LocGov Cases 55-75 Plus Additional Sobejana

8/13/2019 LocGov Cases 55-75 Plus Additional Sobejana

1/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Baguio City

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 131457 April 24, 1998

HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF BUKIDNON,HON. REY B. BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SUMILAO, BUKIDNON,NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION, petitioners,vs.HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON.ERNESTO D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OFAGRARIAN REFORM, respondents.

MARTINEZ, J.:

The dramatic and well-publicized hunger strike staged by some allegedfarmer-beneficiaries in front of the Department of Agrarian Reform

compound in Quezon City on October 9, 1997 commanded nationwideattention that even church leaders and some presidential candidates tried tointervene for the strikers' "cause."

The strikers protested the March 29, 1996 Decision 1of the Office of thePresident (OP), issued through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres inOP Case No. 96-C-6424, which approved the conversion of a one hundred

forty-four (144)-hectare land from agricultural to agro-industrial/institutionalarea. This led the Office of the President, through then Deputy ExecutiveSecretary Renato C. Corona, to issue the so-called "Win-Win"Resolution

2on November 7, 1997, substantially modifying its earlierDecision after it had already become final and executory. The saidResolution modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-industrial

area only to the extent of forty-four (44) hectares, and ordered the remainingone hundred (100) hectares to be distributed to qualified farmer-

beneficiaries.

But, did the "Win-Win" Resolution culminate in victory for all the contendingparties?

The above-named petitioners cried foul. They have come to this Courturging us to annul and set aside the "Win-Win" Resolution and to enjoinrespondent Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao of the Department of Agrarian

Reform from implementing the said Resolution.

Thus, the crucial issue to be resolved in this case is: What is the legal effectof the "Win-Win" Resolution issued by the Office of the President on itsearlier Decision involving the same subject matter, which had alreadybecome final and executory?

The antecedent facts of this controversy, as culled from the pleadings, maybe stated as follows:

1. This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente, Sumilao,Bukidnon, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management and

Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of the petitioners. The propertyis covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14371

3of the Registry ofDeeds of the Province of Bukidnon.

2. In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the PhilippinePacking Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI), amultinational corporation, for a period of ten (10) years under the CropProducer and Grower's Agreement duly annotated in the certificate of title.The lease expired in April, 1994.

3. In October, 1991, during the existence of the lease, the Department of

Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property undercompulsory acquisition and assessed the land value at P2.38 million.

4

4. NQSRMDC resisted the DAR's action. In February, 1992, it sought andwas granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Provincial

Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in DARAB Case No. X-576, a writ of

prohibition with preliminary injunction which ordered the DAR Region XDirector, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Bukidnon, theMunicipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Sumilao, Bukidnon, the Land

Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank), and their authorized representatives"to desist from pursuing any activity or activities" concerning the subject land"until further orders."

5


2/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

5. Despite the DARAB order of March 31, 1992, the DAR Regional Directorissued a memorandum, dated May 21, 1992, directing the Land Bank toopen a trust account for P2.38 million in the name of NQSRMDC and to

conduct summary proceedings to determine the just compensation of thesubject property. NQSRMDC objected to these moves and filed on June 9,1992 an Omnibus Motion to enforce the DARAB order of March 31, 1992

and to nullify the summary proceedings undertaken by the DAR Regional

Director and Land Bank on the valuation of the subject property.

6. The DARAB, on October 22, 1992, acted favorably on the Omnibus

Motion by (a) ordering the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank "toseriously comply with the terms of the order dated March 31, 1992;" (b)nullifying the DAR Regional Director's memorandum, dated May 21, 1992,

and the summary proceedings conducted pursuant thereto; and (c) directingthe Land Bank "to return the claim folder of Petitioner NQSRMDC's subjectProperty to the DAR until further orders."

6

7. The Land Bank complied with the DARAB order and cancelled the trust

account it opened in the name of petitioner NQSRMDC.

7

8. In the meantime, the Provincial Development Council (PDC) of Bukidnon,headed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6,

8datedJanuary 7, 1993, designating certain areas along Bukidnon-Sayre Highwayas part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the subject property issituated.

9. What happened thereafter is well-narrated in the OP (TORRES) Decisionof March 29, 1996, pertinent portions of which we quote:

Pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise knownas the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Bayan ofSumilao, Bukidnon, on March 4, 1993, enacted OrdinanceNo. 24 converting or re-classifying 144 hectares of land inBgy. San Vicente, said Municipality, from agricultural toindustrial/institutional with a view of providing an opportunity

to attract investors who can inject new economic vitality,provide more jobs and raise the income of its people.

Parenthetically, under said section, 4th to 5th classmunicipalities may authorize the classification of five percent(5%) of their agricultural land area and provide for the

manner of their utilization or disposition.

On 12 October 1993, the Bukidnon Provincial Land UseCommittee approved the said Ordinance. Accordingly, on 11December 1993, the instant application for conversion was

filed by Mr. Gaudencio Beduya in behalf ofNQSRMDC/BAIDA (Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development

Association).

Expressing support for the proposed project, the BukidnonProvincial Board, on the basis of a Joint Committee Reportsubmitted by its Committee on Laws, Committee on Agrarian

Reform and Socio-Economic Committee approved, on 1February 1994, the said Ordinance now docketed asResolution No. 94-95. The said industrial area, as conceived

by NQSRMDC (project proponent) is supposed to have thefollowing components:

1. Development Academy of Mindanao which constitutesfollowing: Institute for Continuing Higher Education; Institute

for Livelihood Science (Vocational and Technical School);Institute for Agribusiness Research; Museum, Library,Cultural Center, and Mindanao Sports DevelopmentComplex which covers an area of 24 hectares;

2. Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Park which consists of cornprocessing for corn oil, corn starch, various corn products;rice processing for wine, rice-based snacks, exportable rice;

cassava processing for starch, alcohol and food delicacies;processing plants, fruits and fruit products such as juices;processing plants for vegetables processed and prepared for

market; cold storage and ice plant; cannery system;

commercial stores; public market; and abattoir needingabout 67 hectares;

3. Forest development which includes open spaces andparks for recreation, horse-back riding, memorial and mini-

zoo estimated to cover 33 hectares; and

4. Support facilities which comprise the construction of a

360-room hotel, restaurants, dormitories and a housingproject covering an area of 20 hectares.


3/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

The said NQSRMDC Proposal was, per Certification datedJanuary 4, 1995, adopted by the Department of Trade andIndustry, Bukidnon Provincial Office, as one of its flagship

projects. The same was likewise favorably recommended bythe Provincial Development Council of Bukidnon; themunicipal, provincial and regional office of the DAR; the

Regional Office (Region X) of the DENR (which issued an

Environmental Compliance Certificate on June 5, 1995); theExecutive Director, signing "By Authority of PAUL G.DOMINGUEZ," Office of the President Mindanao; the

Secretary of DILG; and Undersecretary of DECS Wilfredo D.Clemente.

In the same vein, the National Irrigation Administration,Provincial Irrigation Office, Bagontaas Valencia, Bukidnon,thru Mr. Julius S. Maquiling, Chief, Provincial IrrigationOffice, interposed NO. OBJECTION to the proposedconversion "as long as the development cost of the irrigationsystems thereat which is P2,377.00 per hectare be

replenished by the developer . . . ." Also, the Kisolon-SanVicente Irrigators Multi Purpose Cooperative, San Vicente,Sumilao, Bukidnon, interposed no objection to the proposedconversion of the land in question "as it will provide moreeconomic benefits to the community in terms of outsideinvestments that will come and employment opportunitiesthat will be generated by the projects to be put up . . . .

On the same score, it is represented that during the publicconsultation held at the Kisolan Elementary School on 18

March 1995 with Director Jose Macalindong of DAR Central

Office and DECS Undersecretary Clemente, the people ofthe affected barangay rallied behind their respective officials

in endorsing the project.

