FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 191376, January 08, 2020 ]

RICARIDO* GOLEZ, IN HIS OWN BEHALF AND HIS CHILDREN

CRISPINO GOLEZ, ISIDRO GOLEZ, EMMA G. DE LOS SANTOS,
HELEN G. CABECO, VICTORIA G. NORBE,** ANTERO GOLEZ,
SIMON GOLEZ AND GRACE G. BACLAY, IN SUBSTITUTION OF
THE DECEASED PRESENTACION GOLEZ, PETITIONERS, VS.
MARIANO ABAIS,*** RESPONDENT.

DECISION
CAGUIOA, J:
The Case

This is a petition for review on   certiorari[1]   (Petition) filed under

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court against the Decision[2] dated August
13, 2009 (assailed Decision) and Resolution[3]   dated February 5,
2010 (assailed Resolution) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101793 rendered by the
Court of Appeals (CA), Eighth Division and Former Eighth Division,
respectively.

The assailed Decision and Resolution upheld respondent Mariano

Abais' (Mariano) claim of possession over the disputed lots situated
in Barangay Jalaud Norte, Zarraga, Iloilo, denominated as Lots 28
and 29[4] (disputed lots).
The Facts

The antecedents, as narrated by the Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAB) Provincial Adjudicator for Iloilo, are as
follows:
On March 16, 2001, [Presentacion Golez (Presentacion)] filed this
case against her brother-in-law, [respondent Mariano], for ejectment
from [the disputed lots] at Barangay Jalaud Norte, Zarraga[,] and for
recovery of damages.

In her Complaint[, Presentacion] allege[d] x x x that: she is the eldest

daughter of the late Ireneo[5] Deocampo [Ireneo], an Operation Land
Transfer [(OLT)] beneficiary of [the disputed lots] with areas of
1.1325 hectares and 0.0835 hectare, respectively, at Barangay Jalaud
Norte, Zarraga, Iloilo; [Mariano] is the husband of her late younger
sister, Vicenta Deocampo Abais [(Vicenta)], who illegally possessed
[the disputed lots] and mortgaged the same to a certain Enrique
Pilla; after the death of her sister, [Presentacion] tried to recover
possession from [Mariano] who refused to acknowledge
[Presentacion's] action; [Presentacion's] petition to be identified
as qualified beneficiary of (the disputed) lots was granted in
the Order of the DAR Regional Director dated May 31, 1999;
her petition for re-allocation was likewise granted in the
Order of the DAR Regional Director dated December 11, 2000;
despite these administrative resolutions[, Mariano] refused
to vacate x x x the [disputed lots]; since the death of her father,
[Presentacion] was deprived of the possession of [the disputed lots]
and her lawful share [in the produce] of about 1,000 sacks of palay.

[Presentacion thus prayed that Mariano], his priv[ies] or any person

acting in his behalf, be ordered to vacate [the disputed lots] and
deliver to her and maintain her in the peaceful po[s]session and
cultivation thereof. Recovery of damages [was also prayed for.

[Mariano denied Presentacion's] claim x x x; he admit[ted] [that he

is] the husband of [Presentacion's] younger sister but denie[d] that
his possession is illegal; [he claimed that] his possession is by
virtue of being a tenant as decided by at least three [(3))
decisions of the Regional Trial Court [(RTC)] and the DARAB;
he ha[d] been in continuous cultivation of the land for more than
thirty [(30)] years and denie[d] having mortgaged the same to a
certain Enrique Pilla; he admit[ted] his refusal to turn over the land
because he had continuously worked thereon for more than [thirty
(30)] years and had fully paid its amortization with the Land Bank of
the Philippines, while [Presentacion] ha[d] neither cultivated nor
possessed the land nor paid a single centavo for its amortization.

[Mariano] admit[ted] the existence of the Orders of May 31, 1999 and
December 11, 2000 of the DAR Regional Director but denie[d] that he
ha[d] been notified thereofl; h]e denie[d] the truthfulness of
[Presentacion's] [allegations] which were false and
misrepresentations. Further, [Mariano claimed that] the Order[s
were] contrary to law and the facts of the case being the result of
falsehoods.

