1.

Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, 396

SCRA 196 , January 28, 2003
Case Title : GRACIANO PADUNAN, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) and MARCOS
RODRIGUEZ, respondents.Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari
of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Syllabi Class : Administrative Law|DARAB|Appeals|Jurisdiction
Division: THIRD DIVISION

Docket Number: G.R. No. 132163

Counsel: Salomon, Gonong, Dela Cruz Law Offices, Ellis Jacoba

Ponente: CORONA

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in so
far as it upholds the ruling of the DARAB that (1) private respondent Marcos
Rodriguez is the lawful tenant beneficiary of the three parcels of land located
in Barangay Bantug, Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, covered by Certificate of
Land Transfer (CLT) Nos. 0341310, 0341311 and 0341312 and (2) petitioner
Graciano Padunan is only a mortgagee thereof, thereby ordering him to
vacate the premises upon payment by private respondent Marcos Rodriguez
of the mortgage debt in the amount of P50,000.

Citation Ref:
164 SCRA 568 | 325 SCRA 137 | 325 SCRA 636 | 183 SCRA 252 | 87 SCRA
263 | 4 SCRA 1151 | 360 SCRA 379 | 1 SCRA 478 | 333 SCRA 425 | 364
SCRA 110 | 4 SCRA 1151 | 266 SCRA 596 | 266 SCRA 596 | 381 SCRA
406 | 323 SCRA 280 | 287 SCRA 102 | 268 SCRA 703 | 352 SCRA 691 | 318
SCRA 373

196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
G.R. No. 132163. January 28, 2003.*
GRACIANO PADUNAN, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) and MARCOS RODRIGUEZ, respondents.
Administrative Law, DARAB; Appeals; Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court, more
so if the factual findings of the Courts of Appeals coincide with those of the DARAB.
Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be
reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court, more so if the factual findings of the
Court of Appeals coincide with those of the DARAB, an administrative body with
expertise on matters within its specific and specialized jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Exception.The only time this Court will disregard the
factual findings of the Court of Appeals (which are ordinarily accorded great respect)
is when these are based on speculation, surmises or conjectures or when these are
not based on substantial evidence.
Same; Same; Jurisdiction; It is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the rules.It
must be stated at the outset that it is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the
rules. Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or the law
and rules of procedure yield to substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must
exist as a matter of law.
Same; Same; Same; Administrative correction, defined.Administrative
correction refers only to the rectification of wrong or insufficient information in the
patent and not to something as substantial as the actual cancellation thereof. The
meaning of administrative correction is
_____________

* THIRD DIVISION.
197

VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003

197
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
provided in DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1994: C. The administrative
corrections may include non-identification of spouse, corrections of civil status,
corrections of technical descriptions and other matters related to agrarian reform.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Salomon, Gonong, Dela Cruz Law Offices for petitioners.
Ellis Jacoba for private respondent.
CORONA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision1 dated August 14, 1997 of
the Court of Appeals affirming the decision2 of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB), for brevity) in DARAB Case No. 0489 which, in turn,
affirmed the decision3 of the Provincial Adjudicator of Nueva Ecija in DARAB Case
No. 1154NE90.
The facts of the case are as follows:
The landholdings subject of the present controversy consist of three parcels of
agricultural land with an area of sixteen thousand two hundred twenty-seven
(16,227), six thousand five hundred eighty-seven (6,587) and nine thousand nine
(9,009) square meters, respectively, situated in Barangay Bantug, Marawa, Jaen,
Nueva Ecija.4 Angelina R. Rodriguez was the original beneficiary under PD 27 of the
said three parcels of land covered by Certificate of
_____________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Fidel P. Purisima (retired Associate Justice of the

Supreme Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez
(now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Rollo, pp.
25-30.
2 Penned by DAR Assistant Secretary Lorenzo R. Reyes and concurred in by DAR
Undersecretary Jose Noel D. Olano and Assistant Secretaries Hector D. Soliman,
Augusto P. Quijano and Sergio B. Serrano. DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao and
Undersecretary Renato B. Padilla did not take part; Rollo, pp. 54-58.
3 Penned by Hon. Romeo Bello, Provincial Adjudicator of Nueva Ecija; Rollo, pp. 50-
53.
4 Rollo, pp. 26, 55.
198

