Arnaiz Realty, Inc., Petitioner, vs.

Office of the President, Respondent

G.R. No. 170623 | July 9, 2010 | Peralta, J.

SUMMARY: : A. Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc., filed a petition for exclusion from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) coverage dated April 25, 1994 before the Regional Director of Agrarian Reform (DAR) a
parcel of land situated at Brgy. Asid, Sinalugan, Masbate, Masbate since the land has been devoted to cattle-
ranching purposes since time immemorial, not tenanted and has more than 18% slopes. However, the petition
was denied and ordered to be still in the coverage of the acquisition of the properties under the coverage of
CARP. It was established that a portion of land was leased to Monterey Farm for 10 years. Petitioner sold its
entire herd of cattle to Monterey Farms Corporation before the expiration of lease agreement. It was also
established that said land is not owned by the petitioner but rather by Nuestra Senora del Carmen Marble, Inc
with a new TCT number.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in December 8, 1995. Petitioner appealed again
the Order to the Sec. of Agrarian Reform for two separate motions for ocular inspection. The Sec. of Agrarian
Reform dismissed for lack of merit on Oct. 23, 1996. Ordering CARP to identify portions and areas not suited
for agriculture and be excluded from the program and do the necessary notices. Petitioner filed another
motion for reconsideration but was denied on February 13, 1998. Petitioner then sought recourse before the
Office of the President (OP) on Sept. 19, 2001 but dismissed the appeal. Petitioner again filed for motion for
reconsideration on the argument that OP seriously erred but CA rendered that petition for review is DENIED
DUE COURSE and was DISMISSED on August 11, 2005. CA ratiocinated that DAR were supported that
substantial evidence which the petitioner failed to establish.

On a petition for motion for reconsideration which was again denied on Nov. 24, 2005, Petitioner argued and
insists that they were not given due process, and that subject lands are not suitable for agriculture if they
contain slope more than 18%. Petitioner also added that DAR should allow for the ocular inspection to be
conducted invoking the Luz Farms v Secretary of DA, and DA v Sutton that the petitioners property should be
excluded from the coverage of the CARP.

DOCTRINE:
Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always, and in all situations, require a trial-type
proceeding. Litigants may be heard through pleadings, written explanations, position papers,
memoranda or oral arguments. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals
allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. Even if no formal hearing took place, it is
not sufficient ground for petitioner to claim that due process was not afforded it. In the present case,
petitioner was given all the opportunity to prove and establish its claim that the subject properties were
excluded from the coverage of the CARP. Petitioner actively participated in the proceedings by submitting
various pleadings and documentary evidence. In fact, petitioner filed motions for reconsideration in every
unfavorable outcome of its actions in all tiers of the administrative and judicial process - from the Order of the
DAR Regional Director up to the Decision of the Court of Appeals.