SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

Labor Law 1 & Agrarian Law and Social Legislation

Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Nemesio Dumagpi

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) from the Decision dated October 7, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No.
01724-MIN, which affirmed the Decision dated December 16, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pagadian City.

Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[a]ll lands of the public domain, waters,
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural
lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated."

Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, or the Public Land Act, only citizens of the Philippines may
be granted title to alienable public agricultural land, to wit:

Section 48. . . . xxx xxx xxx (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural
lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by
war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions
essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this
chapter.

Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who is not the owner of more than twenty-four
hectares and who since July fourth, nineteen hundred and twenty-six or prior thereto, has continuously
occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract or tracts of
agricultural public lands subject to disposition, or who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon while
the same has not been occupied by any person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this chapter,
to have a free patent issued to him for such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twenty-four
hectares.

FACTS:
On August 12, 1997, Nemesio Dumagpi (Nemesio), filed a complaint denominated Accion Reivindicatoria,
Quieting of Title, and Damages before the RTC against Juan Aguilar, Sr. (Aguilar), Rosalino C. Valencia
(Valencia), Dionito B. Custodio (Custodio) and the Secretary of DAR (defendants), wherein he alleged that he
is the owner of land in Siay, Zamboanga del Sur that due to his open, notorious, adverse and exclusive
possession, occupation and cultivation of the said land in the concept of owner since July 4, 1945, during
which he introduced improvements thereon such as a residential house of light materials, canals, dikes, and
rice paddies and planted coconut and fruit trees and exclusively enjoyed the produce, the said lot has long
been converted into his private property by operation of law.

In 1964, Nemesio applied for a free patent over the subject lot. which he said was approved in 1966, but the
patent was never released due to opposition from the defendants; that sometime in 1973, defendant Aguilar
forcibly entered and occupied the northwest portion of Lot in 1986, Aguilar intervened as claimant/protestant
and appeared at a hearing conducted by the Bureau of Lands at Buug, Zamboanga del Sur on September 10,
1996; another claimant, Wenceslao Dominguez, occupant of the property at the southeast boundary, also
opposed his free patent application; sometime in 1989, defendants Custodio and Valencia, by means of force,
allegedly dispossessed Nemesio of a total of two hectares at the mid-northern portion of his lot; in March 1997,
the above-named free patent oppositors, all allegedly distant relatives of Nemesio, threatened to physically
oust him from his lot, and it was then that he learned for the first time that titles had been issued by the DAR to
 SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
Labor Law 1 & Agrarian Law and Social Legislation
Atty. Mercader
the private defendants through deceit, fraud and misrepresentation, along a much-reduced portion was also
issued in his name.

Rodolfo G. Salvador, Jr., an employee of Land Management Services Office under the Bureau of Lands of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Region 9, confirmed the free patent application of
Nemesio and identified the pertinent documents kept in a vault in his office; that while it appears that the free
patent was approved on September 5, 1966, he did not know if it was released; that the private defendants
were subsequently granted titles to portions of the lot by the DAR.

Florentino Dumagpi, first cousin of Nemesio, testified that upon invitation of Nemesio he and his brothers came
to farm the land in 1955 for a share of the crops; that by 1955, portions thereof had already been cultivated and
some trees had been cut to build a camarin; that they left in 1965 to be near the school of their children; that in
1972, he visited the land and saw his cousin Nemesio still occupying a portion thereof but none of the private
defendants except some squatters

DAR presented Ariston Labrador (Labrador), a retired Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer for Diplahan,
Zamboanga del Sur, which then included the subject DAR resettlement site, now part of the Municipality of
Siay. He testified that the resettlement site contains 2,598 has and used to be part of a coal mine reservation;
that the area was reclassified and declared as a resettlement site under Proclamation No. 2342 dated March
14, 1984, to be administered and disposed of by DAR pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program; that following DAR guidelines, he verified a list of qualified beneficiaries, which included the private
defendants who had been personally cultivating portions which were eventually titled to them; that Nemesio
cultivated a small part of the lot he claimed but during his visit he had stopped doing so due to advanced age;
that he did not know that the surveyor was a brother of defendant Aguilar. The RTC rendered its Decision on
December 16, 2005 in favor of Nemesio.

