544 Phil. 203
AZCUNA, J.:
TCT No. | Lot No. | Area (has.) | R.O. |
72098 | 780-5 | 117.2230 | MSDC |
72099 | 780-6 | 50.6760 | MSDC |
73000 | 780-11 | 135.2297 | MSDC |
73002 | 780-13 | 79.4639 | MSDC |
73003 | 780-14 | 113.0728 | MSDC |
73004 | 780-15 | 30.6594 | MSDC |
73005 | 780-32 | 58.0232 | MSDC |
3006 | 780-19 | 266.8548 | MSDC |
73007 | 780-16 | 234.3264 | MSDC |
TOTAL | 1,219.0133 |
On the basis of the fact-finding report of Undersecretary Soliman, the DAR Secretary issued memoranda[9] on December 18, 1996, adopting item Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the report.
- Immediately issue a cease and desist order that will temporarily stop the development of the area, considering that there is still a pending application for exemption of the property, and the determination of the coverage of the property has not been finally acted upon by the Secretary;
- Immediately designate a substitute lawyer who will defend the interests and concerns of the public respondent DAR, [and] the integrity of the CLOAs, to the extent of the 1,152 hectares identified by the LBP and the Task Force Hacienda Looc as suitable for agriculture;
- Constitute an investigating panel to be headed by Director George Lucero as Resident Ombudsman, to look into the alleged falsification of the signature of Maximino de Joya, and others similarly situated, who was supposed to have been deceased, at the time of the signature of the waiver, and to recommend the prosecution of erring personnel of government, including the DAR, if any there be;
- Direct the Regional Office to conduct a massive information campaign in the area, regarding the following:
- The extend of the sale between APT and the MDSC;
- The status of the ongoing case between MSDC and the farmers;
- The rights and responsibilities of the EP holders who are not covered by the case under litigation; and
- Such other information that will fully apprise the farmers of their rights and responsibilities under agrarian law.
- Intervene in the ECC process being undertaken by the DENR by preparing the following interventions:
- With respect to the areas which are still pending consideration by the DARAB, to request that the issuance of the ECC be suspended until such time that matters which are still under litigation are finally resolved; and
- With respect to the areas which are above 18% slope and undeveloped, to manifest officially with the DENR that such areas, although exempted from CARP, should be preserved for reforestation purposes, in order not to aggravate soil erosion and jeopardize the lowland agricultural activities.
- Urge the DOT to convene a multi-agency, multi-sectoral review committee that will review the development plan of Fil-Estate and determine whether it conforms to the projected tourism master plan for the area, if any, and whether it conforms to agrarian and environmental laws. Such review committee should be lodged with the appropriate Cabinet Cluster.
The Team, after making its findings, had also ... recommended the coverage of the developed areas and the exclusion of the undeveloped areas. x x xPetitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the DAR Secretary in an order dated June 15, 1998.
On 31 December 1997, Undersecretary Bulatao, Chairperson of the Inter-Agency Task Force, submitted his recommendation, hereunder quoted x x x:x x x
"The main implications of these recommendations are as follow:It is also worthwhile to note that in all the proceedings, the affected beneficiaries were given more than sufficient opportunity to present their claims. In addition, this case has taken too long to resolve because of the different motions and petitions by all parties.
- farmers issued Emancipation Patents (EPs) over some 1,197 hectares of rice land maintain their ownership of these lands;
- farmers who cultivated portions of the other areas covered by CLOAs before and up to the time the CLOAs were supposedly cancelled will have their lands covered under compulsory acquisition, subject to the three-hectare ceiling for beneficiaries and appropriate valuation and payment procedures;
- Manila Southcoast Development Corporation will now have a clean title to the rest of the land and can proceed with its development directly or indirectly and will be compensated for the hectarage removed from its title due to coverage under RA No. 6657."
