Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the appeal meritorious, the decision of the Honorable Adjudicator a quo is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is rendered rejecting any attempt to nullify the issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to herein respondents-appellants. The Board upholds the efficacy of the same. The DARAB Proper predicated its disposition on the premise that C.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the appeal meritorious, the decision of the Honorable Adjudicator a quo is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is rendered rejecting any attempt to nullify the issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to herein respondents-appellants. The Board upholds the efficacy of the same. The DARAB Proper predicated its disposition on the premise that C.L. Realty, failing as it did to substantiate its allegations respecting the lack of qualification as farmer-beneficiaries of petitioners, had not overturned the presumption that official duty had been duly performed. Following the denial of its motion for reconsideration, C.L. Realty went to the Court of Appeals (CA) by way of petition for review, thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 43795 . At stated at the outset, CA, in the herein assailed decision [5] dated March 31, 1999, set aside the August 21, 1996 decision of the DARAB Proper and reinstated the ruling of the provincial adjudicator, thus: WHEREFORE, the premises considered, the appealed decision of the DARAB is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator dated 28 October 1993 is HEREBY REINSTATED. Subsequently, petitioners, through counsel, filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. On May 10, 1999, they filed their motion for reconsideration, followed fourteen (14) days later by a supplemental motion for reconsideration. Citing Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc., et. al. vs. Hon. Maximo Japson, et. al. , [6] the CA, in its equally assailed resolution [7] of June 17, 1999, denied the motion for extension and, consequently, the motion for reconsideration. On July 1, 1999, petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the resolution dated June 17, 1999, but their motion was also denied in the resolution of October 11, 1999. [8] Aggrieved, petitioners are now before us via this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In the meanwhile, the Court, upon application of the petitioners, issued, on August 7, 2000, a temporary restraining order [9] enjoining respondent, thru its agents, from, among other things, entering into the lots occupied by petitioners and exercising rights of ownership. The issues raised, as summarized in petitioners' memorandum [10] , turn on the following questions: Whether or not the DARAB provincial adjudicator has jurisdiction to nullify the CLOAs issued to petitioners, given that the corresponding TCTs have been issued over the lands covered; Whether or not the petition filed by C.L. Realty before the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator should have been dismissed for non-joinder of indispensable parties; Whether or not the CA failed to take into account facts and circumstances supportive of herein petitioners' cause, and, on the other hand, accorded undue weight to the findings of the Provincial Adjudicator; and Whether or not the CA erred in denying herein petitioners' motion for extension of ti