Notwithstanding the foregoing favorable recommendation,

however, on November 14, 1994, the DAR, thru SecretaryGarilao, invoking its powers to approve conversion of landsunder Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, issued an Order denyingthe instant application for the conversion of the subject land

from agricultural to agro-industrial and, instead, placed thesame under the compulsory coverage of CARP and directed

the distribution thereof to all qualified beneficiaries on thefollowing grounds:

1. The area is considered as a prime agricultural land withirrigation facility;

2. The land has long been covered by a Notice ofCompulsory Acquisition (NCA);

3. The existing policy on withdrawal or lifting on areas

covered by NCA is not applicable;

4. There is no clear and tangible compensation packagearrangements for the beneficiaries;

5. The procedures on how the area was identified and

reclassified for agro-industrial project has no reference toMemo Circular No. 54, Series of 1993, E.O. No. 72, Seriesof 1993, and E.O. No. 124, Series of 1993.

A Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was

filed on January 9, 1995 by applicant but the same wasdenied (in an Order dated June 7, 1995).9

10. Thus, the DAR Secretary ordered the DAR Regional Director "to

proceed with the compulsory acquisition and distribution of the property."10

11. Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon appealed" the order of denial to

the Office of the President and prayed for the conversion/reclassification ofthe subject land as the same would be more beneficial to the people ofBukidnon.

12. To prevent the enforcement of the DAR Secretary's order, NQSRMDC,on June 29, 1995, filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari,prohibition with preliminary injunction,

12docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.37614.

13. Meanwhile, on July 25, 1995, the Honorable Paul G. Dominguez, thenPresidential Assistant for Mindanao, after conducting an evaluation of theproposed project, sent a memorandum

13to the President favorablyendorsing the project with a recommendation that the DAR Secretary

reconsider his decision in denying the application of the province for theconversion of the land.


4/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

14. Also, in a memorandum14

to the President dated August 23, 1995, theHonorable Rafael Alunan III, then Secretary of the Department of the Interiorand Local Government (DILG), recommended the conversion of the subject

land to industrial/institutional use with a request that the President "hold theimplementation of the DAR order to distribute the land in question."

15. On October 23, 1995, the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 37614,

issued a Resolution15

ordering the parties to observe status quo pendingresolution of the petition. At the hearing held in said case on October 5,1995, the DAR, through the Solicitor General, manifested before the said

court that the DAR was merely "in the processing stage of the applicationsof farmers-claimants" and has agreed to respect status quo pending theresolution of the petition.

16

16. In resolving the appeal, the Office of the President, through thenExecutive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, issued a Decision in OP Case No.96-C-6424, dated March 29, 1996, reversing the DAR Secretary's decision,the pertinent portions of which read:

After a careful evaluation of the petition vis-a-visthe grounds uponwhich the denial thereof by Secretary Garilao was based, we findthat the instant application for conversion by the Municipality of

Sumilao, Bukidnon is impressed with merit. To be sure, convertingthe land in question from agricultural to agro-industrial would opengreat opportunities for employment and bring about realdevelopment in the area towards a sustained economic growth of

the municipality. On the other hand, distributing the land to would-bebeneficiaries (who are not even tenants, as there are none) does notguarantee such benefits.

Nevertheless, on the issue that the land is considered a primeagricultural land with irrigation facility it maybe appropriate tomention that, as claimed by petitioner, while it is true that there is,indeed, an irrigation facility in the area, the same merely passes thruthe property (as a right of way) to provide water to the ricelands

located on the lower portion thereof. The land itself, subject of theinstant petition, is not irrigated as the same was, for several years,planted with pineapple by the Philippine Packing Corporation.

On the issue that the land has long been covered by a Notice ofCompulsory Acquisition (NCA) and that the existing policy on

withdrawal or lifting on areas covered by NCA is not applicable,suffice it to state that the said NCA was declared null and void by the

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) asearly as March 1, 1992. Deciding in favor of NQSRMDC, the DARABcorrectly pointed out that under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6657, the

subject property could not validly be the subject of compulsoryacquisition until after the expiration of the lease contract with DelMonte Philippines, a Multi-National Company, or until April 1994,

and ordered the DAR Regional Office and the Land Bank of the

Philippines, both in Butuan City, to "desist from pursuing any activityor activities covering petitioner's land.

On this score, we take special notice of the fact that the Quisumbingfamily has already contributed substantially to the land reformprogram of the government, as follows: 300 hectares of rice land in

Nueva Ecija in the 70's and another 400 hectares in the nearbyMunicipality of Impasugong, Bukidnon, ten(10) years ago, for whichthey have not received "just compensation" up to this time.

Neither can the assertion that "there is no clear and tangible

compensation package arrangements for the beneficiaries' holdwater as, in the first place, there are no beneficiaries to speak about,for the land is not tenanted as already stated.

Nor can procedural lapses in the manner of identifying/reclassifyingthe subject property for agro-industrial purposes be allowed todefeat the very purpose of the law granting autonomy to localgovernment units in the management of their local affairs. Stated

more simply, the language of Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, supra, isclear and affords no room for any other interpretation. Byunequivocal legal mandate, it grants local government units

autonomy in their local affairs including the power to convert portions

of their agricultural lands and provide for the manner of theirutilization and disposition to enable them to attain their fullestdevelopment as self-reliant communities.

WHEREFORE, in pursuance of the spirit and intent of the said legal

mandate and in view of the favorable recommendations of thevarious government agencies abovementioned, the subject Order,dated November 14, 1994 of the Hon. Secretary, Department of

Agrarian Reform, is hereby SET ASIDE and the instant applicationof NQSRMDC/BAIDA is hereby APPROVED. 17

17. On May 20, 1996, DAR filed a motion for reconsideration of the OPdecision.


5/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

18. On September 11, 1996, in compliance with the OP decision of March29, 1996, NQSRMDC and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports(DECS) executed a Memorandum of Agreement whereby the former

donated four (4) hectares from the subject land to DECS for theestablishment of the NQSR High School.

18

When NQSRMDC was about to transfer the title over the 4-hectare donated

to DECS, it discovered that the title over the subject property was no longerin its name. It soon found out that during the pendency of both the Petitionfor Certiorari, Prohibition, with Preliminary Injunction it filed against DAR in

the Court of Appeals and the appeal to the President filed by GovernorCarlos O. Fortich, the DAR, without giving just compensation, caused thecancellation of NQSRMDC's title on August 11, 1995 and had it transferred

in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under TCT No. T-5026419of

the Registry of Deeds of Bukidnon. Thereafter, on September 25, 1995,DAR caused the issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)No. 00240227 and had it registered in the name of 137 farmer-beneficiariesunder TCT No. AT-3536

20of the Registry of Deeds of Bukidnon.

19. Thus, on April 10, 1997, NQSRMDC filed a complaint 21with theRegional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay, Bukidnon (Branch 9), docketedas Civil Case No. 2687-97, for annulment and cancellation of title, damages

and injunction against DAR and 141 others. The RTC then issued aTemporary Restraining Order on April 30, 1997

22and a Writ of Preliminary

Injunction on May 19, 1997,23restraining the DAR and 141 others from

entering, occupying and/or wresting from NQSRMDC the possession of the

subject land.

20. Meanwhile, on June 23, 1997, an Order24was issued by then Executive

Secretary Ruben D. Torres denying DAR's motion for reconsideration for

having been filed beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days. Thesaid order further declared that the March 29, 1996 OP decision had alreadybecome final and executory.

21. The DAR filed on July 11, 1997 a second motion for reconsideration of

the June 23, 1997 Order of the President.

22. On August 12, 1997, the said writ of preliminary injunction issued by the

RTC was challenged by some alleged farmers before the Court of Appealsthrough a petition for certiorariand prohibition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.44905, praying for the lifting of the injunction and for the issuance of a writ of

prohibition from further trying the RTC case.

23. On October 9, 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries began theirhunger strike in front of the DAR Compound in Quezon City to protest theOP Decision of March 29, 1996. On October 10, 1997, some persons

claiming to be farmer-beneficiaries of the NQSRMDC property filed a motionfor intervention (styled as Memorandum In Intervention) in O.P. Case No.96-C-6424, asking that the OP Decision allowing the conversion of the entire

144-hectare property be set aside.25

24. President Fidel V. Ramos then held a dialogue with the strikers andpromised to resolve their grievance within the framework of the law. He

created an eight (8)-man Fact Finding Task Force (FFTF) chaired byAgriculture Secretary Salvador Escudero to look into the controversy andrecommend possible solutions to the problem.