As special and affirmative defenses, [Mariano] aver[red] that

[Presentacion] has no cause of action against him; the case is barred
by res judicata, conclusiveness of judgment and law of the case; the
RTC in Civil Case N[o]. [16094], entitled Catalina Deocampo
vs. Mariano Abais and Vicenta Abais, rendered a Decision on
October 24, 1986 declaring him and his late wife Vicenta as
the actual tillers of [the disputed lots] and as such they are
protected by security of tenure, which RTC decision was
affirmed by the [CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 13897[6]]; [Presentacion]
herein filed DARAB Case No. 603 for recovery of possession against
[Mariano's] wife Vicenta but the case was dismissed in a decision
dated August 28, 1996 on the ground of res judicata; DARAB Case
N[o]. VI-725-IL-99 was filed by [Presentacion] against
[Mariano] for reinstatement but this was dismissed in the
Order dated November 29, 1999.

[Mariano] pray[ed] for the dismissal of the complaint x x x [and

sought] recovery of moral damages, attorney's fees and litigation
expenses.[7] (Emphasis supplied)
DARAB Proceedings

On July 25, 2001, Provincial Adjudicator Erlinda S. Vasquez (PA

Vasquez) issued a Decision[8] declaring Presentacion as the lawful
possessor and cultivator of the disputed lots as farmer-beneficiary.
Accordingly, PA Vasquez ordered Mariano and all his privies to
peacefully vacate the disputed lots and deliver them to
Presentacion.[9]

PA Vasquez based her Decision on the Rules and Regulations in Case

of Death of a Tenant-Beneficiary set forth in Ministry Memorandum
Circular No. 19, series of 1978 (MC 19) issued by the then Ministry of
Agrarian Reform (MAR).[10] Said Decision reads:
It is clear that [the disputed lots] at Barangay Jalaud Norte,
Zarr[a]ga, Iloilo x x x have been placed by the DAR under [OLT]
pursuant to [Presidential Decree No. 27[11] (PD 27)] wherein the late
[Ireneo], father of [Presentacion] and father-in-law of [Mariano], was
identified as qualified beneficiary and became a recipient of
Certificates of Land Transfer [(CLTs)] covering these lots.

When these [disputed lots] were placed under OLT[,] these were
tenanted by the late [Ireneo as] evidenced by the [CLTs] issued in his
name. [As] a CLT holder[, Ireneo] was prohibited from the
employment and use of tenants in whatever form in the occupation
and cultivation of the land. This negates [Mariano's] contention that
he and his late wife, [Vicenta] "were already in possession of the lots
in question and had been cultivating the same exclusively as tenants
since 1970 x x x." At most, [Mariano] and his late wife [Vicenta] were
members of [Ireneo's] immediate farm household who helped him in
the cultivation of the land.

[The disputed lots] being covered by [OLT], succession thereto is

governed by [MC 19] x x x which provides for the   Rules and
Regulations in Case of Death of a Tenant-Beneficiary, thus:
Corollary thereto, Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of
1984 has this to say:
"x x x x

In order to expedite the reallocation of lands left by deceased

beneficiaries,   all MAR Regional Directors are hereby
authorized to confirm the selection of the sole owner-
cultivator made by the surviving heirs or in appropriate
cases, to designate such sole owner-cultivator."
Having been vested with the authority to determine the successor,
as sole owner-cultivator, to this OLT-covered farmholding left by
farm[e]r-beneficiary [Ireneo] who died in 1984, the DAR Regional
Director, acting on [Presentacion's] LETTER REQUEST FOR
IDENTIFICATION AND QUALIFICATION AS FARMER-
BENEFICIARY OF [THE DISPUTED LOTS] LOCATED AT BRGY.
JALAUD NORTE, ZARRAGA, ILOILO [(Letter-request)], issued an
Order dated [May 31, 1999] the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, ORDER is hereby issued:

x x x Declaring [Presentacion] as the qualified farmer-beneficiary of

[the disputed lots];

x x x x"
and which became final and executory as appearing in the
ORDER OF FINALITY dated August 10, 1999.