198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
Land Transfer (CLT, for brevity) Nos. 0341310, 0341311 and 0341312.5
On July 21, 1981, Angelina Rodriguez waived her rights over the said landholdings in
favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez by virtue of the Sinumpaang Salaysay
duly executed and thumb-marked by her.6 The waiver was concurred in by the
Samahang Nayon of Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija in its Kapasyahan Blg. 15.7
Thereafter, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez possessed and cultivated the said
landholdings as tenant-beneficiary under PD 27.
On July 21, 1988, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez obtained a loan from herein
petitioner, Graciano Padunan, for P50,000 with the subject landholdings as
collateral. The loan agreement between private respondent Marcos Rodriguez and
petitioner Graciano Padunan was embodied in a Kasunduan which further provided
that petitioner was authorized to possess and cultivate the land for two years and/or
until repayment of the mortgage debt.8
On January 10, 1990, Emancipation Patent (EP, for brevity) Nos. 414430, 414440
and 414448 covering the subject three parcels of land were issued to Angelina
Rodriguez, even though she had already waived her rights over the said land in
favor of private respondent Marcos Rodriguez on July 21, 1981.9
On October 9, 1990, Angelina Rodriguez executed, for the second time, a waiver of
rights by way of sale, this time in favor, of petitioner Graciano Padunan for the sum
of P55,000.10 Claiming ownership over the land, petitioner Graciano Padunan
started constructing thereon a house and a warehouse.11
Objecting to the construction made by petitioner Graciano Padunan, private
respondent Marcos Rodriguez filed, on November 5, 1990, a case for injunction
before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD, for brevity) of
Nueva Ecija.12
_____________

5 Rollo, pp. 26, 55.

6 Rollo, pp. 29, 55
7 Rollo, p. 29.
8 Rollo, pp. 26, 27, 55.
9 Rollo, pp. 28, 51.
10 Rollo, pp. 26-51.
11 Rollo, pp. 26, 55.
12 Rollo, pp. 26, 45-46, 54.
199

VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003

199
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
On August 26, 1991, Provincial Adjudicator Romeo Bello decided in favor of private
respondent Marcos Rodriguez, declaring him the lawful tenant-beneficiary of the
subject land, directing the issuance of the corresponding EPs in his name and
ordering herein petitioner Graciano Padunan to vacate the premises upon payment
of the mortgage debt. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Provincial
Adjudicator reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Declaring petitioner Marcos Rodriguez as the lawful ten-ant-beneficiary of the
subject landholding;
2. Directing the issuance of the corresponding Emancipation Patents in favor of the
petitioner;
3. Directing the respondent to vacate the premises in question in favor of the
petitioner after paying the mortgage consideration in the amount of P50.000.00;
4. Dismissing all claims for damages and counterclaims.13
From the above decision, herein petitioner Graciano Padunan appealed to the
DARAB. On January 27, 1995, the DARAB affirmed in toto the decision of Provincial
Adjudicator Romeo Bello. Thus, petitioner Graciano Padunan elevated the case to
the Court of Appeals.
On August 14, 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition for review for lack
of merit. The appellate court ruled as follows:
Petitioners claim is based on an alleged sale/waiver of rights by Angelina R.
Rodriguez in his favor.
This contention is untenable.
To begin with, rights over agrarian reform-covered landholdings under the agrarian
reform program, are not legally transferable. They are deemed outside the
commerce of man. However, the waiver of rights in favor of private respondent here
is entirely different. The substitution was through transfer action authorized under
existing laws and DAR issuances. Strictly speaking, the land involved was not really
transferred. The designated farmer-beneficiary was just replaced by another
qualified farmer-beneficiary, as recommended and with the conformity of the
Samahang Nayon in the locality.
_____________