26

25. On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the strikers'protest by issuing the so-called "Win/Win" Resolution penned by thenDeputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, the dispositive portion ofwhich reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of theOffice of the President, through Executive Secretary RubenTorres, dated March 29, 1996, is hereby MODIFIED as

follows:

1. NQSRMDC's application for conversion is APPROVEDonly with respect to the approximately forty-four (44) hectare

portion of the land adjacent to the highway, asrecommended by the Department of Agriculture.

2. The remaining approximately one hundred (100) hectarestraversed by an irrigation canal and found to be suitable foragriculture shall be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries in accordance with RA 6657 or theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law with a right of way tosaid portion from the highway provided in the portion fronting

the highway. For this purpose, the DAR and other concernedgovernment agencies are directed to immediately conductthe segregation survey of the area, valuation of the property

and generation of titles in the name of the identified farmer-beneficiaries.


6/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

3. The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby directed tocarefully and meticulously determine who among theclaimants are qualified farmer-beneficiaries.

4. The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby furtherdirected to expedite payment of just compensation to

NQSRMDC for the portion of the land to be covered by the

CARP, including other lands previously surrendered byNQSRMDC for CARP coverage.

5. The Philippine National Police is hereby directed to renderfull assistance to the Department of Agrarian Reform in theimplementation of this Order.

We take note of the Memorandum in Intervention filed by113 farmers on October 10, 1997 without ruling on thepropriety or merits thereof since it is unnecessary to passupon it at this time.

SO ORDERED. 27

A copy of the "Win-Win" Resolution was received by Governor Carlos O.

Fortich of Bukidnon, Mayor Rey B. Baula of Sumilao, Bukidnon, andNQSRMDC on November 24, 1997

28and, on December 4, 1997, they filedthe present petition for certiorari, prohibition (under Rule 65 of the RevisedRules of Court) and injunction with urgent prayer for a temporary restrainingorder and/or writ of preliminary injunction (under Rule 58, ibid.), against thenDeputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona and DAR Secretary ErnestoD. Garilao.

On December 12, 1997, a Motion For Leave To Intervene29

was filed byalleged farmer-beneficiaries, through counsel, claiming that they are realparties in interest as they were "previously identified by respondent DAR asagrarian reform beneficiaries on the 144-hectare" property subject of thiscase. The motion was vehemently opposed

30by the petitioners.

In seeking the nullification of the "Win-Win" Resolution, the petitioners claimthat the Office of the President was prompted to issue the said resolution

"after a very well-managed hunger strike led by fake farmer-beneficiaryLinda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically blackmailing theOffice of the President to come up with this purely political decision to

appease the 'farmers,' by reviving and modifying the Decision of 29 March

1996 which has been declared final and executory in an Order of 23 June1997. . . ."

31Thus, petitioners further allege, respondent then Deputy

Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona "committed grave abuse of

discretion and acted beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the questionedResolution of 7 November 1997. . . ."

32They availed of this extraordinary

writ of certiorari"because there is no other plain, speedy and adequate

remedy in the ordinary course of law."33

They never filed a motion for

reconsideration of the subject Resolution "because (it) is patently illegal orcontrary to law and it would be a futile exercise to seek a reconsideration. . .."

34

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition andprayed that it be dismissed outright on the following grounds:

(1) The proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file a petition forreview directly with the Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43 of theRevised Rules of Court;

(2) The petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed"Win-Win" Resolution before filing the present petition; and

(3) Petitioner NQSRMDC is guilty of forum-shopping.

These are the preliminary issues which must first be resolved, including theincident on the motion for intervention filed by the alleged farmer-beneficiaries.

Anent the first issue, in order to determine whether the recourse ofpetitioners is proper or not, it is necessary to draw a line between an error of

judgment and an error of jurisdiction. An error of judgmentis one which thecourt may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error isreviewable only by an appeal.

35On the other hand, an error of jurisdictionis

one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse ofdiscretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

36Thiserror is correctable only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

37

It is true that under Rule 43, appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or

resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency exercising quasi-judicialfunctions,

38including the Office of the President,

39may be taken to theCourt of Appeals by filing a verified petition for review

40within fifteen (15)days from notice of the said judgment, final order or resolution, 41whether


7/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact andlaw.

42

However, we hold that, in this particular case, the remedy prescribed in Rule43 is inapplicable considering that the present petition contains an allegationthat the challenged resolution is "patently illegal"

43and was issued with"grave abuse of discretion" and "beyond his (respondent Secretary Renato

C. Corona's) jurisdiction"44

when said resolution substantially modified theearlier OP Decision of March 29, 1996 which had long become final andexecutory. In other words, the crucial issue raised here involves an error of

jurisdiction, not an error of judgment which is reviewable by an appeal underRule 43. Thus, the appropriate remedy to annul and set aside the assailedresolution is an original special civil action for certiorariunder Rule 65, as

what the petitioners have correctly done. The pertinent portion of Section 1thereof provides:

Sec. 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board orofficer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted

without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with graveabuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess ofjurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, andadequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person

aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the propercourt, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that

judgment be rendered annulling or modifying theproceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting

such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

xxx xxx xxx

The office of a writ of certiorariis restricted to truly extraordinarycases cases in which the act of the lower court or quasi-judicialbody is wholly void.

45

The aforequoted Section 1 of Rule 65 mandates that the person aggrieved

by the assailed illegal act "may file a verified petition (for certiorari) in theproper court." The proper court where the petition must be filed is stated inSection 4 of the same Rule 65 which reads:

Sec. 4. Where petition filed. The petition may be filed notlater than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order

or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or,

if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of acorporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional TrialCourt exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as

defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in theCourt of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of itsappellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of

its jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-

judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law orthese Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable onlyby the Court of Appeals. (4a)

Under the above-qouted Section 4, the Supreme Court, Court of Appealsand Regional Trial Court have original concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ

ofcertiorari,46prohibition 47and mandamus. 48But the jurisdiction of these

three (3) courts are also delineated in that, if the challenged act relates toacts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer orperson, the petition must be filed with the Regional Trial Court whichexercises jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the SupremeCourt. And if it involves the act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, the

petition shall be filed only with the Court of Appeals, unless otherwiseprovided by law or the Rules of Court. We have clearly discussed this matterof concurrence of jurisdiction in People vs.Cuaresma, et. al.,

49through now

Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, thus:

. . . . This Court's original jurisdiction to issue writsof certiorari(as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo

warranto, habeas corpusand injunction) is not exclusive. It isshared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts (formerlyCourts of First Instance), which may issue the writ,

enforceable in any part of their respective regions. It is also

shared by this Court, and by the Regional Trial Court, withthe Court of Appeals (formerly, Intermediate Appellate

Court), although prior to the effectivity of Batas PambansaBilang 129 on August 14, 1981, the latter's competence toissue the extraordinary writs was restricted to those "in aid of

its appellate jurisdiction." This concurrence of jurisdiction isnot, however, to be taken as according to parties seekingany of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choiceof the court to which application therefor will be directed.

There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy isdeterminative of the venue of appeals, and should also serveas a general determinant of the appropriate forum for

petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for


8/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitionsfor the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial

Court, and those against the latter, with the Court ofAppeals. (Citations omitted)

But the Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to take cognizance

of the petition filed directly to it if compelling reasons, or the nature andimportance of the issues raised, warrant. This has been the judicial policy tobe observed and which has been reiterated in subsequent cases,

namely:50

Uy vs.Contreras, et. al.,51

Torres vs.Arranz,52Bercero vs. De

Guzman,53andAdvincula vs. Legaspi, et. al. 54As we have further stated in

Cuaresma:

. . . . A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's originaljurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only whenthere are special and important reasons therefor, clearly andspecifically set out in the petition. This is established policy.It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands

upon the Court's time and attention which are better devotedto those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and toprevent further over-crowding of the Court's docket.

Pursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to take primary jurisdiction overthe present petition in the interest of speedy justice

55and to avoid future

litigations so as to promptly put an end to the present controversy which, as

correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked national interest because ofthe magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the assailedresolution. Moreover, as will be discussed later, we find the assailed

resolution wholly void and requiring the petitioners to file their petition first

with the Court of Appeals would only result in a waste of time and money.

That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higherinterests of justice is well-entrenched, in our jurisprudence. We reiteratewhat we said inPiczon vs. Court of Appeals:

56

Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere toolsdesigned to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict

and rigid application, which would result in technicalities thattend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, mustalways be avoided. Time and again, this Court has

suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case fromtheir operation whenever the higher interests of justice so

require. In the instant petition, we forego a lengthydisquisition of the proper procedure that should have beentaken by the parties involved and proceed directly to the

merits of the case.

As to the second issue of whether the petitioners committed a fatal

procedural lapse when they failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the

assailed resolution before seeking judicial recourse, suffice it to state thatthe said motion is not necessary when the questioned resolution is a patentnullity,

57as will be taken up later.

With respect to the third issue, the respondents claim that the filing by thepetitioners of: (a) a petition for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary

injunction (CA-G.R. SP No. 37614) with the Court of Appeals; (b) acomplaint for annulment and cancellation of title, damages and injunctionagainst DAR and 141 others (Civil Case No. 2687-97) with the RegionalTrial Court of Malaybalay, Bukidnon; and (c) the present petition, constituteforum shopping.

We disagree.

The rule is that:

There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverseopinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion(other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principleapplies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts butalso in connection with litigation commenced in the courtswhile an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this

case, in order to defeat administrative processes and inanticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and afavorable court ruling. This specially so, as in this case,where the court in which the second suit was brought, hasno jurisdiction (citations omitted).

The test for determining whether a party violated the ruleagainst forum shopping has been laid down in the 1986 caseof Buan vs. Lopez(145 SCRA 34), . . . and that is, forum

shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentiaarepresent or where a final judgment in one case will amountto res judicatain the other, as follows:


9/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

There thus exists between the action beforethis Court and RTC Case No. 86-36563identity of parties, or at least such parties as

represent the same interests in both actions,as well as identity of rights asserted andrelief prayed for, the relief being founded on

the same facts, and the identity on the two

preceding particulars is such that anyjudgment rendered in the other action, will,regardless of which party is successful,

amount to res adjudicatain the action underconsideration: all the requisites, in fine,of auter action pendant.58

It is clear from the above-quoted rule that the petitioners are not guilty offorum shopping. The test for determining whether a party has violated therule against forum shopping is where a final judgment in one case willamount to res adjudicatain the action under consideration. A cursoryexamination of the cases filed by the petitioners does not show that the said

cases are similar with each other. The petition for certiorariin the Court ofAppeals sought the nullification of the DAR Secretary's order to proceedwith the compulsory acquisition and distribution of the subject property. Onthe other hand, the civil case in RTC of Malaybalay, Bukidnon for theannulment and cancellation of title issued in the name of the Republic of thePhilippines, with damages, was based on the following grounds: (1) theDAR, in applying for cancellation of petitioner NQSRMDC's title, used

documents which were earlier declared null and void by the DARAB; (2) thecancellation of NQSRMDC's title was made without payment of justcompensation; and (3) without notice to NQSRMDC for the surrender of itstitle. The present petition is entirely different from the said two cases as it

seeks the nullification of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution of the Office ofthe President dated November 7, 1997, which resolution was issued long

after the previous two cases were instituted.

The fourth and final preliminary issue to be resolved is the motion for

intervention filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries, which we have to deny forlack of merit. In their motion, movants contend that they are the farmer-beneficiaries of the land in question, hence, are real parties in interest. Toprove this, they attached as Annex "I" in their motion a Master List of

Farmer-Beneficiaries. Apparently, the alleged master list was madepursuant to the directive in the dispositive portion of the assailed "Win-Win"Resolution which directs the DAR "to carefully and meticulously determine

who among the claimants are qualified farmer-beneficiaries." However, a

perusal of the said document reveals that movants are those purportedly"Found Qualified and Recommended for Approval." In other words, movantsare merelyrecommendeefarmer-beneficiaries.

The rule in this jurisdiction is that a real party in interestis a party who wouldbe benefited or injured by the judgment or is the party entitled to the avails

of the suit. Real interestmeans apresent substantialinterest, as

distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate orconsequential interest.

59Undoubtedly, movants' interest over the land inquestion is a mere expectancy. Ergo, they are not real parties in interest.

Furthermore, the challenged resolution upon which movants based theirmotion is, as intimated earlier, null and void. Hence, their motion for

intervention has no leg to stand on.

Now to the main issue of whether the final and executory Decision datedMarch 29, 1996 can still be substantially modified by the "Win-Win"Resolution.

We rule in the negative.

The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the President of

the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No. 18. Section 7thereof provides:

Sec. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of thePresident shall, except as otherwise provided for by speciallaws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days fromreceipt of a copy thereof by the parties, unless a motion for

reconsideration thereof is filed within such period.

Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shallbe allowedand entertained, save in exceptionallymeritorious cases. (Emphasis ours).

It is further provided for in Section 9 that "The Rules of Court shallapply in a suppletory character whenever practicable.

When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23, 1997declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has

seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office hadlost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having


10/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more authority toentertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DARSecretary, which second motion became the basis of the assailed "Win-Win"

Resolution. Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 18 and Section 4, Rule 43of the Revised Rules of Court mandate that only one (1) motion forreconsideration is allowed to be taken from the Decision of March 29, 1996.

And even if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to be filed in

"exceptionally meritorious cases," as provided in the second paragraph ofSection 7 of AO 18, still the said motion should not have been entertainedconsidering that the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably

filed, thereby allowing the Decision of March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality.Thus, the act of the Office of the President in re-opening the case andsubstantially modifying its March 29, 1996 Decision which had already

become final and executory, was in gross disregard of the rules and basiclegal precept that accordfinalityto administrative determinations.

In San Luis, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.60we held:

Since the decisions of both the Civil Service Commission

and the Office of the President had long become final andexecutory, the same can no longer be reviewed by thecourts. It is well-established in our jurisprudence that the

decisions and orders of administrative agencies, renderedpursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon theirfinality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment withinthe purview of the doctrine ofres judicata[Brillantes v.

Castro, 99 Phil. 497 (1956), Ipekdijna Merchandizing Co.,Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-15430, September30, 1963, 9 SCRA 72.] The rule of res judicatawhich forbids

the reopening of a matter once judicially determined by

competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers

and boards acting within their jurisdiction as to thejudgments of courts having general judicial powers[Brillantes v. Castro, supraat 503].

The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutionsof a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law,rules and regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once

and for all.61This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without

which there would no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to

this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of

adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately bestruck down.

Therefore, the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution which substantially modifiedthe Decision of March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality, is utterly void.Such void resolution, as aptly stressed by Justice Thomas A. Street

62in a1918 case,

63is "a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and

slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head."64

WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The challengedResolution dated November 7, 1997, issued by the Office of the President inOP Case No. 96-C-6424, is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. TheMotion For Leave To Intervene filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries is

hereby DENIED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Regalado, Melo, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Footnotes1 Annex "AA," Petition; Rollo, pp. 163-167.2 Annex "A," Petition; Ibid., pp. 48-63.3 Annex "B," Petition; Rollo, pp. 64-655.4 Par. 12, Petition; Ibid., p. 6.5 Annex "C," Petition; ibid, pp. 66-67.6 Annex "D," Petition; ibid., p. 68.7 Annexes "E," "F" and "G," Petition; ibid., pp. 69-71.8 Annex "H," Petition; Ibid., p. 72.9 Annex "AA," Petition; Ibid., pp. 163-166.10 Annex "S," Petition; Ibid., p. 113.

