G.R. No.

170623
A. Z. ARNAIZ REALTY, INC. vs
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM et al
July 9, 2010

FACTS

Petitioner A. Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc. filed a Petition for Exclusion from the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) coverage before the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), Region V over three (3) parcels of land

Petitioner argued that (1) the said parcels of land had been devoted to cattle-ranching purposes
since time immemorial; (2) said lands are not tenanted; and (3) said lands have more than 18%
slopes.

DAR Regional Director issued an Order denying the petition for Exclusion and also ordered that
the acquisition of the properties under the coverage of CARP be pursued subject to the
retention right of the landowner accordant with existing laws, rules, regulations and DAR
policies

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied

Petitioner then appealed the Order to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.

Petitioner also filed two separate motions for ocular inspections.

The Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an Order dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied.

In dismissing the petition, the CA ratiocinated that the findings of fact of the OP, the Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, and the DAR Regional Director, Region V were supported by substantial
evidence.

Hence, the petition to the SC raising the following arguments:

1.

petitioner was not accorded the requisite due process.

2.

the luz farms ruling, as well as the delia Sutton case, should be applied in the instant case.

3. the subject lands are not suitable for agriculture and they are not tenanted aside from the
fact that they contain slopes of more than 18%.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS

HELD : PETITION IS BEREFT OF MERIT

Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always, and in all situations, require a trialtype proceeding.

Litigants may be heard through pleadings, written explanations, position papers, memoranda or
oral arguments

There is NO violation of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely
on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties.

Even if no formal hearing took place, it is not sufficient ground for petitioner to claim that due
process was not afforded it.

Petitioner was given all the opportunity to prove and establish its claim , in fact, petitioner filed
motions for reconsideration in every unfavorable outcome of its actions in all tiers of the
administrative and judicial process

Essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative

proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek for a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of

Notes on judicial review:

The action for judicial review may be brought against the agency, or its officers, and all
indispensable and necessary parties as defined in the Rules of Court.

The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified by statute or, in the absence thereof,
in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules
of Court.