13 Rollo, pp. 25, 54.

200

200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
Then, too, the alleged waiver in favor of petitioner took place only after there had
been a transfer action, with private respondents as the substitute farmer-
beneficiary. So, when Angelina R. Rodriguez executed the waiver/sale in favor of
petitioner, she no longer possessed any right over the subject landholding.
x x x
The annulment adjudged in the decision under review, springs from the finding
that the issuance of Emancipation patents in the name of farmer beneficiary
Angelina R. Rodriguez was erroneous. The issuance of said Emancipation patents
was due to inadvertence. Thus, annulment thereof is a correction of an
administrative error; a matter within the exclusive competence of the public
respondent as adjudicating arm of DAR. And as stressed by public respondent, the
said Emancipation patents in question were not even registered with the proper
Registry of Property.
x x x
PARADs decision under scrutiny is not anemic of evidentiary support. Records
contain documents showing that the former farmer beneficiary Angelina R.
Rodriguez, waived by a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July 21, 1981 (Exh. B), her
rights over subject landholdings in favor of the private respondent and that said
waiver was with the confirmation by the local Samahang Nayon, as embodied in
Kapasyahan Blg. 15 (Exh. C). PARAD was thus reasonably convinced that there was
a valid transfer action in favor of private respondent.
As found by PARAD, petitioner is, at best, in possession of the said land, not as a
farmer-beneficiary but as a mortgagee, so that it was but proper and just for PARAD
to rule the way it did; directing settlement of the mortgage debt before private
respondent could reassume possession of the landholdings in question.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review under consideration is hereby DISMISSED. No
pronouncement as to costs.14
Not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioner Graciano Padunan
filed the instant Petition for Review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, based on the following grounds:
The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) possessed jurisdiction to rule on the validity of
Emancipation patents is not in accord with the law and with applicable
jurisprudence.
_____________

14 Rollo, pp. 25-30.

201
VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003
201
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the Emancipation patents subject of
this case could be cancelled by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB) even if the registered owner to whom said Patent was issued is not a
party to the case is patently contrary to the Bill of Rights and not in accord with law
and jurisprudence.
The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) could decide the instant case on issues not raised in
the pleadings is patently contrary to the Bill of Rights and not in accord with law and
jurisprudence.
The Court of Appeals has sanctioned the departure of the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) from the established rule that its decisions must
be supported by substantial evidence.15
At the outset, it must be stated that petitioner Graciano Padunan raised not only
questions of law but also issues of fact in his petition for review. He argued that the
Court of Appeals, the DARAB and the PARAD failed to consider the fact that Angelina
Rodriguez waived her rights over the subject landholdings in his favor with the
conformity of the local Samahang Nayon, and that he possessed and cultivated the
land in accordance with the laudable objectives of land reform while private
respondent Marcos Rodriguez mortgaged and abandoned the same.16
It is a well-settled rule that only questions of law may be reviewed by the Supreme
Court in an appeal by certiorari.17 Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are final
and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court,18 more so
if the factual findings of the Court of Appeals coincide with those of the DARAB, an
administrative body with expertise on matters within its specific and specialized
jurisdiction.19 The only time this Court
_____________

15 Rollo, p. 8-21.
16 Rollo, pp. 19-20.
17 Rule 45, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Solangon vs. Salazar, G.R. No.
125944, June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 379; J.R. Blanco vs. Quasha, 318 SCRA 373
(1999); Fuentes vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 703 (1997).
18 Titong vs. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 102 (1998); Atillo III vs. Court of Appeals,
266 SCRA 596 (1997).
19 Corpus vs. Grospe, 333 SCRA 425, 435 (2000), citing Coconut Cooperative
Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 568, 581 (1988), Jacinto
vs. Court of Appeals, 87 SCRA 263, 269 (1978), and Domingo vs. Court of Agrarian
Relations, 4 SCRA 1151, 1156 (1962); Greenfield Realty Corp. vs. Cardama, 323
SCRA 280 (2000).
202

202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
will disregard the factual findings of the Court of Appeals (which are ordinarily
accorded great respect) is when these are based on speculation, surmises or
conjectures or when these are not based on substantial evidence.20 In the case at
bar, no reason exists for us to disregard the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.
The factual findings are borne out by the record and are supported by substantial
evidence.
Based on the documents presented, the Court of Appeals and the DARAB ruled that
petitioner Graciano Padunan was only a mortgagee of the landholdings in question.
The subject land was mortgaged to him by private respondent Marcos Rodriguez on
July 21, 1988 by virtue of the Kasunduan duly entered between him and private
respondent Marcos Rodriguez.21 However, instead of cultivating the land until
payment of the mortgage debt, petitioner Graciano Padunan claimed ownership
over the land and constructed a house and warehouse thereon, based on the
alleged waiver of rights executed by Angelina Rodriguez in his favor on October 9,
1990.
It was, however, found by the PARAD, affirmed by the DARAB and the Court of
Appeals, that Angelina Rodriguez no longer had any rights over the subject parcels
of land as early as July 21, 1981.22 That was the date she executed a Sinumpaang
Salaysay waiving her rights over the subject landholdings in favor of private
respondent Marcos Rodriguez, a waiver of rights duly confirmed by the local
Samahang Nayon in its Kapasyahan Blg. 15 in accordance with existing laws and
DAR issuances.23 Clearly, therefore, private respondent Marcos Rodriguez was
already the lawful tenant-beneficiary of the subject land under PD 27 at the time
Angelina Rodriguez entered into the questionable agreement with petitioner
Graciano Padunan, thus making the second transfer null and void ab initio and
Padunan at best a mere mortgagee of the subject landholdings by virtue of the
Kasunduan between him and private respondent Marcos Rodriguez.
_____________