Accordingly, [Presentacion] filed a PETITION FOR

REALLOCATION covering these lots and on December 11, 2000 the
DAR Regional Director issued an Order granting [said petition] x x x
which became final and executory as appearing in the ORDER OF
FINALITY dated January 4, 2001.

It must be emphasized that [Mariano] was never an heir of

his father-in-law, farmer-beneficiary and CLT holder [Ireneo]
who died in 1984.

In the case of [Torres v. Ventura[12]], it was held that "title to

land acquired pursuant to [PD 27] or the land reform
program of the government shall not be transferable except
by hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance
with the provisions of [PD 27], the Code of Agrarian Reforms and
other existing laws and regulations." It further explained that "a title
refers not only to that issued upon compliance by the tenant-farmer
of the said conditions but also includes those rights and interests
that the tenant-farmer immediately acquired upon the promulgation
of the law." x x x

[Mariano's] late wife, (Vicenta), although one of the heirs of

CLT holder [Ireneo], never applied to be, and [was never]
identified as, the qualified successor of her father, and [the
disputed] lots were never allocated in her favor by the
DAR. Had it been otherwise, it would have qualified [Mariano] to
succeed her in his own right in accordance with [MC 19]. As it had
been, the DAR, through the Regional Director, pronounced and
identified Ireneo's eldest child, [Presentacion], as his qualified
successor, and [the disputed lots] were reallocated to her x x x. It was
only then that the [CLTs] issued to the original farmerbeneficiary,
[Ireneo], were "RECALLED/CANCELLED".

xxxx

It must always be borne in mind that [the disputed lots have]

never been removed from the coverage of [the OLT], the
disposition of which is within the exclusive authority of the
DAR and cannot be disposed of from one holder to another
without its approval.[13]   (Emphasis and underscoring supplied;
italics omitted; citations omitted)
PA Vasquez dismissed Presentacion's claim for damages, as well
as Mariano's counter-claim for damages, attorney's fees and
litigation expenses.[14]

Mariano filed an appeal with the DARAB, which the latter denied in
its Decision[15]   dated January 31, 2007 (DARAB Decision).
Mariano's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied on
September 11, 2007.[16]

CA Proceedings

Aggrieved, Mariano filed an appeal with the CA via Rule 43 of the

Rules of Court.[17]   Primarily, Mariano argued that the DARAB
Decision is barred by res judicata, inasmuch as two prior judgments
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and another issued by the DARAB
have already upheld his right to possess and cultivate the disputed
lots as tenant.[18]

In the interim, Presentacion passed away. Hence, she was

substituted by her husband Ricarido Golez and their children,
namely, Crispino Golez, Isidro Golez, Antero Golez, Simon Golez,
Emma G. De Los Santos, Helen G. Cabeco, Victoria G. Norbe and
Grace G. Baclay (collectively, Petitioners).[19]

On August 13, 2009, the CA issued the assailed Decision granting

Mariano's appeal in part.

Contrary to the DARAB Decision, the CA held that Mariano is

entitled to possession of the disputed lots as   co-owner. The CA
anchored its ruling on the principle of  res judicata, in view of the
prior judgments recognizing Vicenta and Mariano as lawful tenants
of the disputed lots, particularly:

The Decision[20] dated October 24, 1986 (October 1986 RTC

Decision) rendered by the RTC in Civil Case No. 16094, a
complaint for recovery of possession and damages filed by
Ireneo's second wife Catalina Meder   vda.   de Deocampo
(Catalina)[21] against Vicenta and Mariano, which decision
was later affirmed by the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 13897;
The Decision[22]   dated August 28, 1996 (August 1996 PA
Decision) rendered by Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator Manuel Traviña (PA Traviña) in DARAB Case
No. 603, a complaint for recovery of possession and damages
filed by Presentacion against Vicenta; and
The Decision dated July 25, 2001 rendered by PA Vasquez in
DARAB Case No. VI-1342-IL-01, the complaint for ejectment
and damages subject of this Petition.