11 Annex "T," Petition; Ibid., pp. 115-120.12 Annex "U," Petition; Ibid., pp. 121-146.13 Annexes "V" and "V-1," Petition; Ibid., pp. 147-150.14 Annex "W," Petition; Ibid., pp. 151-153.15 Annex "X," Petition; Ibid., pp. 154-156.

16 Annex "Y," Petition; Ibid., pp. 157-158.17 Ibid., pp. 166-167.18 Par. 37, Petition, rollo, pp. 14-15.

19 Annex "BB," Petition; Ibid., p. 168.20 Annex "CC," Petition; Ibid., pp. 169-176.21 Annex "DD," Petition; Ibid., pp. 177-189.22 Annex "EE," Petition; Rollo, pp. 190-191.23 Annex "GG," Petition; Ibid., pp. 193-194.24 Annex "FF," Petition; Ibid., p. 192.25 Par. 17, Respondents' Comment, rollo, p. 532.

26 Par. 18, ibid., p. 533.27 Rollo, pp. 61-62.


11/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

28 Par. 3, Petition; Ibid., p. 4.29 Rollo, pp. 195-200.30 Ibid., pp. 280-282.

31 Petition, ibid., p. 17.32 Ibid., p. 18.33 Ibid., p. 4.34 Ibid., p. 5.35 Fernando vs. Vasquez, et. al., 31 SCRA 288.36 Ibid; Section 1, Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court.37 Ibid.

38 Except those issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines (Sec. 2, Rule43, Revised Rules of Court).39 Section 1, Rule 43, Revised Rules of Court.40 Sections 3 & 5, ibid.41 Section 4, ibid.42 Section 3, ibid.43 Petition, rollo, p. 5.44 Ibid., p. 18.

45 Fernando vs. Vasquez, et al., 31 SCRA 288.46 Section I, Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court; People vs. Cuaresma, et. al.,172 SCRA 415, 423; Vergara, Sr. vs. Suelto, et. al., 156 SCRA 753, 766.

47 Section 2, ibid.48 Section 3, ibid.49 Supra.50 Cited in Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. One, 1997 edition, p.

721.51 G.R. Nos. 111416-17, Sept. 26, 1994.52 G.R. No. 123352, Feb. 7, 1996.53 G.R. No. 123573, Feb. 28, 1996.54 G.R. No. 125500, Aug. 7, 1996.55 Eugenio vs. Drilon, et. al., G.R. No. 109404, Jan. 22, 1996; 252 SCRA106,110.56 190 SCRA 31, 38.57 Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, L-19850, Jan.30, 1964; Luzon Surety Co. vs. Marbella, et al., L-16088, Sept. 30, 1960; Dir. OfLands vs. Santamaria, 44 Phil. 594, all cited in Regalado, Remedial Law

Compendium, supra, p. 710.58 First Philippine International Bank, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., 252SCRA 259, 283 (Jan. 24, 1996).

59 Garcia vs. David, 67 Phil. 27.

60 174 SCRA 258, 271.61 Legarda, et al. vs. Savellano, et al., 158 SCRA 194, 200.62 One of the first Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.63 El Banco Espaol-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921.64 Ibid., at p. 949.


12/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 127876 December 17, 1999

ROXAS & CO., INC., petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OFAGRARIAN REFORM, SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DARREGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV, MUNICIPAL AGRARIANREFORM OFFICER OF NASUGBU, BATANGAS and DEPARTMENT OFAGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, respondents.

PUNO, J.:

This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned bypetitioner and the validity of the acquisition of these haciendas by the

government under Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive AgrarianReform Law of 1988.

Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner

of three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, alllocated in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. Hacienda Palico is 1,024

hectares in area and is registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)No. 985. This land is covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 0465, 0466, 0468,0470, 0234 and 0354. Hacienda Banilad is 1,050 hectares in area,

registered under TCT No. 924 and covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 0236,0237 and 0390. Hacienda Caylaway is 867.4571 hectares in area and isregistered under TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665.

The events of this case occurred during the incumbency of then PresidentCorazon C. Aquino. In February 1986, President Aquino issued

Proclamation No. 3 promulgating a Provisional Constitution. As head of theprovisional government, the President exercised legislative power "until a

legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution."1In the

exercise of this legislative power, the President signed on July 22, 1987,Proclamation No. 131 instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Program and Executive Order No. 229 providing the mechanisms necessaryto initially implement the program.

On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and

took over legislative power from the President.2

This Congress passedRepublic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of1988. The Act was signed by the President on June 10, 1988 and took effect

on June 15, 1988.

Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed with respondent

DAR a voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisionsof E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed undercompulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL.

Hacienda Palico

On September 29, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent MunicipalAgrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a noticeentitled "Invitation to Parties" to petitioner. The Invitation was addressed to

"Jaime Pimentel, Hda. Administrator, Hda. Palico."3Therein, the MARO

invited petitioner to a conference on October 6, 1989 at the DAR office inNasugbu to discuss the results of the DAR investigation of Hacienda Palico,which was "scheduled for compulsory acquisition this year under the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program."4

On October 25, 1989, the MARO completed three (3) Investigation Reports

after investigation and ocular inspection of the Hacienda. In the first Report,the MARO found that 270 hectares under Tax Declaration Nos. 465, 466,468 and 470 were "flat to undulating (0-8% slope)" and actually occupiedand cultivated by 34 tillers of sugarcane.

5In the second Report, the MARO

identified as "flat to undulating" approximately 339 hectares under TaxDeclaration No. 0234 which also had several actual occupants and tillers of

sugarcane;6while in the third Report, the MARO found approximately 75

hectare under Tax Declaration No. 0354 as "flat to undulating" with 33 actualoccupants and tillers also of sugarcane.

7

On October 27, 1989, a "Summary Investigation Report" was submitted andsigned jointly by the MARO, representatives of the Barangay Agrarian

Reform Committee (BARC) and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), and by


13/224


14/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

to undulating," on which were 92 actual occupants and tillers ofsugarcane.

21

The results of these Reports were discussed at the conference. Present inthe conference were representatives of the prospective farmer beneficiaries,the BARC, the LBP, and Jaime Pimentel on behalf of the landowner.

22After

the meeting, on the same day, September 21, 1989, a Summary

Investigation Report was submitted jointly by the MARO, representatives ofthe BARC, LBP, and the PARO. They recommended that after ocularinspection of the property, 234.6498 hectares under Tax Declaration No.

0390 be subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution by CLOA.23

Thefollowing day, September 22, 1989, a second Summary Investigation wassubmitted by the same officers. They recommended that 737.2590 hectares

under Tax Declaration Nos. 0236 and 0237 be likewise placed undercompulsory acquisition for distribution.

24

On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the DepartmentSecretary, sent to petitioner two (2) separate "Notices of Acquisition" overHacienda Banilad. These Notices were sent on the same day as the Notice

of Acquisition over Hacienda Palico. Unlike the Notice over Hacienda Palico,however, the Notices over Hacienda Banilad were addressed to:

Roxas y Cia. Limited

7th Floor, Cacho-Gonzales Bldg. 101 Aguirre St., Leg.

Makati, Metro Manila.25

Respondent DAR offered petitioner compensation of

P15,108,995.52 for 729.4190 hectares and P4,428,496.00 for234.6498 hectares. 26

On September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP LandValuation Manager a "Request to Open Trust Account" in petitioner's nameas compensation for 234.6493 hectares of Hacienda Banilad.

27A second

"Request to Open Trust Account" was sent on November 18, 1991 over723.4130 hectares of said Hacienda.

28

On December 18, 1991, the LBP certified that the amounts ofP4,428,496.40 and P21,234,468.78 in cash and LBP bonds had beenearmarked as compensation for petitioner's land in Hacienda Banilad.

29

On May 4, 1993, petitioner applied for conversion of both Haciendas Palicoand Banilad.