20 Milestone Realty & Co., Inc. and William Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
135999, April 19, 2002, 381 SCRA 406; (Baricuatro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
105902, February 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 137.
21 Rollo, p. 27.
22 Rollo, pp. 27, 28.
23 Rollo, pp. 28-29.
203

VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003

203
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
In fact, the DARAB categorically ruled that nothing in the evidence showed that
petitioner Graciano Padunan was a tenant-beneficiary of the subject land. According
to the DARAB:
x x x. No way does it appear from the examination of evidences that herein
Respondent-Appellant was a tenant-beneficiary of the landholding in question.
Respondent-Appellant was a mere mortgagee of the subject property and his rights
thereto end after the expiration of the mortgage contract and the corresponding
obligations are met.24
We rule that, since Angelina Rodriquez no longer had any rights over the parcels of
land in question, the EPs issued to her on January 10, 1990 covering the subject
landholdings were clearly issued by mistake. EPs can only be issued to agrarian
reform beneficiaries and Angelina Rodriguez was no longer one at the time of their
issuance in her name.25
The question now is who has the authority to cancel the erroneously issued EPs
the DARAB or the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform?
Petitioner Graciano Padunan argues that the DAR Secretary has exclusive
jurisdiction to cancel EPs,26 pursuant to Section 12(b)(5) of PD 94627 which
provides that it is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who has jurisdiction, among
other things, to issue, recall and cancel Certificates of Land Transfer.28
Private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, on the other hand, argues that it is the
DARAB which has jurisdiction, based on Rule II, Section 1, paragraph (f) of the
DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure (1989) which provides that the DARAB has
primary jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance of Certificates of Land
Transfer
_____________

24 Rollo, p. 56.
25 Paris vs. Alfeche, G.R. No. 139083, August 30, 2001, 364 SCRA 110; Vda. de Dela
Cruz vs. Abille, 352 SCRA 691 (2001); Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo, 183 SCRA 252 (1990).
26 Milagros A. German, The Revised Rules of Procedure in the Litigation of Agrarian
Cases by the DAR under the CARL-1988 and the Special Agrarian Courts (1992).
27 Reorganizing the Courts of Agrarian Relations, Streamlining their Procedures,
and for other Purposes (1976); Parts of the law inconsistent with RA 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 were repealed or modified
accordingly.
28 Petition for Review, p. 7; Rollo, p. 14.
204

204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(CLTs), Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents
(EPs), and the administrative correction thereof.29
For its part, public respondent DARAB argues that its jurisdiction to cancel
erroneously issued EPs is enshrined in Section 50 of RA 6657 which provides that
the DARAB has original, primary and exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian reform
matters and/or those related to agrarian reform implementation.30
It must be stated at the outset that it is the law that confers jurisdiction and not the
rules. Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or the law
and rules of procedure yield to substantive law. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must
exist as a matter of law.31
With this well-established principle on jurisdiction, it is therefore incorrect for the
private respondent Marcos Rodriguez to argue that the DARAB derives its
jurisdiction from the DARAB Rules of Procedure. The DARAB derives its jurisdiction
from RA 6657 or popularly known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) of 1988.
Section 50 of RA 6657 confers jurisdiction on the DARAB over agrarian reform cases
or controversies as follows:
Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.The DAR is hereby vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (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 means to ascertain the facts of every
case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. Towards this
end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and
inexpensive determination for every action or proceeding before it. (emphasis
ours)
To implement this particular provision of RA 6657 regarding the adjudication of
agrarian reform matters, the DAR adopted the
_____________