WHEREFORE, given these different recommendations of four different Committees and Task Forces, this Order is hereby issued as follows:
- Coverage of the following agriculturally developed areas, re-documentation of the same under CARP acquisition and awarded to individual beneficiaries found to be qualified under the CARL:
- Lot No. 5: 2.3029 hectares as farmlots and 0.0666 as homelots, the homelots to be awarded to actual occupants thereof. Priority for the award of the farmlot will be the claimant, UNLESS there is reason to disqualify him and said award shall not result in the claimant becoming an owner of more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land;
- Lot No. 6: 12.8467 hectare farmlot. Priority for the award of the farmlot will be the claimant, UNLESS there is reason to disqualify him and said award shall not result in the claimant becoming an owner of more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land;
- Lot. No. 11: 1,1234 hectares farmlot and 0.6388 homelots to be awarded to actual occupants therof. Priority for the award of the farmlot will be the claimant, UNLESS there is reason to disqualify him and said award shall not result in the claimant becoming an owner of more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land;
- Lot No. 12: 13.894 hectares as farmlots. Some 2.3674 has. and .4586 has. were deducted from the claim of Mr. Jaime Sobremonte and Mr. Leonardo Caronilla, respectively, as these already exceed the three hectares award ceiling. The area has been scraped by previous bulldozing by the applicant such that it becomes impossible for the team to determine the actual agricultural development of the area. In view of the situation, the Task Force deemed it proper to award the land to the claimants as the presumption must tilt in their favor, there being no contrary evidence presented by the applicant. The award shall not exceed three hectares per claimant UNLESS there is reason to disqualify him and said award shall not result in the claimant becoming an owner of more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land;
- Lot No. 13: 0.2251 hectare farmlot. Priority for the award of the farmlot will be the claimant, UNLESS there is reason to disqualify him and said award shall not result in the claimant becoming an owner of more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land;
- Lot No. 15: 76.376 hectares as farmlot. However, the coverage of the areas identified as fishponds shall be suspended until the Courts resolve the constitutionality of the law exempting fishponds from the coverage of agrarian reform. Priority for the award of the farmlot will be the claimant, UNLESS there is reason to disqualify him and said award shall not result in the claimant becoming an owner of more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land;
- Lot No. 16: 14.2026 hectares as farmlots. Priority for the award of the farmlot will be the claimant, UNLESS there is reason to disqualify him and said award shall not result in the claimant becoming an owner of more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land;
- Lot No. 19: 16.5695 hectares as farmlots. Priority for the award of the farmlot will be the claimant, UNLESS there is reason to disqualify him and said award shall not result in the claimant becoming an owner of more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land;
- Approval of the distribution of homelots in Lots No. 9 and 20. As manifested, the total area of 65.38 hectares shall be distributed primarily as homelots to actual occupants. The area within Lot 20 which is agriculturally developed shall be subjected to further verification as to its CARPability and the same shall also be awarded as farmlots, covered by Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAS). Priority for the award of the farmlot will be the claimant, UNLESS there is reason to disqualify him and said award shall not result in the claimant becoming an owner of more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land.
- Maintaining the coverage of some 1,197 hectares, more or less, of lands under Operation Land Transfer and conducting survey of the actual tillers of the land for purposes of awarding the same /re-allocating the same to its actual tillers in accordance with the land to the tiller principle.
- On the Matter of Environmental Protection. In areas that will be exempted by virtue of Section 10, of RA 6657, any development thereon, should be consistent with the intent of the law to preserve these lands for forest cover and soil conservation. It is therefore recommended that the DENR study the development of the area with this end in view in its issuance of ECCs.
Particularly, it is recommended that a buffer zone be established by the DENR to ensure protection of OLT and CARP lands from damage or erosion, as a result of any development to be implemented in excluded areas;- Re-conveyance of the exempt parcels to the Asset Privatization Trust, or its successors-in-interest, after the CLOAs are properly cancelled by the proper forum;
- Nullifying the alleged sale or transfer of rights over the CLOAs as contrary to the provisions of agrarian law; and
- Directing the Regional Director to post a copy of this Order, including the maps attached hereto in the barangay halls of Brgys. Calayo and Papaya to afford all parties the opportunity to be notified and to cause the amendments of CLOAs issued.
SO ORDERED.[11]
At the outset, four (4) premises need to be underscored:Petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the decision of the Executive Secretary. The CA, in its resolution, dated September 4, 2000, denied the petition thus:
First, while FEPI does not wholly agree with the appealed orders of the DAR, it chose to assail the same before the Court of Appeals via a petition for partial review. Hence, insofar as this Office is concerned, FEPI is theoretically presumed to be satisfied with the adjudication made by the DAR Secretary (AG&P v. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 606). The entrenched rule is that a party who has not himself appealed cannot secure from the appellate court/body any affirmative relief other than those granted him in the decision of the court/body below (Carrion v. CA, 260 SCRA 682).
Second, the cancellation of the ten (10) CLOAs, i.e., CLOA Nos. 4152, 4253, 4157, 4158, 4159, 4474, 4475, 4476, 4478 and 6662, is, as the DAR declared, strictly not an issue here, the cancellation having been effected by the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD), per his decision in DARAB Case No. IV Ba - 3468, dated January 8, 1986. This decision is beyond the reviewing authority of this Office for, apart from its having become final and executory, such decision is appealable to the DAR Adjudication Board whose decision in turn is appealable to the Court of Appeals (DARAB v. CA, 266 SCRA 176; Machete v. CA, 250 SCRA 176).
