G.R. No. 214714 -

Ruling

Accordingly, CLOA Nos. 251 to 298 were issued in favor of the farmer­ beneficiaries, including herein private respondents. [6] Thereafter, the PARO sent to the Register of Deeds of Trece Martires City a Notice dated December 11, 2003, informing it of the issuance of CLOAs in favor of respondents. Consequently, the Register of Deeds cancelled petitioner's certificates of title and, in lieu thereof, issued TCT Nos. T-50012 to T-50016 in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. [7] Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Cancellation of CLOAs [8] before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Trece Martires City. Petitioner claimed that the CLOAs were irregularly issued. It asserted that the subject lands are residential and non-agricultural in nature, and thus, beyond the coverage of the CARP. [9] Likewise, it presented certifications from the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (Regional Adjudicator), Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), Tagaytay City Planning Development Office, National Irrigation Administration (NIA), and Department of Agriculture, all stating that said properties are residential in nature. On the other hand, respondents countered that the determination of exemption from the coverage of the CARP is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary. They pointed out that unless the DAR Secretary issues a certificate of exemption, the properties shall remain agricultural and, hence, subject to CARP coverage. In view of the absence of a certificate of exemption, the CLOAs were validly and regularly issued in accordance with R.A. No. 6657. [10] Ruling of the Regional Adjudicator On May 8, 2006, the Regional Adjudicator for Region IV Conchita C. Miñas (Regional Adjudicator Minas) rendered a Decision [11] dismissing the petition for cancellation. Regional Adjudicator Minas held that the petition may not be given due course in the absence of an exemption clearance issued by the DAR Secretary declaring that the subject lands are indeed exempt from CARP coverage. She clarified that the petitioner's evidence which consisted of a Certification issued by her office, as well as the Certifications granted by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, HLURB and the NIA stating that the subject lands are not agricultural, are not sufficient bases for the cancellation of the CLOAs. However, they may be appreciated as grounds for an application for exemption under Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2003. Accordingly, she dismissed the petition as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant case. SO ORDERED.