502 Phil. 766
GARCIA, J.:
The relevant facts are well laid out in the adverted January 4, 2002 decision[3] of the Office of the President (OP, for short), viz.:
1) Resolution dated December 11, 2002,[1] dismissing herein petitioners' earlier petition for review of the decision and resolution dated January 4, 2002 and July 2, 2002, respectively, of the Office of the President; and 2) Resolution dated October 15, 2003,[2] denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Subject of this case are several parcels of land with a total area of 507 hectares, more or less, which used to form part of a larger expanse consisting of 807 hectares situated in Brgys. Baha and Talibayog, Calatagan, Batangas, and formerly owned by Ceferino Ascue (Ascue).From the adverse order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) dated August 4, 2000,[4] dispositively reading -
Records show that on various dates in 1989 and 1990, emancipation patents (EPs) covering the disputed lands were issued to 323 agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27 and/or Executive Order (EO) No. 228, s. of 1987, entitled "Declaring Full Ownership to Qualified Farmer Beneficiaries Covered by [PD] No. 27."
On August 1, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Calatagan, Batangas sent a 'Final Notification' letter dated July 28, 1989 to the heirs of Ascue relative to the payment of their land transfer claim (Records, p. 250).
On September 26, 1991, the DAR Region IV Office requested the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to open a trust account in favor of Ascue in an amount corresponding to the valuation of his agricultural property. Consequently, on different dates . . . the LBP issued separate documents each certifying that an amount certain, in cash and LBP bonds, has been set aside . . . .
Sometime in 1995, the heirs of Ascue, with the approval of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Balayan, Batangas handling the settlement his estate (sic), sold to Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc. ("Asturias") the 807 hectares of land referred to at the outset.
Years later, Asturias disturbed by what it viewed as initial activities undertaken by the DAR, . . . to place its remaining landholding under the comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), addressed a letter dated July 26, 1999 to the DAR Region IV office. There, Asturias made it known that its Calatagan landholding could no longer be considered for CARP coverage, it having "already been declared as mineral land pursuant to a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement ('MPSA') between the government and Asturias" (Record, pp. 163-181), and that "an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) [has already been] issued ... for the establishment of a cement plant within the area" (Records, pp. 135-142).
On September 22, 1999, DAR Regional Director (RD) Renato Herrera issued, pursuant to DAR Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 34, s. of 1997, a certificate of exemption over the remaining 284.9323 hectares of land of Ascue, now owned by Asturias . The exemption order was based on the findings of the joint LVP-DAR-BARC team that "only fifteen (15) hectares, more or less, are planted with crops such as upland rice, bananas, corn and coconut while the rest, with an area of 284.9323 hectares, are undeveloped, slopes of more than 18%, rocky, swampy, and/ or mangrove areas and therefore not suitable for agricultural purposes." (p.100, Records).
On October 22, 1999, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) issued Res. No. 02 urging the Registry of Deeds - Nasugbu, Batangas to cancel/consider null and void the land transaction between Ascue and Asturias if proven that it was concluded in violation of existing laws. This was followed by Res. No. 3, s. of 1999, urging agrarian reform associations to gather and submit concrete evidence on the alleged selling by agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) and EP holders of their rights.
On January 6, 2000, the PARO of Batangas formed the Task Force for Baha, Calatagan, Batangas ("TF Baha",) and directed it to inter alia review related Claim Folders to ascertain if the standard operating procedures were followed in accordance with the policies and guidelines of PD 27 and CARL; to determine whether the property was planted to rice /corn as of 1972 and to verify the existence of tenancy relationship.
In a letter of January 10, 2000, Asturias formally protested the OLT coverage of portions of its Calatagan property and the threatened cancellation of its titles . . . . The grounds cited for the protest fall under these headings: (1) "The Asturias Landholding is NOT AND NEVER WAS a RICE and CORN farm"; and (2) The issuance of the alleged 818 EPs and the coverage of the Asturias property under PD # 27 is ERRONEOUS, . . . AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS." Appended to the letter-protest were the Batangas Census of Agriculture for years 1980 and 1991 showing that only 261 hectares of the land in Calatagan are planted to rice/corn.
On February 22, 2000, TF Baha submitted its report, with these relevant findings: (1) procedural lapses attended the OLT-coverage of the property in question; (2) significant portions of the OLT-covered area were planted to sugar cane; and (3) the landowner did not recognize tenancy relations with the ARBs.
To validate the findings of TF Baha, the DAR Region IV Office created a three (3)-man teams (the "Validating Team")
Thereafter, the Validating Team, on the premise that "it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt that the property is planted to palay or corn and tenanted", recommended that "the coverage of the property under OLT be nullified; and that the 818 EPs issued be cancelled to pave the way for the coverage [thereof] . . . under CARP."