Hence, the CA held, as follows:

As had been aptly found by the [CA], speaking through then
Justice Nicolas P. Lapeña, Jr. in the decision in CA-G.R. CV No.
1389[7] promulgated on August 14, 1989, "when Ireneo, the
registered owner, died, the land went to his heirs, namely, his wife,
[Catalina] and his daughter, [Vicenta] by right of succession.
[Mariano and Vicenta] were therefore justified in claiming the right
to work on the land as co-owners thereof. Moreover, as pointed out by
the trial court, it is undisputed that [Mariano and Vicenta] have been
the ones actually cultivating the land in question even when Ir[e]neo
was still living until he died in 1983 and up to the present. Thus,
[Mariano and Vicenta] are not only co-owners, but actual cultivators
of the land in question who are covered by the security of tenure
provision of PD 27 which was issued in 1972, when [Mariano and
Vicenta] were already in actual cultivation of the land in question.

[The CA] did not fail to note that when (Ireneo] died, he was
not merely a tenant over [the disputed lots]. He was already
the registered owner thereof. What he bequeathed to his
heirs upon his death, therefore, was the right of succession as
owners-not as [tenants]. [Vicenta], [Mariano's] wife, was one of the
children of [Ireneo] who, thus, succeeded her father as one of the
owners of [the disputed lots]. Upon Vicenta's death, her surviving
spouse Mariano became a co-owner of said lots by the right of
succession. A co-owner cannot be ejected from any property an
aliquot part of which he owns.[23] (Emphasis supplied)
Nevertheless, the CA affirmed the denial of the parties' monetary
claims due to lack of evidence.[24]

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration coupled with a motion

to admit the same on December 16, 2009, 98 days[25] following the
expiration of their fifteen (15)-day reglementary period. Accordingly,
the CA denied both motions for being filed out of time through the
assailed Resolution.[26]

Petitioners received a copy of the assailed Resolution on February 17,

2010.[27]

On March 2, 2010, Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of

Time to File Petition for Review.[28] Therein, Petitioners prayed for
an additional period of fifteen (15) days from March 4, 2010, or until
March 19, 2010, to file their petition for review.

This Petition was filed on March 19, 2010.

In compliance with the Court's Resolution[29] dated April 26, 2010,

Mariano filed his Comment[30] to the Petition. In turn, Petitioners
filed their Reply[31] thereto on December 20, 2010.

Foremost, Petitioners fault the CA for declaring Mariano as co-owner

and lawful possessor of the disputed lots on the basis of the October
1986 RTC and August 1996 PA Decisions. In so ruling, Petitioners
claim that the CA erroneously applied the principle of res judicata.

Instead, Petitioners maintain that the DAR Regional Director's

Orders identifying Presentacion as the qualified successor of her
father Ireneo and reallocating the disputed lots in her favor should
be respected, as they were issued pursuant to the DAR Regional
Director's authority to "select a qualified [f]armer[-b]eneficiary [in
accordance with the a]dministrative rules and regulations
promulgated to implement [the OLT program under PD 27]."[32]
The Issue

The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA erred
when it declared Mariano to be a lawful possessor of the disputed lots
as co-owner.
The Court's Ruling

The Petition is granted.

The transfer of farmholdings upon death of the farmer-beneficiary is

governed by MC 19.

PD 27 was issued in 1972 for the declared purpose of emancipating

farmer-tenants of private agricultural lands by transferring
ownership of such lands in their favor.

On the transferability of ownership of awarded land, PD 27 provides:

Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform
Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by
hereditary succession   or to the   Government in accordance
with the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian
Reforms and other existing laws and regulations[.] (Emphasis
supplied)
The disputed lots had been granted to the original farmer-
beneficiary Ireneo pursuant to PD 27. Accordingly, the
transferability of said lots upon Ireneo's death remained subject to
the limitation set forth under PD 27, that is, the disputed lots would
be transferable only "by hereditary succession or to the Government
in accordance with the provisions of [PD 27], the Code of Agrarian
Reforms and other existing laws and regulations."[33]

In this connection, the MAR (now DAR) promulgated the Rules and

Regulations in Case of Death of a Tenant-Beneficiary set forth in MC
19. MC 19 implemented the limitation on transferability set forth in
PD 27 for the purpose of carrying out the Government's declared
policy of establishing "owner-cultivatorship x x x as the basis of
agricultural development of the country."[34]

