SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM vs. HEIRS OF REDEMPTOR AND ELISA ABUCAY

FACTS: The Abucay spouses had purchased 182 hectares of land from Guadalupe Cabahug. In 1986, 22.8409 hectares were declared covered by the Operation Land Transfer Program of PD 27. Farmer-beneficiaries were given their emancipation patents, and later on, original certificates of title registered under their names and issued by the Register of Deeds. The heirs of spouses Abucay alleged that they were not given just compensation for the 22 hectares of land. The Certificate of Deposit amounting to Php103,046.47 that was issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines was inadequate and was even named after Cabahug. Thus, they prayed for the payment of Php2,000,000.00 as just compensation. 

The Regional Adjudicator held that administrative due process was not observed since there was no proper valuation of the property in determining the amount of just compensation. Hence, the coverage of the 22 hectares of land was nullified and the emancipation patents were declared void. The Heirs of spouses Abucay filed another complaint asking for the cancellation of the certificates of title and emancipation patents of the farmer-beneficiaries. The Regional Adjudicator again ruled in their favor. 

The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) reversed the decision and said that the nature of the action of the heirs of spouses Abucay was that of an Operation Land Transfer protest, which is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Director of DAR, and whose appeal falls under the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. Also, it was mentioned by DARAB that when Cabahug sold the property to the Abucay spouses, the farmer-beneficiaries were already owners of the subject parcel of land, pursuant to PD 27. Thus, the heirs were not the proper parties who can question the coverage of the subject land. 

The heirs filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the DARAB decision by saying that the Regional Director ceased to have jurisdiction over the complaint because the emancipation patents are registered in the Register of Deeds. It was the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator who has jurisdiction, not the DARAB. Moreover, the heirs of the spouses Abucay were the proper parties. Because Cabahug’s just compensation was not yet fully paid, she remained the owner when she entered a Deed of Sale with the Abucay spouses. Cabahug was able to validly transfer her title to the property to the spouses. Upon the latter’s death, the property was transferred to the children. Lastly, the CA agreed with the Regional Adjudicator in saying that there was no due process to Cabahug, and that the emancipation patents and certificates of title are void. 

ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the Regional Adjudicator and DARAB have jurisdiction over the complaint; 

(2) Whether or not the heirs had legal personality to file the complaint before the Regional Adjudicator 

HELD: (1) No. Under Section of 24 of RA 9700 which amended the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, it is now the DAR Secretary who has jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership awards, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program, whether registered with the Land Registration Authority or not. 

(2) No. In resolving the issue, the Court looked at two aspects of the complaint: (a) cancellation of the certificates of title and emancipation patent, and; (b) existence of an agrarian dispute between the parties. 

It was established that the emancipation patents are registered with the LRA. It was also established that there is a tenancy relationship between the respondents and the farmer-beneficiaries. However, there is no agrarian dispute in this case since they were only contending that the land was nor properly acquired under the Operation Land Transfer program. This makes their complaint an Operation Land Transfer protest which partakes the nature of an agrarian law implementation case under the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. When the respondents filed the complaint before the Regional Adjudicator, what the latter should have done was to refer the case to DAR. 

Under the DAR AO No. 07-14, the proper procedure for the cancellation of registered Eps, CLOAs, and other agrarian titles must be to: (1) file a petition for cancellation before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, which would undertake the case buildup. The said office would now forward it to the DAR Secretary for decision.