ISSUE/S: W/N the present controversy is a civil action and not an agrarian reform matter within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the DAR?
HELD: PETITION GRANTED.

1) NO. Under Section 3 of Article XII, lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral lands and national parks, and alienable lands of the public domain, which shall be limited to agricultural
lands.

As asserted by the DAR and testified to by Labrador, from 1938 to 1984 the subject lot was part of a coal mine
reservation, established under Proclamation No. 234, Series of 1938, as amended by Proclamation No. 402,
Series of 1953. On March 14, 1984, a portion of the reservation containing 2,598 has was reclassified under
Presidential Proclamation No. 2342 as agricultural land reserved for resettlement. On June 10, 1988, R.A. No.
6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), placed the said reclassified area under the
administration and disposition of the DAR, pursuant to Section 2 thereof.

There is no dispute that the land Nemesio is claiming was not alienable public agricultural land but in truth was
classified and reserved as a coal mine from 1938 to 1984, a period which overlapped with his claimed
acquisitive possession. Clearly, he cannot invoke Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 and assert an
acquisitive title thereto by reason of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession for 30 years.

Then, even granting arguendo that his application for free patent was approved by DENR, it is not denied that
the same was never released. In fact, DAR claimed that it was never approved precisely because the land was
not alienable. Even Nemesio admitted that his free patent application was not approved due to opposition by
several other claimants.

Importantly, the CLOAs and OCTs issued over the subject lot were pursuant to the implementation of the
agrarian law under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.
 SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
Labor Law 1 & Agrarian Law and Social Legislation
Atty. Mercader
As the lead agency in the government's Agrarian Reform Program, DAR issued Administrative Order No. 09-
89, Series of 1989, on May 5, 1989, containing the "Rules and Procedures Governing Titling and Distribution of
Lots in DAR Settlement Projects," intended to accelerate the issuance of CLOAs to quali􏰁ed bene􏰁ciaries in
settlement projects administered by the DAR; it covers the titling and distribution of agricultural lands within
proclaimed settlement projects under the administration of the DAR, as provided for by existing laws.

Even DARAB's New Rules of Procedure issued on May 30, 1994 expressly recognized, under Section 1 (g),
Rule II thereof, that matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise
known as the CARL of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules, shall be the exclusive
prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.

Nemesio has doubtful standing to petition for quieting of title, which is clearly a collateral attack against the
CLOAs and titles the DAR Secretary issued to the private defendants. He has no title, records, or instruments
to uphold, and moreover, under Section 23 of R.A. No. 6657 as agrarian reform bene􏰁ciary he is allowed only
three has, not 22 has. Even granting that his complaint may be treated as one for reconveyance, there is no
ownership or title to reconvey to him because he never had one, not even through acquisitive prescription.

Moreover, as the lead agency mandated to implement the government's agrarian reform program, the DAR is
the real party in interest, since at issue is the validity of its actions comprising the determination of the qualified
agrarian reform beneficiaries and the issuance of CLOAs and titles to them. Since, therefore, the
implementation of agrarian law is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary, and issues concerning
the issuance of the subject titles can only be raised to the DAR Secretary, the RTC has no jurisdiction to
decide Civil Case No. 3985, and its judgment therein is of necessity void and can never become final.

NOTES:
The titles are: ACIDSc

1. Aguilar was awarded (a) Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00014318 over Lot 684, CSD-09-
001830, containing 15,304 sq.m., and was issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. E-10590 on December
8, 1990; and (b) CLOA No. 00014859 over Lot 686, CSD- 09-001830, with an area of 16,474 sq.m. for which
he was issued OCT No. E-10591 on December 8, 1990;

2. Custodio was awarded CLOA No. 00014832 over Lot 682, CSD-09- 001830, containing 32,428 sq.m. for
which he was issued OCT No. E- 10375 on November 20, 1990;

3. Valencia was awarded CLOA No. 00014833 over Lot 683, CSD-09- 001830, containing 25,616 sq.m., and
was issued OCT No. E-10376 on November 20, 1990;

4. Nemesio was issued OCT No. E-9704 containing 11,440 sq.m., although he never applied for Certificate of
Land Ownership from the DAR;