Monday, January 31, 2011

Tax Declaration v. On-Site Inspection

The Department of Agrarian Reform argued that the tax declarations covering the lands characterized them as agricultural lands and, thus, detracted from the claim that they were used for livestock purposes.
It has been held that "there is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribed any further inquiry." Tax declarations are not the sole basis of the classification of the land; they are not conclusive so as to prevent their exclusion from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program coverage as lands devoted to livestock-raising. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer's on site inspection and actual investigation showing that the lands were being used for livestock-grazing are more convincing in the determination of the nature of the lands.
Just because the on site investigation was belatedly conducted three or four years after the effectivity of the law (CARL) does not perforce make it unworthy of belief or unfit to be offered as substantial evidence. Absent any clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or bias, the findings of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office, are to be accorded great probative value, owing to the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties  (RP rep by DAR v. Salvador Lopez Agri Bus., Corp; Salvador Lopez Agri Bus., Corp v. DAR, G.R. No. 178895 & G.R. No. 179071. January 10, 2011).

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

intertwined issues

When the complaint in the petition seeks for the Regional Trial Court to cancel Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) issued to the farmer-beneficiaries and the TCTs issued pursuant thereto, these reliefs cannot be granted by the RTC since the complaint essentially prays for the annulment of the coverage of the property within the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), an incident involving the implementation of RA6657, as amended. These are matters relating to terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landlord to agrarian reform beneficiaries over which DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction of a tribunal over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all of such reliefs. It is also settled that jurisdiction should be determined by considering not only the status or relationship of the parties but also the nature of the issues or questions that is the subject of the controversy. Thus, if the issues between the parties are intertwined with the resolution of an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB, such dispute must be addressed and resolved by the DARAB (DAR v. RTC Judge Br.XII of  Zamboanga City, et al. G.R. No. 163285, February 27, 2008).

The Power of Judicial Review

"When the Supreme Court invokes its power of judicial review, it does not assert its moral ascendancy over the other co-equal branches of government. It only reminds all and sundry of the non-negotiable supremacy of the constitution."
The power of judicial review is not an exercise in dominance by the Court or interference in the affairs of other branches of government, the constitution vested the Court the power to review the actions of co-equal branches of government for the purpose of checking transgressions on the constitution. The Judiciary cannot ignore its duty as vanguard of constitutionalism and the rule of law in our system of government.
While the Judiciary may not have either the power of the sword as wielded by the Executive or the purse as controlled by Congress, it wields the power of the pen or the authority to interpret the constitution and the laws. The power of judicial review is the means established by the constitution to preserve the peace and stability of our political system so that the possibility of a constitutional crises or clash of powers may be avoided.
(Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, on the occasion of PHILCONSA's 49th anniversary)