The pertinent provisions of MC 19 state:

Succession to the
farmholding
covered by [OLT1,
shall be governed
by the pertinent
1. provisions of the
New Civil Code of
the Philippines
subject to the
following
limitations:

xxxx

The ownership and cultivation of the

farmholding shall ultimately be
b. consolidated in one heir who
possesses the following
qualifications:
 Succession to the
farmholding
covered by [OLT1,
shall be governed
by the pertinent
1. provisions of the
New Civil Code of
the Philippines
subject to the
following
limitations:
being a full-
fledged member
of a duly
(1)
recognized
farmers'
cooperative;

capable of
personally
(2)
cultivating the
farmholding; and

willing to
assume the
obligations and
(3)
responsibilities
of a tenant-
beneficiary.

Such owner-cultivator shall

compensate the other heirs to the
extent of their respective legal
c. interest in the land, subject to the
payment of whatever outstanding
obligations of the deceased tenant
beneficiary.

For the purpose of

determining who
among the heirs
2. shall be the sole
owner-cultivator,
the following rules
shall apply:

xxxx

Where there are several heirs, and

in the absence of extra-judicial
settlement or waiver of rights in
b. favor of one heir who shall be the
sole owner and cultivator, the heirs
shall within one month from death
of the tenant-beneficiary be free to
 Succession to the
farmholding
covered by [OLT1,
shall be governed
by the pertinent
1. provisions of the
New Civil Code of
the Philippines
subject to the
following
limitations:
choose from among themselves one
who shall have sole ownership and
cultivation of the land, subject to
Paragraph 1 (b) and (c)
hereof: Provided, however, That the
surviving spouse shall be given first
preference; otherwise, in the absence
or due to the permanent incapacitv of
the surviving spouse, priority shall
be determined among the heirs
according to age.

In case of disagreement or failure of

the heirs to determine who shall be
the owner-cultivator within the
c. period prescribed herein, the priority
rule under the proviso of Paragraph
2(b) hereof shall apply. (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)

Under MC 19, while the succession or transfer of farmholdings

granted under PD 27 recognized the pertinent provisions of the Civil
Code on succession, such was subject to certain limitations.
Accordingly, even as the successional rights of the original farmer-
beneficiary were recognized, MC 19 prescribed the manner through
which the succeeding sole owner-cultivator should be identified as
this was aligned with the purpose of carrying out PD 27's policy of
establishing a system of "owner-cultivatorship."[35]

So as not to impair the legitimes of the farmer-beneficiary's other

compulsory heirs under the Civil Code, MC 19 thus required the
succeeding sole owner-cultivator to compensate the original farmer-
beneficiary's other compulsory heirs, to the extent of their respective
legal interests in the farmland as of the death of the original farmer-
beneficiary.[36]

The intent of this rule is analogous to that of Article 1080 of the Civil
Code, which provides:
ART. 1080. Should a person make a partition of his estate by an
act inter vivos, or by will, such partition shall be respected, insofar as
it does not prejudice the legitime of the compulsory heirs.
A parent who, in the interest of his or her family, desires to
keep any agricultural, industrial, or manufacturing
enterprise intact, may avail himself of the right granted him
in this article, by ordering that the legitime of the other
children to whom the property is not assigned, be paid in
cash. (Emphasis supplied)
Presentacion is the qualified sole owner-cultivator under PD 27.

Consistent with the procedure set forth in MC 19, Petitioners'

predecessor-in-interest Presentacion filed her Letter-request and
Petition for Reallocation with the DAR Regional Director.
Presentacion's Letter-request and Petition for Reallocation were
successively granted through the DAR Regional Director's Orders
dated May 31, 1999[37] and December 11, 2000.[38] In turn, these
Orders became final on August 10, 1999[39]   and January 4,
2001,[40] respectively.

Mariano does not dispute that Presentacion was the oldest surviving
heir of Ireneo at the time of the latter's death. He also does not assail
that Presentacion possessed the qualifications necessary to succeed
Ireneo as new owner-cultivator under MC 19. Thus, in the absence of
any extra-judicial settlement assigning in Vicenta's (Mariano's wife)
favor the priority right to become sole owner and cultivator of the
disputed lots, her husband Mariano's claim of possession is left with
no leg to stand on.

