Wilfredo Cabuguas vs. Gallant S. Tan Nery

DOCTRINE:
GR No. 219915 April 03, 2019

WILFREDO CABUGUAS, RENATO CABUGUAS, ALEJANDRO "TABOY" CANETE
AND ELEAZAR MORTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. GALLANT S. TAN NERY,
REPRESENTED BY KATHERINE TAN NERY-TOLEDO, RESPONDENT.
CAGUIOA, J:
NATURE OF THE CASE:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Decision of the CA which granted petitioners' petition for review under
Rule 43, reversed and set aside the Decision of the DARAB-Central.
FACTS:
 Respondent is the owner of agricultural land situated in Bukidnon, with an
area of 4,204 square meters covered by TCT No. AT-15991 with CLOA No.
00318948 issued by the DAR on December 22, 2000 and registered on April 23,
2001.
 On August 16, 2001, respondent, looked for laborers to conduct the act of
brushing and land preparation of his landholding for the purpose of planting
yellow corn; his niece contacted and eventually contracted the labor services of
respondent Wilfredo Cabuguas to perform the desired land preparation for a fee.
 After the land preparation and after having been paid, Wilfredo, without hesitation
and through stealth and evil machination, immediately occupied the subject land
and planted it with various agricultural crops; Wilfredo even built a house thereon
upon his assumption that the land area is an excess, hence untitled, and could
be occupied and tilled for purposes of agricultural production and eventually
could be applied for titling; Wilfredo even invited his co-petitioners to build a
house and sawmill.
 By reason of the illegal acts of the petitioners, respondent brought the issue to
the BARC Chairman and to the DAR Legal Office for a possible amicable
settlement but all these efforts failed.
 On May 11, 2005, respondent filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and
Ejectment before the PARAD.
 In their answer, petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the DARAB arguing that
the instant case necessarily involves the administrative implementation of the
land reform program to which the DARAB has no jurisdiction. Moreover, they
claimed that they have been actually possessing, occupying, tilling and
cultivating their respective portions of the subject landholding for a long period of
time and have acquired a vested and preferential right to become farmer-
beneficiaries thereof pursuant to Section 22 of RA 6657 and as such, they cannot
be ejected therefrom as they are more qualified to become beneficiaries than
respondent.
 The PARAD ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered the petitioners to
vacate and surrender the subject landholding to the former.
 Discontented, petitioners appealed their case to the DARAB-Central.
 The DARAB reversed the ruling of the PARAD and held that it has no jurisdiction
since it involves an administrative investigation. Such jurisdiction lies with the
DAR Secretary, to resolve whether respondent's CLOA was valid given the claim
of petitioners that they were the actual tillers and occupants of the land for a long
period of time.
 Aggrieved, the respondent appealed to the CA,
 The CA reinstated the PARAD’s decision. It ruled that the case involved an
agrarian dispute which is within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Further, it ruled
that issue of the validity of title; whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can
only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. The validity of
the CLOA cannot be attacked collaterally. Hence respondent's CLOA could not
be impeached or defeated by mere allegation of irregularity by the government
agency prior to its issuance.
 In petitioner’s memorandum, they attached a certificate of finality proving that
they indeed commenced such separate action to assail the CLOA of respondent.
Nonetheless the said certificate attached by petitioners is not a certified true
copy.
ISSUES:
 WHETHER OR NOT THE DARAB HAS JURISDICTION
 WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUANCE OF CLOA IS VALID
RULING:
We remand the case to the CA for further proceedings.
Under Section 6 of Rule 46, which is applicable to original cases for certiorari, the Court
may, whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, delegate the reception of the
evidence on such issues to any of its members or to an appropriate court, agency or
office. The delegate need not be the body that rendered the assailed decision.
The [CA] generally has the authority to review findings of fact. Its conclusions as to
findings of fact are generally accorded great respect by this Court. It is a body that is
fully capacitated and has a surfeit of experience in appreciating factual matters,
including documentary evidence.
FALLO: In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for
further proceedings.

Wilfredo Cabuguas vs. Gallant S. Tan Nery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wilfredo Cabuguas vs. Gallant S. Tan Nery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wilfredo Cabuguas vs. Gallant S. Tan Nery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOCTRINE:

GR No. 219915 April 03, 2019

NATURE OF THE CASE:

You might also like