G.R. No. 140496 - DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING-PARTNER, MR. ARISTIDES R. SUAREZ, VS. MARIANO DAVID, JUAN PANGILINAN, MARCIAL DAYRIT, AND MELQUIADES DE GUZMAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, as follows: 1) Declaring the coverage of defendants landholdings under P.D. No. 27 and the Certificates of Land Transfer and Emancipation Patents issued to them as null and void ; 2) Declaring the defendants to have forfeited their respective rights over the subject landholdings ; 3) Ordering the defendants to vacate peacefully their respective landholdings and surrender possession thereof to plaintiff; 4) Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff 14 cavans per hectare /per annum as lease rentals for agricultural years 1988 to 1991 & every year thereafter, up to and until they finally vacate the subject landholdings; 5) Ordering the defendants to pay to plaintiff the amount of P3,000.00 as attorneys fees . No pronouncement as to costs. (Underscoring supplied) Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the DARAB before which they raised the following issues: I WHETHER OR NOT THE 5.5 HECTARE LANDHOLDING OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ARE COVERED BY THE LAND REFORM PROGRAM OF THE GOVERNMENT MORE SPECIFICALLY UNDER P.D. NO. 27 II WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS VIOLATED P.D. 816 NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE REFUSED TO RECEIVE RENTAL PAYMENT AS IT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE FORMER AS ITS TENANTS. III WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS COLLUSION BETWEEN DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM RE THE ISSUANCE OF THE EMANCIPATION PATENTS. The DARAB, by Decision of October 24, 1997, reversed the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator and dismissed the complaint of petitioner. Petitioner thus appealed to the Court of Appeals on the following grounds: 1) THAT THE HONORABLE ADJUDICATION BOARD GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN DECLARING THAT THE LAND SUBJECT OF THE CASE WAS PROPERLY AND LEGALLY COVERED UNDER P.D. NO. 27, DESPITE THE CLEAR ADMISSION OF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS; 2) THAT THE HONORABLE ADJUDICATION BOARD GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN DECLARING THAT THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT VIOLATE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 816, BY APPLYING ITS OWN CONCLUSION AS ITS BASIS RATHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED; AND 3) THAT THE HONORABLE ADJUDICATION BOARD HAS INDEED ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIABLE BASIS IN LAW AND IN FACT. By Decision of June 29, 1999, the Court of Appeals, sustaining the finding that the farmholding of respondents was covered by P.D. No. 27, held, however, that the issuance of the Certificates of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patents, and TCTs to respondents was vitiated due to the violation of petitioners right to due process. Significantly, the appellate court also held that there is no proof that the farmholding has been paid for by respondents who do no[t] even seem to know how much they paid and for how many years. Nonethe