Hacienda Caylaway

Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government on

May 6, 1988 before the effectivity of the CARL. The Hacienda has a total

area of 867.4571 hectares and is covered by four (4) titles TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665. On January 12, 1989, respondentDAR, through the Regional Director for Region IV, sent to petitioner two (2)separate Resolutions accepting petitioner's voluntary offer to sell HaciendaCaylaway, particularly TCT Nos. T-44664 and T-44663.

30The Resolutions

were addressed to:

Roxas & Company, Inc.

7th Flr. Cacho-Gonzales Bldg.

Aguirre, Legaspi Village

Makati, M. M31

On September 4, 1990, the DAR Regional Director issued two separateMemoranda to the LBP Regional Manager requesting for the valuation of theland under TCT Nos. T-44664 and T-44663.

32On the same day,

respondent DAR, through the Regional Director, sent to petitioner a "Noticeof Acquisition" over 241.6777 hectares under TCT No. T-44664 and533.8180 hectares under TCT No. T-44663.

33Like the Resolutions of

Acceptance, the Notice of Acquisition was addressed to petitioner at its

office in Makati, Metro Manila.

Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo

J. Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of respondent DAR withdrawing itsVOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu,Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylawayfrom agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner informedrespondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylawayfrom agricultural to other

uses.34

In a letter dated September 28, 1992, respondent DAR Secretary informed

petitioner that a reclassification of the land would not exempt it from agrarian


15/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

reform. Respondent Secretary also denied petitioner's withdrawal of theVOS on the ground that withdrawal could only be based on specific groundssuch as unsuitability of the soil for agriculture, or if the slope of the land is

over 18 degrees and that the land is undeveloped.35

Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, on May

11, 1993, petitioner filed its application for conversion of both Haciendas

Palico and Banilad.36

On July 14, 1993, petitioner, through its President,Eduardo Roxas, reiterated its request to withdraw the VOS over HaciendaCaylaway in light of the following:

1) Certification issued by Conrado I. Gonzales, Officer-in-Charge, Department of Agriculture, Region 4, 4th Floor, ATI

(BA) Bldg., Diliman, Quezon City dated March 1, 1993stating that the lands subject of referenced titles "are notfeasible and economically sound for further agriculturaldevelopment.

2) Resolution No. 19 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu,Batangas approving the Zoning Ordinance reclassifyingareas covered by the referenced titles to non-agriculturalwhich was enacted after extensive consultation with

government agencies, including [the Department of AgrarianReform], and the requisite public hearings.

3) Resolution No. 106 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of

Batangas dated March 8, 1993 approving the ZoningOrdinance enacted by the Municipality of Nasugbu.

4) Letter dated December 15, 1992 issued by Reynaldo U.Garcia of the Municipal Planning & Development,Coordinator and Deputized Zoning Administrator addressedto Mrs. Alicia P. Logarta advising that the Municipality ofNasugbu, Batangas has no objection to the conversion ofthe lands subject of referenced titles to non-agricultural.

37

On August 24, 1993 petitioner instituted Case No. N-0017-96-46 (BA) withrespondent DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying for the cancellation of

the CLOA's issued by respondent DAR in the name of several persons.Petitioner alleged that the Municipality of Nasugbu, where the haciendas arelocated, had been declared a tourist zone, that the land is not suitable for

agricultural production, and that the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu hadreclassified the land to non-agricultural.

In a Resolution dated October 14, 1993, respondent DARAB held that thecase involved the prejudicial question of whether the property was subject toagrarian reform, hence, this question should be submitted to the Office of

the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for determination.38

On October 29, 1993, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. SPNo. 32484. It questioned the expropriation of its properties under the CARLand the denial of due process in the acquisition of its landholdings.

Meanwhile, the petition for conversion of the three haciendas was denied by

the MARO on November 8, 1993.

Petitioner's petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April 28,1994.

39Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied on

January 17, 1997 by respondent court.40

Hence, this recourse. Petitioner assigns the following errors:

A. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY

ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER'S CAUSE OFACTION IS PREMATURE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUSTADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN VIEW OF THE PATENT

ILLEGALITY OF THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS, THEIRREPARABLE DAMAGE CAUSED BY SAID ILLEGAL

ACTS, AND THE ABSENCE OF A PLAIN, SPEEDY ANDADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF

LAW ALL OF WHICH ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE SAIDDOCTRINE.

B. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELYERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER'SLANDHOLDINGS ARE SUBJECT TO COVERAGE UNDER

THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW, INVIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT PETITIONER'SLANDHOLDINGS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO NON-

AGRICULTURAL USES BY PRESIDENTIALPROCLAMATION NO. 1520 WHICH DECLARED THEMUNICIPALITY NASUGBU, BATANGAS AS A TOURIST

ZONE, AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE


16/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU RE-CLASSIFYINGCERTAIN PORTIONS OF PETITIONER'S LANDHOLDINGS

AS NON-AGRICULTURAL, BOTH OF WHICH PLACE SAID

LANDHOLDINGS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF AGRARIANREFORM, OR AT THE VERY LEAST ENTITLEPETITIONER TO APPLY FOR CONVERSION AS

CONCEDED BY RESPONDENT DAR.

C. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELYERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DECLARE THE

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RESPONDENT DAR VOID FORFAILURE TO OBSERVE DUE PROCESS, CONSIDERINGTHAT RESPONDENTS BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE

PROCEDURE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PRIVATELANDS UNDER R.A. 6657, MORE PARTICULARLY, INFAILING TO GIVE DUE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER

AND TO PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC AREASSOUGHT TO BE ACQUIRED.

D. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELYERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THATPETITIONER WAS BRAZENLY AND ILLEGALLY

DEPRIVED OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT JUSTCOMPENSATION, CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONERWAS NOT PAID JUST COMPENSATION BEFORE IT WASUNCEREMONIOUSLY STRIPPED OF ITS

LANDHOLDINGS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF CLOA'STO ALLEGED FARMER BENEFICIARIES, IN VIOLATIONOF R.A. 6657.

41

The assigned errors involve three (3) principal issues: (1) whether this Courtcan take cognizance of this petition despite petitioner's failure to exhaustadministrative remedies; (2) whether the acquisition proceedings over thethree haciendas were valid and in accordance with law; and (3) assumingthe haciendas may be reclassified from agricultural to non-agricultural,

whether this court has the power to rule on this issue.

I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.

In its first assigned error, petitioner claims that respondent Court of Appealsgravely erred in finding that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative

remedies. As a general rule, before a party may be allowed to invoke thejurisdiction of the courts of justice, he is expected to have exhausted all

means of administrative redress. This is not absolute, however. There areinstances when judicial action may be resorted to immediately. Among theseexceptions are: (1) when the question raised is purely legal; (2) when the

administrative body is in estoppel; (3) when the act complained of is patentlyillegal; (4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; (5) when therespondent acted in disregard of due process; (6) when the respondent is a

department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the President, bear the

implied or assumed approval of the latter; (7) when irreparable damage willbe suffered; (8) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;(9) when strong public interest is involved; (10) when the subject of the

controversy is private land; and (11) in quo warrantoproceedings.42

Petitioner rightly sought immediate redress in the courts. There was a

violation of its rights and to require it to exhaust administrative remediesbefore the DAR itself was not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

Respondent DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA's) tofarmer beneficiaries over portions of petitioner's land without justcompensation to petitioner. A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)

is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary under R.A. 6657, theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.

43Before this may be

awarded to a farmer beneficiary, the land must first be acquired by the State

from the landowner and ownership transferred to the former. The transfer ofpossession and ownership of the land to the government are conditionedupon the receiptby the landowner of the corresponding payment or depositby the DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title

remains with the landowner.44

There was no receipt by petitioner of anycompensation for any of the lands acquired by the government.

The kind of compensation to be paid the landowner is also specific. The law

provides that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or "LBPbonds."