29 Memorandum, p. 4; Rollo, p. 151.

30 Comment, p. 2; Rollo, p. 61.
31 People vs. Casiano, 111 Phil. 73; 1 SCRA 478 (1961).
205

VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003

205
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
DARAB New Rules of Procedure, issued on May 30, 1994.32 Under Section 1, Rule II
of the said Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over the
following cases:
(a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in
the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP
and other agrarian laws;
(b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary determination and payment of just
compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation,
amortization payments, and similar disputes concerning the functions of the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP);
xxx xxx xxx
(f) Those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with
the Land Registration Authority;
(g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946,
except subparagraph (Q) thereof and Presidential Decree No. 815.
xxx xxx xxx
Matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of Republic Act No.
6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988
and other agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive
prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.
(h) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by
the Secretary of the DAR. (emphasis ours)
Subparagraph (f) stated above provides that the DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction
over cases involving the issuance, registered with the Land Registration Authority
(the Registry of Deeds).
The grounds for cancellation of registered EPs were summarized by DAR
Memorandum Order No. 02, Series of 1994,33 to wit:
_____________

32 Modifying or repealing accordingly the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure (1989)

and all DAR Administrative provisions that are inconsistent therewith.
33 Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered
Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) Due
to Unlawful Acts and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries (ARBs) and for Other Causes (1994).
206

206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
1. Misuse or diversion of financial and support services extended to the ARB;34
(Section 37 of R.A. No. 6657)
2. Misuse of land; (Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657)
3. Material misrepresentation of the ARBs basic qualifications as provided under
Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other agrarian laws;
4. Illegal conversion by the ARB; (Cf. Section 73, Paragraph C and E of R.A. No.
6657)
5. Sale, transfer, lease or other forms of conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to
use or any other usufructuary right over the land acquired by virtue of being a
beneficiary in order to circumvent the provisions of Section 73 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D.
No. 27, and other agrarian laws. However, if the land has been acquired under P.D.
No. 27/E.O. No. 228, ownership may be transferred after full payment of
amortization by the beneficiary; (Sec. 6 of E.O. No. 228)
6. Default in the obligation to pay an aggregate of three (3) consecutive
amortizations in case of voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme, except in
cases of fortuitous events and force majeure;
7. Failure of the ARBs to pay for at least three (3) annual amortizations to the LBP,
except in cases of fortuitous events and force majeure; (Section 26 of RA 6657)
8. Neglect or abandonment of the awarded land continuously for a period of two (2)
calendar years as determined by the Secretary or his authorized representative;
(Section 22 of RA 6657)
9. The land is found to be exempt/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP
coverage or to be part of the landowners retained area as determined by the
Secretary or his authorized representative; and
10. Other grounds that will circumvent laws related to the implementation of
agrarian reform.
A study of the above-enumerated grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs
shows that it requires the exercise by the DAR of its quasi-judicial power through its
adjudicating arm, DARAB. Thus, rightly so, the DARAB New Rules of Procedure
provide that DARAB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation
of registered EPs.
But what about EPs that are unregistered like the one issued to Angelina Rodriguez?
_____________

34 ARB means agrarian reform beneficiary.

207

VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003

207
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
The answer can be found in Administrative Order No. 06-00, issued on August 30,
2000, which provides for the Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation
(ALI) Cases. These rules were issued pursuant to Sections 49 and 50 of RA 6657. In
contrast to the DARAB Rules of Procedure which govern the exercise of DARs quasi-
judicial function, Administrative Order No. 06-00 governs the administrative function
of the DAR.
Under the said Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases, the
Agrarian Reform Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance, recall or
cancellation of EPs/CLOAs that are not yet registered with the Register of Deeds.
Thus, Section 2 of the said Rules provides:
SECTION 2. Cases Covered.These Rules shall govern cases falling within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary which shall include the following:
(a) Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), including protests or oppositions
thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage;
(b) Identification, qualification or disqualification of potential farmer-beneficiaries;
(c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP;
(d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and CARP
Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree
(PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall or cancellation of Emancipation Patents
(EPs) or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet registered with the
Register of Deeds;
(e) Exercise of the right of retention by landowner;
xxx xxx xxx
(g) Such other matters not mentioned above but strictly involving the administrative
implementation of RA 6657 and other agrarian laws, rules and regulations as
determined by the Secretary. (emphasis ours)
Clearly, the cancellation of EPs that are not yet registered with the Register of
Deeds falls within the authority of the Agrarian Reform Secretary or DAR officials35
duly designated by him, in the exercise of his/their administrative functions. And
since, in the
_____________