Nevertheless, Presentacion, as lawful successor of Ireneo and new

owner-cultivator of the disputed lots, was bound to compensate
Ireneo's other compulsory heirs to the extent of their respective legal
interests in the disputed lots, subject to the payment of whatever
outstanding obligations the deceased farmer-beneficiary might still
have, as required by MC 19.[41]   This obligation to compensate
Ireneo's other compulsory heirs now falls upon Petitioners, as
successors-in-interest of the late Presentacion.

However, the Court recognizes that the identification of Ireneo's

other heirs and the determination of their respective interests in the
disputed lots as well as their obligations to said deceased farmer-
beneficiary are factual matters which cannot be resolved in a petition
for review. Accordingly, the Court deems it proper to remand the case
to the DAR Regional Director, the latter having primary jurisdiction
over all matters relating to the implementation of agrarian laws.[42]

Res judicata does not apply.

The assailed Decision and Resolution affirmed Mariano's claim of

possession on the ground of res judicata, and cites as basis, previous
judgments awarding possession of the disputed lots in Mariano's
favor. Accordingly, an examination of the principle of res judicata as
a bar by prior judgment is in order. On this score,   Dela Rosa v.
Mercado[43] is instructive:
A prior decision is conclusive in a second suit where the elements
of res judicata are present. For a prior judgment to constitute a bar
to a subsequent case, the following requisites must concur:

it must be a final judgment or order;

the court rendering the same must have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and over parties;
there must be between the two cases identity of parties,
identity of subject matter and identity of causes of action; and
it must be a judgment or order on the merits.[44]

To recall, the previous judgments which the CA recognized as

basis to apply the principle of res judicata are the October 1986 RTC
Decision, the August 1996 PA Decision and the Decision rendered by
PA Vasquez from which this Petition stems.

The October 1986 RTC Decision resolved a complaint for recovery of

possession and damages filed by Ireneo's second wife Catalina
against Mariano and Vicenta, who, at that time, was still alive.
Therein, Catalina claimed that she was entitled to possession of the
disputed lots as CLT holder. The issue thus raised in said case was
whether Catalina could lawfully eject Mariano and Vicenta from the
disputed lots.[45] The RTC ruled in the negative, as Catalina failed
to produce her alleged CLT. In fact, during the course of the RTC
proceedings, both parties admitted that the only CLT issued over the
disputed lots was the one issued in favor of Ireneo[46]   - the very
same one relied upon by Presentacion, and now, by Petitioners.

On the other hand, the August 1996 PA Decision resolved a

complaint for recovery of possession and damages between
Presentacion and Vicenta. Therein, PA Traviña dismissed
Presentacion's complaint primarily on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, holding as follows:
This Adjudicator finds merit in [Vicenta's] position on the
jurisdictional incompetence of the Adjudication Board to hear and
decide this case x x x. Definitely, this case is infused with a valid
issue of tenancy: the question of who among the heirs of the late
tenant-beneficiary [Ireneo] should take over the [disputed lots] he
left behind.

And this tenancy issue is met squarely by [MC 19] providing

for the Rules and Regulations in Case of Death of a Tenant-
Beneficiary   and making the whole process one of
administrative concern cognizable only by the DAR Secretary
through the Department's Regional and local field
offices.[47] (Emphasis and italics supplied)
Taking her cue from the August 1996 PA Decision, Presentacion
later filed her Letter-request and Petition for Reallocation with the
DAR Regional Director which, as earlier stated, were both granted.

Close scrutiny of the foregoing judgments confirms that they do not

serve as proper basis to apply the principle of res judicata.

The October 1986 RTC Decision involved a different party-plaintiff

who asserted an entirely different cause of action.

Moreover, while the August 1996 PA Decision involved the same

parties who raised issues similar to those raised in this case, said
Decision does not constitute a judgment on the merits which would
operate to bar the resolution of the substantive issues in a
subsequent case, inasmuch as it was premised primarily on lack of
jurisdiction - recognizing, in fact, that the "question of who among
the heirs of the late tenant-beneficiary [Ireneo] should take over the
[disputed lots] he left behind"[48]   was an administrative concern
cognizable only by the DAR Secretary.