45Respondent DAR's opening of trust account deposits in petitioner'

s name with the Land Bank of the Philippines does not constitute paymentunder the law. Trust account deposits are not cash or LBP bonds. Thereplacement of the trust account with cash or LBP bonds did not ipso

factocure the lack of compensation; for essentially, the determination of thiscompensation was marred by lack of due process. In fact, in the entireacquisition proceedings, respondent DAR disregarded the basicrequirements of administrative due process. Under these circumstances, the

issuance of the CLOA's to farmer beneficiaries necessitated immediatejudicial action on the part of the petitioner.

II. The Validity of the Acquisition Proceedings Over the Haciendas.


17/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

Petitioner's allegation of lack of due process goes into the validity of theacquisition proceedings themselves. Before we rule on this matter, however,there is need to lay down the procedure in the acquisition of private lands

under the provisions of the law.

A. Modes of Acquisition of Land under R. A. 6657

Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988(CARL), provides for two (2) modes of acquisition of private land:compulsory and voluntary. The procedure for the compulsory acquisition ofprivate lands is set forth in Section 16 of R.A. 6657, viz:

Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For

purposes of acquisition of private lands, the followingprocedures shall be followed:

a).After having identified the land, thelandowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR

shall send its notice to acquire the land to theowners thereof, by personal delivery orregistered mail, and post the same in aconspicuous place in the municipal building

and barangay hall of the place where theproperty is located. Said notice shall containthe offer of the DAR to pay a correspondingvalue in accordance with the valuation set

forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinentprovisions hereof.

b) Within thirty (30) days from the date ofreceipt of written notice by personal deliveryor registered mail, the landowner, hisadministrator or representative shall informthe DAR of his acceptance or rejection of theoffer.

c) If the landowner accepts the offer of theDAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner the

purchase price of the land within thirty (30)days after he executes and delivers a deedof transfer in favor of the Government and

surrenders the Certificate of Title and othermuniments of title.

d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, theDAR shall conduct summary administrativeproceedings to determine the compensation

for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP

and other interested parties to submitevidence as to the just compensation for theland, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of

the notice. After the expiration of the aboveperiod, the matter is deemed submitted fordecision. The DAR shall decide the case

within thirty (30) days after it is submitted fordecision.

e) Upon receipt by the landowner of thecorresponding payment, or, in case ofrejection or no response from the landowner,

upon the deposit with an accessible bankdesignated by the DAR of the compensationin cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with

this Act, the DAR shall take immediatepossession of the land and shall request theproper Register of Deeds to issue a TransferCertificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the

Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shallthereafter proceed with the redistribution ofthe land to the qualified beneficiaries.

f) Any party who disagrees with the decisionmay bring the matter to the court of proper

jurisdiction for final determination of justcompensation.

In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, thelandowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. Afteridentification, the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the landowner,

by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a conspicuous place inthe municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property islocated. Within thirty days from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the

landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of hisacceptance or rejection of the offer. If the landowner accepts, he executes


18/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrendersthe certificate of title. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed oftransfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the

purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make areply, the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine

just compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP representative and

other interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation within

fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shalldecide the case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of justcompensation. Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment, or,

in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter, the DAR shall depositthe compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. TheDAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance

of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any partymay question the decision of the DAR in the regular courts for finaldetermination of just compensation.

The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of the land

acquisition to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive AgrarianReform Program (CARP).

46Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in

compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land, the landowners andthe beneficiaries. However,the law is silent on how the identification

process must be made.To fill in this gap,the DAR issued on July 26, 1989Administrative Order No.12, Series or 1989, which set the operatingprocedure in the identification of such lands. The procedure is as follows:

II. OPERATING PROCEDURE

A.The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, with the

assistance of the pertinent Barangay Agrarian ReformCommittee (BARC), shall:

1. Update the masterlist of all agriculturallands covered under the CARP in his area of

responsibility. The masterlist shall includesuch information as required under theattached CARP Masterlist Form which shall

include the name of the landowner,landholding area, TCT/OCT number, and taxdeclaration number.

2. Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition CaseFolder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) orlandholding covered under Phase I and II of

the CARP except those for which thelandowners have already filed applications toavail of other modes of land acquisition. A

case folder shall contain the following duly

accomplished forms:

a) CARP CA Form 1

MARO Investigation Report

b) CARP CA Form 2

Summary InvestigationReport of Findings andEvaluation

c) CARP CA Form 3

Applicant's Information Sheet

d) CARP CA Form 4 Beneficiaries Undertaking

e) CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal Report to thePARO

The MARO/BARC shall certify that allinformation contained in the above-

mentioned forms have been examined andverified by him and that the same are trueand correct.

3. Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter ofinvitation to a conference/meeting to the

landowner covered by the Compulsory CaseAcquisition Folder. Invitations to the saidconference/meeting shall also be sent to the

prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the BARCrepresentative(s), the Land Bank of thePhilippines (LBP) representative, and other

interested parties to discuss the inputs to the


19/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

valuation of the property. He shall discussthe MARO/BARC investigation report andsolicit the views, objection, agreements or

suggestions of the participants thereon. Thelandowner shall also be asked to indicate hisretention area. The minutes of the meeting

shall be signed by all participants in the

conference and shall form an integral part ofthe CACF.

4. Submit all completed case folders to theProvincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).

B. The PARO shall:

1. Ensure that the individual case folders areforwarded to him by his MAROs.

2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder,compute the valuation of the land inaccordance with A.O. No. 6, Series of1988.

47The valuation worksheet and the

related CACF valuation forms shall be dulycertified correct by the PARO and all thepersonnel who participated in theaccomplishment of these forms.

3. In all cases, the PARO may validate thereport of the MARO through ocular inspection

and verification of the property. This ocularinspection and verification shall bemandatory when the computed valueexceeds = 500,000 per estate.

4. Upon determination of the valuation,

forward the case folder, together with theduly accomplished valuation forms and hisrecommendations, to the Central Office. The

LBP representative and the MAROconcerned shall be furnished a copy each ofhis report.

C. DAR Central Office, specifically throughthe Bureau of Land Acquisition andDistribution (BLAD), shall:

1. Within three days from receipt of the casefolder from the PARO, review, evaluate and

determine the final land valuation of the

property covered by the case folder. Asummary review and evaluation report shallbe prepared and duly certified by the BLAD

Director and the personnel directlyparticipating in the review and final valuation.

2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretaryor her duly authorized representative, aNotice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) forthe subject property. Serve the Notice to thelandowner personally or through registeredmail within three days from its approval. The

Notice shall include, among others, the areasubject of compulsory acquisition, and theamount of just compensation offered by

DAR.

3. Should the landowner accept the DAR'soffered value, the BLAD shall prepare and

submit to the Secretary for approval theOrder of Acquisition. However, in case ofrejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication

Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary

administrative hearing to determine justcompensation, in accordance with theprocedures provided under AdministrativeOrder No. 13, Series of 1989. Immediatelyupon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just

compensation, the BLAD shall prepare andsubmit to the Secretary for approval therequired Order of Acquisition.

4. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment,in case of acceptance, or upon deposit of

payment in the designated bank, in case ofrejection or non-response, the Secretary


20/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

shall immediately direct the pertinentRegister of Deeds to issue the correspondingTransfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the

name of the Republic of the Philippines.Once the property is transferred, the DAR,through the PARO, shall take possession of

the land for redistribution to qualified

beneficiaries.

Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal

Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of allagricultural lands under the CARP in his area of responsibility containing allthe required information. The MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition

Case Folder (CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO then sendsthe landowner a "Notice of Coverage" and a "letter of invitation" to a"conference/meeting" over the land covered by the CACF. He also sendsinvitations to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries the representatives of theBarangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of thePhilippines (LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the

valuation of the property and solicit views, suggestions, objections oragreements of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked toindicate his retention area.

The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial AgrarianReform Officer (PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. Ocularinspection and verification of the property by the PARO shall be mandatory

when the computed value of the estate exceeds P500,000.00. Upondetermination of the valuation, the PARO shall forward all papers togetherwith his recommendation to the Central Office of the DAR. The DAR Central

Office, specifically, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD),

shall review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property.The BLAD shall prepare, on the signature of the Secretary or his duly

authorized representative, a Notice of Acquisition for the subjectproperty.