35 Sec. 6, RULE II, Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases.
208

208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
case at bar, the erroneously issued EPs in the name of Angelina Rodriguez were
unregistered, it is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who has the authority to cancel
the same.
In the decision of the Court of Appeals under review, the Court of Appeals ruled
that:
The issuance of said EPs was due to inadvertence. Thus, annulment thereof is a
correction of an administrative error; a matter within the exclusive competence of
the public respondent as adjudicating arm of DAR. And, as stressed by public
respondent, the said EPs in question were not even registered with the proper
Registry of Property.36 (emphasis ours)
We disagree, for 2 reasons.
First, at the time of the promulgation of the Court of Appeals decision on August 14,
1997, the 1994 DARAB New Rules of Procedure had long taken effect. Such rules
clearly provide that the DARAB has jurisdiction only over the cancellation of
registered EPs but not those that are not.37 And since the Court of Appeals itself
ruled that the subject EPs were not yet registered, it should have likewise ruled that
the cancellation thereof did not pertain to the DARAB.
Second, even if the Court of Appeals ruling were based on the old DARAB rules (the
1989 DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure) which provided that the DARAB had
primary jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land
Transfer (CLT), Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent
(EP) and the administrative correction thereof,38 we do not agree that the
cancellation by the DARAB of the subject EPs fell within the ambit of mere
administrative correction. Administrative correction refers only to the rectification
of wrong or insufficient information in the patent and not to something as
substantial as the actual cancellation thereof. The meaning of administrative
correction is provided in DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1994:39
_____________

36 Rollo, p. 29.
37 Paragraph (f), Section 1, Rule II, DARAB New Rules of Procedure.
38 Paragraph (f), Section 1, Rule II, DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure.
39 Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered
Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) Due
to Unlawful Acts and Omissions or Breach
209

VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003

209
Padunan vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
C. The administrative corrections may include non-identification of spouse,
corrections of civil status, corrections of technical descriptions and other matters
related to agrarian reform.
In sum, the decision of the Court of Appeals is partly affirmed. It is correct to say
that private respondent Marcos Rodriguez was the lawful tenant-beneficiary of the
subject land by virtue of the valid transfer executed by Angelina Rodriguez in his
favor with the conformity of the Samahang Nayon of Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija,
while petitioner Graciano Padunan was only a mortgagee thereof because the
second transfer made by Angelina Rodriguez to him was invalid. It is incorrect,
however, to rule that the DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel the emancipation patents
issued in the name of Angelina Rodriguez because, under Administrative Order No.
06-00 (Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases, implementing
Section 49 and 50 of RA 6657), it is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who has
jurisdiction to cancel unregistered emancipation patents.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in so far as it
upholds the ruling of the DARAB that (1) private respondent Marcos Rodriguez is the
lawful tenant beneficiary of the three parcels of land located in Barangay Bantug,
Marawa, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, covered by Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) Nos.
0341310, 0341311 and 0341312 and (2) petitioner Graciano Padunan is only a
mortgagee thereof, thereby ordering him to vacate the premises upon payment by
private respondent Marcos Rodriguez of the mortgage debt in the amount of
P50,000.
The ruling of the Court of Appeals that DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel the
unregistered emancipation patents in the name of Angelina Rodriguez is hereby
REVERSED. We hereby rule that it is the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Reform who has jurisdiction to cancel the said unregistered emancipation patents.
Private respondent Marcos Rodriguez, the new legal agrarian reform beneficiary of
the subject land, should file the proper action before the DAR to cancel the said
unregistered emancipation patents.
______________

of Obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) and for Other Causes

(1994).
210

210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
MVRS Publications, Inc. vs. Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines, Inc.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Panganiban, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., No part.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Notes.Findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of
expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial
showing that such findings are made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence
presented, they are conclusive and in the interest of stability of the governmental
structure, should not be disturbed (Ocampo vs. COMELEC, 325 SCRA 636 [2000]
o0o

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. Padunan vs.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, 396 SCRA 196, G.R. No. 132163
January 28, 2003