As well, it is equally evident that the Decision rendered by PA

Vasquez in DARAB Case No. VI-1342-IL-01 cannot prompt the
application of   res judicata. Considering that said Decision is the
subject of this present Petition, it cannot, by any means, be deemed a
final judgment on the merits.

Hence, contrary to Mariano's insistence, res judicata does not apply

in the present case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is   GRANTED.

The Decision dated August 13, 2009 and Resolution dated February
5, 2010 rendered by the Court of Appeals, Eighth Division and
Former Eighth Division, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 101793
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The Decision dated January 31, 2007 rendered by the Department of

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in DARAB Case No. 11191
(Reg. Case No. VI-1342-IL-01) is REINSTATED.

This case is remanded to the Regional Director of the Department of

Agrarian Reform for proper determination of the compensation due
to the other heirs of the original farmer-beneficiary Ireneo
Deocampo, consistent with the provisions of Ministry Memorandum
Circular No. 19, series of 1978.

SO ORDERED.

Peralta, C. J., (Chairperson), J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ.,

concur.
Lopez, J., on official leave.

* Also appears as "Ricardo" in some parts of the Rollo.

** Also appears as "Nobre" in some parts of the Rollo.

*** Also appears as "Abaes" in some parts of the Rollo.

[1] Rollo, pp. 14-32.

[2] Id. at 34-42. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-

Lontok, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and
Romeo F. Barza concurring.

[3] Id. at 44-45.

[4] Id. at 35.

[5] Also appears as "Irineo" in some parts of the Rollo.

[6] See CA Decision dated August 14, 1989, id. at 87-88. Appears as

"CA-G.R. CV No. 13891" in some parts of the Rollo.

[7] Rollo, pp. 59-61.

[8] Id. at 59-67.

[9] Id. at 67.

[10] Id. at 63.

[11]   DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM

THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE
INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM THEREFOR (TENANTS
EMANCIPATION DECREE), October 21, 1972.

[12] 265 Phil. 99, 107 and 108 (1990).

[13] Rollo, pp. 63-66.

[14] Id. at 67.

[15] Id. at 70-75. Penned by Vice-Chairman Augusto P. Quijano, with

the concurrence of Members Delfin B. Samson, Edgar A. Igano and
Patricia Rualo-Bello; Chairman Nasser C. Pangandaman and
Members Nestor R. Acosta and Narciso B. Nieto, took no part.

[16] Id. at 36.

[17] Id. at 34.

[18] See id. at 36.

[19] Id. at 34.

[20] Id. at 81-85. Penned by Judge Jesus V. Ramos.

[21] See id. at 81.

[22] Id. at 76-78.

[23] Id. at 40-41.

[24] Id. at 41.

[25] However, the CA Resolution mentions 68 days.

[26] Rollo, pp. 44-45.

[27] Id. at 15.

[28] Id. at 3-10.

[29] Id. at 90-91.

[30] Id. at 96-102.

[31] Id. at 146-151.

[32] Id. at 24-25.

[33] PD 27, TENANTS EMANCIPATION DECREE.

[34] See policy declaration in MC 19.

[35] See MC 19.
 [36] See CIVIL CODE, Art. 777.

[37] Rollo, pp. 46-50.

[38] Id. at 54-55.

[39] See Order of Finality dated August 10, 1999, id. at 51-53.

[40] See Order of Finality dated January 4, 2001, id. at 56-58.

[41] The relevant provision states:

Such owner-cultivator shall compensate the other heirs to the

extent of their respective legal interest in the land, subject to the
c.
payment of whatever outstanding obligations of the deceased
tenant-beneficiary.

[42] See Rule II, Sec. 6, DAR Administrative Order No. 03, series
of 2017, entitled "2017 RULES FOR AGRARIAN LAW
IMPLEMENTATION (ALI) CASES," May 22, 2017.

[43] 286 Phil. 341 (1992).

[44] Id. at 345-346.

[45] Rollo, p. 84.

[46] Id.

[47] Id. at 77.

[48] Id.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.