Third, only a portion of Hacienda Looc - the exclusion of which from CARP coverage FEPI sought - was originally involved in this case. In absolute terms, only the 1,219.09-hectare portion of the hacienda, corresponding to the ten (10) lots that the CLOAs cover but which had been cancelled, was the subject of the basic petition of FEPI for exclusion, albeit the appealed orders cover areas not contemplated in the underlying petition for exclusion.
Fourth, the appealed orders, by excluding/exempting from CARP coverage pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657, the contested ten (10) lots, save for some 69.50 hectares found to be agriculturally developed, hence to be covered under CARP, virtually affirmed with modification the order of Regional Director Remigio Tabones, dated December 26, 1996...In all, this Office finds, as did the DAR Secretary and, before him, the Regional Director, DAR Region IV, the exclusion from CARP coverage of the ten (10) lots subject of FEPI's petition for exclusion to be proper...
With the foregoing disquisitions, this Office deems it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised by appellants, e.g., the validity of the contract of sale entered into by and between the APT and MSDC concerning Hacienda LOOC, the effectivity of Proclamation Nos. 1520 and 1801, and the applicability of DOJ Opinion No. 44, s. of 1990, touching as they do on what the DAR described as "collateral matters" which have no decisive bearing in the resolution of this case...
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby Dismissed. The appealed DAR orders, Dated March 25, 1998 and June 15, 1998 are accordingly Affirmed.
SO ORDERED.[12]
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA in its resolution dated May 8, 2001:x x x
Contrary to Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by only one (Guillermo Bautista) of the petitioners.
Moreover, in violation of Sec. 13, Rule 13 and Sec. 6(c) Rule 43, the petition contains no affidavit of service while the assailed decision, material portions of the record and other supporting papers are merely photocopies.
WHEREFORE, for being insufficient in form and substance, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[13]
... In her Affidavit (Annex "A", Motion), Ms. Maria Victoria Lirio, secretary of petitioners' counsel, explained that she failed to attach to the petition the Special Power of Attorney (Annex "B", id.) executed by the other petitioners in favor of Guillermo Bautista empowering the latter to represent them in the instant petition. However, the Special Power of Attorney was acknowledged by only 10 out of the 45 petitioners. Consequently, the certificate of non-forum shopping is still defective.Hence, this petition raising these issues:
Moreover, petitioners did not correct the defects of the petition, i.e., absence of the affidavit of service and non-submission of certified true copies of the assailed decision and other papers.Apropos is the Supreme Court's ruling that "(h)aving failed to observe very elementary rules of procedure which are mandatory, petitioner caused her own predicament and to exculpate her from the compulsory coverage of such rules is to undermine the stability of the judicial process, as the bench and bar will be confounded by such irritating uncertainties as when to obey and when to ignore the rules." (Tan v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 755)
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED[14]
Petitioners argue as follows:
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review filed under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, notwithstanding the fact that it would result to manifest injustice;[15] and
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the substantial rights of the petitioners.[16]
... [A]s a general rule, lands which are above 18% slope are exempt from CARP, but their land use should be compatible with the underlying basis for exemption, meaning reforestation and soil conservation. Therefore, as a general rule also, these areas should not be converted to uses other than agro-forestry, reforestation, or other environmentally sustainable uses. Otherwise, the very purpose of their exemption from CARP (and their shifting to the DENR's reforestation and soil conservation program) would be circumvented all the more.Based on the foregoing, and upon a review of the records, the Court agrees with petitioners that there are factual matters that should be re-examined to properly resolve this case. This Court is not a trier of facts. The CA, having the appellate jurisdiction to rule on the controversy, must re-evaluate the factual aspects of the case in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Having clearly stated the position, we now come to the discussion of the 1,152 hectares more or less of developed areas within the 25 titles. It could be generally conceded that the areas which are subject of the 25 CLOA titles are sloping areas, and are above 18% in slope. However, under Sec. 10 of RA 6657, if the area is developed, then they could still be covered by CARP. It is also a fact that the Task Force Hacienda Looc ... did not recommend the cancellation of all the titles, but only 2,829 hectares, contending that some 1,152 hectares are developed and therefore could be covered by CARP. Moreover, this recommendation has been approved by then Regional Director, Percival Dalugdug.
A quick perusal of the records reveals that this very outstanding fact that some 1,152 hectares of land which are spread out over 25 titles under CLOA, was in fact recommended to be covered under CARP but somehow, this fact was lost in the process. What was primarily relied upon by the adjudicator was the waivers signed by the farmers who declared that the land they are tilling is not suitable for agriculture.
We beg to disagree with the waivers signed by the farmers in this particular case, considering their uniform phraseology and format. They have obviously been prepared y persons who are interested in having the titles cancelled, and the farmers have been merely asked to sign the same. The primordial authority of the DAR, that of making an administrative determination of whether the land is suitable for agriculture or not, has been supplanted in this case by a determination of the farmers whether the land is suitable or not for agriculture...[17]