In its order of August 4, 2000, the dispositive portion of which is quoted at the outset, the DAR, thru Undersecretary for Field Operations Conrado S. Navarro, sustained the protest of Asturias and accordingly recalled/nullified the coverage of the property in question under OLT. Undersecretary Navarro predicated his ruling on the interplay of the following premises: (a) the landholding is not primarily devoted to rice/corn production; (b) the existence of tenancy relations has not been clearly established; and (c) the property had long ceased to be agricultural: it has become mineral land.xxx xxx xxx
Subsequently, two (2) groups, each claiming to be farmer-beneficiaries, separately moved for reconsideration. However, in a resolution of January 3, 2001, the DAR, after addressing three (3) main points raised by these groups, denied the separate motions. [Emphasis and italization in the original]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the protest of Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc., against the OLT coverage involving 507.87 hectares in Brgy. Baha and Talibayog, Calatagan, Batangas is hereby GRANTED. However, the cancellation of the Emancipation Patents issued therein shall be the subject of separate proceedings before the DAR Adjudication Board pursuant to the DARAB New Rules of Procedure which may only be allowed upon due consideration of the right of the farmer-beneficiaries to disturbance compensation in accordance with existing laws and regulations.and its Resolution of January 3, 2001,[5] herein petitioners Atanacio Aninao, et al., appealed to the OP. On January 04, 2001, OP, thru then Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo, rendered a decision,[6] the decretal portion of which reads, as follows:
SO ORDERED,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed order of DAR dated August 4, 2000 and its subsequent resolution dated January 3, 2001 are hereby AFFIRMED. The instant appeal is accordingly DISMISSED.Petitioners subsequently moved for reconsideration, but their motion was denied per OP resolution of July 2, 2002.[7]
On the threshold issue, petitioners fault the Court of Appeals for dismissing their petition on the stated reason that they failed to comply with the requirements under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Such dismissal action is, to them, erroneous, given that they have substantially complied with what the rules require.
- The propriety of the nullification of the coverage under OLT of PD No. 27 of the tracts of land in question and DAR's competence to effect such nullification; and
- Validity of the sale of the same property by the heirs of Ceferino Ascue in favor of respondent Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc.
We have carefully perused the two (2) Special Powers of Attorney and found that despite the order of the Court to submit the required authority, the petitioners failed to comply with the Order. As written in the caption, there are 297 petitioners with 31 names that were repeated. If we deduct the repeated names, the number of petitioners would be reduced to 266. The Special Powers of Attorney show that only 166 petitioners signed and out of this number, there were 24 persons who signed but were not listed as petitioners. In sum, there were only 142 petitioners out of 266 petitioners who signed the Special Power of Attorney.In the matter of petitioners' non-compliance with the procedural requirement on forum shopping, we find no reversible error in the appealed dismissal action of the appellate court. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the requirements on the filing of a certification against forum shopping should be strictly complied with. It bears stressing that a petition involving two or more petitioners must be accompanied by a certification of non-forum shopping accomplished by all petitioners, or by one who is authorized to represent them; otherwise, the petition shall be considered as defective and, under the terms of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, may be dismissed. This, we have stressed in a language too plain to be misunderstood in Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman:[12]
At the outset, it is noted that . . . the Certification [against forum shopping] was signed by Antonio Din, Jr. one of the petitioners in the instant case. We agree with the Solicitor General that the petition is defective. Section 5, Rule 7 expressly provides that it is the plaintiff or principal party who shall certify under oath that he has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, etc. Only petitioner Din . . . signed the certification. It cannot likewise be presumed that petitioner Din knew, to the best of his knowledge, whether his co-petitioners had the same or similar actions filed or pending. We find that substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict compliance with the rules. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. Petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.It may be, as suggested in Loquias and other cases, that a relaxation of the rule on certification against non-forum shopping may be allowed under the principle of substantial compliance, provided petitioners present reasonable ground to warrant such liberality. With the view we take of the case, however, reasonable cause had not been adequately shown for the failure of close to one half, or about 47%, of the petitioners to either personally sign the certification against forum shopping or the special power of attorney therefor. Certainly not lost on this Court is the fact that the appellate court, before coming out with its first assailed issuance, motu propio called the petitioners' attention to the flaw of their petition and accorded them an opportunity to rectify the same or risk dismissal of their petition. Only when petitioners failed to properly heed its advisory did the Court of Appeals proceed with the dismissal of the petition, as warned. Petitioners' counsel's explanation[13] in his motion for reconsideration that considerable distance and the rugged terrain separating barangays Baha and Talibayog accounted for the difficulty of gathering the petitioners in one place for their signature would not carry the day for them. For, the following excerpts appearing in the same motion belie counsel's allegations about great distance and topography posing as obstacles to securing the signatures of the petitioners:
xxx. Aside from the fact that Petitioner Lopez is the recognized leader of the farmers-petitioners, he and his co-petitioners live in two adjacent barangays, Baha and Talibayog, which speak of their proximity and closeness of the petitioners with each other. . . . (at p. 4)If on the foregoing score alone, this Court could, at this point, very well write finis to this disposition. Nonetheless, for the peace of mind of prospective agrarian reform beneficiaries who are, in all likelihood, expecting an answer as to why they must yield to the superior right of another despite their having been issued emancipation patents (EPs), we choose to discuss and address the material issues raised in the instant petition. This approach we take in relation to our duty to formulate guiding and controlling legal principles as we have the symbolic function to educate the bench, the bar and adjudicating administrative offices.[14]
xxx, it is settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence, a situation that obtains in this case. The factual findings of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, who, by reason of his official position, has acquired expertise in specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect, and without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed.[20]Upon the foregoing perspective, the nullification by the offices a quo of the coverage of the property in question under the OLT program was rightly decreed.
The ruling of the Court of Appeals that DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel the unregistered emancipation patents in the name of Angelina Rodriquez is hereby REVERSED. We hereby rule that it is the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform who has jurisdiction to cancel the said unregistered emancipation patents. Private respondent Marcos, the new legal agrarian reform beneficiary of the subject land, should file the proper action before the DAR to cancel the said unregistered emancipation patents. (Emphasis in the original; at p. 209).To sum up, the Court finds the case disposition of DAR, as affirmed by OP, to be in accordance with applicable law and jurisprudence.