SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG KAPDULA, INC (SMKI) . VS.

CA and Ponciona
Ducusin, et. al
G.R. No. 103953, March 25, 1999
Purisima J:
FACTS:
Macario Aro was the former owner of two parcels of agricultural land located Manlinta,
Dasmarias Cavite wherein the members of SMKI are the tenants on the said land. On 1980,
Aro sold the parcels of land to Arrow Head Golf Club Inc. Founded by Ricardo Silverio who
envisioned to establish a car assembly plant. In the process, the members of SKMI (tenants)
were evicted. However the establishment of car assembly plant in the place never
materialized. Later on, the parcels of land were leased to spouses Ruben and Gloria
Rodriguez for a term of seven years from July 8, 1983 to July 8, 1990 and where then
developed into a sugarcane plantation, where Ducusin et. al. are the farm workers.
On July 1984, the same property was acquired by PNB at a sheriff auction sale. On 1986,
members of SKMI sought assistance before the Ministry of Agrarian Reform now Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for their reinstatement as farm workers but it was denied. The
ownership of the subject land was later transferred to the Asset Privatization (APT) which
conveyed the same to the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DAR. On March
1991, the DAR issued Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) Nos. 1116 and 1117 for the said
parcels of land in favour of the members of SKMI. When they learned such favour, Ducusin et
al filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA assailing the issuance of CLOA in favour of
SKMI. The CA granted the petition and ordering the DAR to conduct a hearing and/or
investigation with due notice to SKMI to determine the rightful beneficiaries of the subject
parcels of land. Dissatisfied therewith, member of SKMI filed this petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there was observance of due process by the DAR prior to the issuance
of CLOA Nos. 1116 and 1117 in favor of SKMI.
2. Whether there was a need for Ducusin et al to exhaust administrative remedies
before filing petition for certiorari with the CA.
HELD:
1. NO. Section 40(4) in relation to Section 22 of RA 6657 providing for the order of
priority of the qualified beneficiaries of CARP, states that there is a need of further
hearings to determine the beneficiaries of subject parcels of land and in such
hearings deprived parties should participate. They must be informed of the hearing
through a notice. In this case, records shows that the letter which was supposed to be
a notice to Ducusin et al regarding the inclusion of subject properties in the CARO
was ineffective. FThe letter of PARO Officer to Rodriguez indicates no receipt of the
same by Rodriguez nor was it signed by the officer. If it was sent, it was sent too late,
the same being dated June 1991 when the said parcels of land was awarded to SKMI.
Also the letter was addressed to Rodriguez who no longer in possession of the said
properties as his lease ended on July 1990.

2. NO. The DARAB Revised Rules of Procedures Sec. 1 provides that the decisions of
DAR Secretary cannot be questioned before DARAB. It is clear that the issuance of
subject CLOAs constituted a decision of the Secretary who issued and signed the
same. The propriety of the recourse of Ducusin to CA on petition for certiorari to

assail the issuance by the DAR of the CLOAs in question is beyond cavil. Under
Section 54 of RA 6657, decisions and awards of the DAR may be brought to the Court
of Appeals by certiorari. This court has ruled that in cases of denial of due process,
exhaustion of available administrative remedies is unnecessary