bunicipal Agrarian Reform =fficer (BAR=) elen T! abalcon conducted an ocular inspection of the property and an actual Qheadcount #as conducted! AR= 0urante L! 7beda recommended the e.clusion from CAR coverage a total of 2-9!%5 has: -*? has! for cattle/grazing' 2 has! for horse and carabao grazing' -2!% has! for infrastructure and ?% has! for retention of nine lando#ners! The applicants' through 7y' #rote a letter to 0AR Region 6> 0irector ercival C! 0alugdug re"uesting for a reinvestigation of the Report of AR= 7beda! 0ir! 0aludug affirmed the findings of 7beda! The applicants then appealed the order to the 0AR Secretary! The 0AR partially granted the appeal only #ith respect #ith the 2-9!%5 hectares! The applicants appealed the order to the = via an Appeal #ith rayer for Status PuoEStay of ,.ecution! The resident' through then 0eputy ,.ecutive Secretary Renato C! Corona rendered a decision dismissing the appeal for lack of merit' saying that private ag ricultural lands or portions thereof e.clusively' directly and actually used for livestock' poultry and s#ine raising as of -% @une -9 shall be e.cluded from the coverage of CAR! Corona said y simple reading' it is obvious that the livestock' poultry and s#ine' in order to be included in the computation of the area to be e.empted from CAR coverage' should have been e.isting in the area sought to be e.empted at the time of the effectivity of RA $$%&' #hich is @une -%' -9! ;o#ever' on =ctober %' -99' then Chief residential Legal Adviser ;arriet 0emetriou submitted the follo#ing Bemorandum to the resident' advising the latter to e.clude the land in "uestion completely! A second motion for reconsideration #as filed and the = acted upon the said BR!
6SS7,: 3hether or not the = is empo#ered to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed before it! ;,L0: Ies! 6t is settled that rules of procedure are' as a matter of course' construed liberally in proceedings before administrative bodies! Thus' technical rules of procedure imposed in 1udicial proceedings are unavailing in cases before administrative bodies! Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of la# and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of la#! Rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid and technical manner' as they are used only to help secure and not to override substantial 1ustice! The SC ruled that the doctrine of e.haustion of administrative remedies empo#ers the = to revie# any determination or disposition of a department head! 6n fact' the doctrine re"uires an administrative decision to first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to the highest level before it may be elevated to a court of 1ustice for revie#! Thus' if a remedy #ithin the administrative machinery can still be had by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on the matter that comes #ithin his 1urisdiction' then such remedy should be priorly e.hausted before the courts 1udicial po#er is invoked!