48From this point, the provisions of Section 16 of R.A. 6657 then

apply.49

For a valid implementation of the CAR program, two notices are required:(1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conferencesent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer

beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 12,Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner underSection 16 of the CARL.

The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the letterof invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated.They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative

due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State'spolice power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARLprescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police

power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the

Constitution.

50

But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners aredeprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there isalso a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated

is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is thesurrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and allbeneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer

beneficiary.51

The Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o person shall be deprivedof life, liberty or property without due process of law."

52The CARL was not

intended to take away property without due process of law.53

The exerciseof the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed inthe taking of private property.

DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989, from whence the Notice of Coverage firstsprung, was amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and in1993 by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. The Notice of Coverage and letterof invitation to the conference meeting were expanded and amplified in said

amendments.

DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 entitled "Revised Rules Governing the

Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell andCompulsory Acquisition Pursuant to R.A. 6657," requires that:

B. MARO

1. Receives the duly accomplished CARP Form Nos. 1 & 1.1including supporting documents.

2. Gathers basic ownership documents listed under 1.a or

1.b above and prepares corresponding VOCF/CACF bylandowner/landholding.

3. Notifies/invites the landowner and representatives of theLBP, DENR, BARC and prospective beneficiaries of theschedule of ocular inspection of the property at least one

week in advance.


21/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

4. MARO/LAND BANK FIELD OFFICE/BARC

a) Identify the land and landowner, and determine

the suitability for agriculture and productivity of theland and jointly prepare Field Investigation Report(CARP Form No. 2), including the Land Use Map of

the property.

b) Interview applicants and assist them in thepreparation of the Application For Potential CARPBeneficiary (CARP Form No. 3).

c) Screen prospective farmer-beneficiaries and for

those found qualified, cause the signing of therespective Application to Purchase and Farmer'sUndertaking (CARP Form No. 4).

d) Complete the Field Investigation Report based on

the result of the ocular inspection/investigation of theproperty and documents submitted. See to it thatField Investigation Report is duly accomplished andsigned by all concerned.

5. MARO

a) Assists the DENR Survey Party in the conduct of aboundary/ subdivision survey delineating areas covered byOLT, retention, subject of VOS, CA (by phases, if possible),infrastructures, etc., whichever is applicable.

b) Sends Notice of Coverage (CARP Form No. 5) tolandowner concerned or his duly authorized representative

inviting him for a conference.

c) Sends Invitation Letter (CARP Form No. 6) for aconference/public hearing to prospective farmer-beneficiaries, landowner, representatives of BARC, LBP,DENR, DA, NGO's, farmers' organizations and other

interested parties to discuss the following matters:

Result of Field Investigation

Inputs to valuation

Issues raised

Comments/recommendations by all parties concerned.

d) Prepares Summary of Minutes of the conference/public

hearing to be guided by CARP Form No. 7.

e) Forwards the completed VOCF/CACF to the ProvincialAgrarian Reform Office (PARO) using CARP Form No. 8(Transmittal Memo to PARO).

xxx xxx xxx

DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 lays down the rules on both Voluntary Offer

to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) transactions involving landsenumerated under Section 7 of the CARL.

54In both VOS and CA.

transactions, the MARO prepares the Voluntary Offer to Sell Case Folder(VOCF) and the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF), as the casemay be, over a particular landholding. The MARO notifies the landowner aswell as representatives of the LBP, BARC and prospective beneficiaries of

the date of the ocular inspection of the property at least one week before thescheduled date and invites them to attend the same. The MARO, LBP orBARC conducts the ocular inspection and investigation by identifying the

land and landowner, determining the suitability of the land for agriculture andproductivity, interviewing and screening prospective farmer beneficiaries.Based on its investigation, the MARO, LBP or BARC prepares the FieldInvestigation Report which shall be signed by all parties concerned. In

addition to the field investigation, a boundary or subdivision survey of theland may also be conducted by a Survey Party of the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR) to be assisted by theMARO.

55This survey shall delineate the areas covered by Operation Land

Transfer (OLT), areas retained by the landowner, areas with infrastructure,and the areas subject to VOS and CA. After the survey and field

investigation, the MARO sends a "Notice of Coverage" to the landowner orhis duly authorized representative inviting him to a conference or publichearing with the farmer beneficiaries, representatives of the BARC, LBP,

DENR, Department of Agriculture (DA), non-government organizations,farmer's organizations and other interested parties. At the public hearing,the parties shall discuss the results of the field investigation, issues that may

be raised in relation thereto, inputs to the valuation of the subject


22/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

landholding, and other comments and recommendations by all partiesconcerned. The Minutes of the conference/public hearing shall form part ofthe VOCF or CACF which files shall be forwarded by the MARO to the

PARO. The PARO reviews, evaluates and validates the Field InvestigationReport and other documents in the VOCF/CACF. He then forwards therecords to the RARO for another review.

DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 was amended by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of1993. DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993 provided, among others, that:

IV. OPERATING PROCEDURES:Steps Responsible Activity Forms/

Agency/Unit Document

(requirements)A. Identification and

Documentationxxx xxx xxx

5 DARMO Issue Notice of Coverage CARPto LO by personal delivery Form No. 2

with proof of service, orregistered mail with returncard, informing him that his

property is now under CARPcoverage and for LO to selecthis retention area, if he desiresto avail of his right of retention;

and at the same time invites himto join the field investigation tobe conducted on his property

which should be scheduled at

least two weeks in advance ofsaid notice.

A copy of said Notice shall CARPbe posted for at least one Form No. 17week on the bulletin board of

the municipal and barangayhalls where the property islocated. LGU office concernednotifies DAR about compliance

with posting requirements thrureturn indorsement on CARPForm No. 17.

6 DARMO Send notice to the LBP, CARP

BARC, DENR representatives Form No. 3and prospective ARBs of the schedule of the field investigationto be conducted on the subject

property.7 DARMO With the participation of CARPBARC the LO, representatives of Form No. 4

LBP the LBP, BARC, DENR Land UseDENR and prospective ARBs, MapLocal Office conducts the investigation onsubject property to identify

the landholding, determinesits suitability and productivity;and jointly prepares the Field

Investigation Report (FIR)and Land Use Map. However,the field investigation shallproceed even if the LO, therepresentatives of the DENR andprospective ARBs are not available

provided, they were given duenotice of the time and date ofinvestigation to be conducted.Similarly, if the LBP representative

is not available or could not comeon the scheduled date, the fieldinvestigation shall also be conducted,

after which the duly accomplishedPart I of CARP Form No. 4 shallbe forwarded to the LBPrepresentative for validation. If he agreesto the ocular inspection report of DAR,he signs the FIR (Part I) and

accomplishes Part II thereof.In the event that there is adifference or variance betweenthe findings of the DAR and theLBP as to the propriety ofcovering the land under CARP,whether in whole or in part, on

the issue of suitability to agriculture,degree of development or slope,and on issues affecting idle lands,

the conflict shall be resolved by


23/224

!"#$"% ' $()*+"* ' ,)-. //01/

a composite team of DAR, LBP,DENR and DA which shall jointlyconduct further investigation

thereon. The team shall submit itsreport of findings which shall bebinding to both DAR and LBP,

pursuant to Joint MemorandumCircular of the DAR, LBP, DENRand DA dated 27 January 1992.8 DARMO Screen prospective ARBs

BARC and causes the signing of CARPthe Application of Purchase Form No. 5and Farmer's Undertaking

(APFU).9 DARMO Furnishes a copy of the CARPduly accomplished FIR to Form No. 4the landowner by personaldelivery with proof ofservice or registered mail

will return card and postsa copy thereof for at leastone week on the bulletinboard of the municipal

and barangay halls wherethe property is located.LGU office concerned CARP

notifies DAR about Form No. 17compliance with postingrequirement thru returnendorsement on CARPForm No. 17.

B. Land Survey

10 DARMO Conducts perimeter or PerimeterAnd/or segregat

Documents

LocGov Cases 55-75 Plus Additional Sobejana