FIRST DIVISION
PAULINO REYES,
DANILO BAON,
PACITA D. VADURIA, JULIE MONTOYA, MERCEDES RAMOS,
GERONIMO DERAIN, FELICIANO D. BAON, PACIFICO DERAIN, EUTERIO SEVILLA, MAMERTO
B. ESPINELLI, CARMELITA GRAVADOS, AVELINO E. PASTOR, ANTONIO BUHAY, TIRZO GULFAN
JR., FELIX SOMBREMONTE, NICASIO TINAGUISAN, VICENTE VILLALUNA, LEOPOLDO DE JOYA,
LENIE DE JOYA, LIBERATO DE G.R.
No. 148967
JOYA, CRESCENCIANA
DE JOYA,
FRESCO CATAPANG,
ROSITA Present:
CATAPANG, DOMINGO P. LIMBOC,
VIRGILIO P. LIMBOC, VICENTE PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
LIMBOC, MARIO H. PERNO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
LAZARITO CABRAL,
CARLITO
CAPACIA, JOSE
S. BAUTISTA, AZCUNA,
and
FELECITO BARCELON,
LUIS GARCIA, JJ.
MANGI, CONCEPCION
DERAIN,
BASILISA DERAIN,
GUILLERMO Promulgated:
BAUTISTA, BEATRIZ
SEVILLA,
FRANCISCO MENDOZA, TERESITA
DINGLES, NICOLAS ASAHAN, MOISES CARABLE, ROSITA
MERCADO, LAMBERTO BAUTISTA, ENRIQUITO DINGLES, CELERIO DINGLES, JOSE QUIROZ, ET
AL.,
Petitioners,
-
versus -
FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC.,
and COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA,
J.:
This is a petition for certiorari[1]
seeking the nullification of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated
Central to the controversy is a portion of Hacienda Looc
consisting of ten parcels of land with an aggregate area of 1,219.0133 hectares
which was previously awarded to petitioners as evidenced by their Certificates
of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs). At the instance of private respondent Fil-Estate
Properties, Inc. (Fil-Estate), however, which sought the exclusion of the
parcels of land from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), the
CLOAs were cancelled by the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) on the
ground that the lands were agriculturally undeveloped and had an average slope of
more than 18%.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioners
are the tenants of the disputed portion of Hacienda Looc which has been the
subject of application for exclusion from CARP coverage pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1994.[3]
Hacienda Looc is an 8,650-hectare
property located in Nasugbu, Batangas registered under Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-28719 of the Registry of Deeds for the
By virtue of Presidential Decree No.
27 issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos on October 21, 1972, a portion of
the hacienda with an aggregate area of 1,282.9767 hectares that were planted
with rice and corn were distributed to the farmers, and emancipation patents
(EPs) were accordingly issued.
The hacienda was acquired by the Development
Bank of the Philippines (DBP) from the Magdalena Estate, Inc. through a Deed of
Cession in Payment of Debt on
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 14
issued on
On
On
On
APT ceded possession and control of
the entire property to DAR for the latter to undertake a field verification and
coverage of the CARPable areas of the hacienda.
Between 1991 and 1993, DAR generated
25 Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) to the farmers of the hacienda.
On
On
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
73001 780-12 133.4841 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
73006 780-19 266.8548 MSDC
73007 780-16 234.3264 MSDC
TOTAL 1,219.0133
On April 10, 1995, MSDC filed a
petition before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB),
Region IV, for 1) the cancellation of the notices of acquisition issued by DAR;
2) the cancellation of the CLOAs; and 3) the conversion of the property into
non-agricultural uses. The case was
docketed as DARAB Case No. (DCN) 3468.
The case was subsequently referred by
DARAB to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) of Batangas.
On
On
On
Between the months of January and
June of 1996, the DAR Regional Adjudicator issued three Partial Summary
Judgments canceling the fifteen (15) CLOAs issued to the farmers, including
those covering the ten parcels of land. The cancellation was grounded on the
waiver allegedly executed by the farmer-beneficiaries who declared that the
lands they were tilling were not suitable for agriculture.
On October 4, 1996, private
respondent, by virtue of a Joint Venture Agreement with MSDC for the purpose of
developing the area covered by the ten cancelled CLOAs, filed a Petition for Exclusion[5] of
the subject lots from CARP coverage on the ground that they had an average slope
of more than eighteen percent (18%), and the area “has no semblance of
agricultural development whatsoever.”[6]
Meanwhile, petitioners, along with
the other farmer-beneficiaries affected by the order, filed a complaint with the
Office of the DAR Secretary objecting to the cancellation of their respective
CLOAs. According to them, even before MSDC and private respondent Fil-Estate
entered into such an agreement, heavily armed security guards brought several
bulldozers and large equipment into the hacienda, and soon launched a massive
operation for the leveling of the area and the eviction of the farmers. Petitioners
added that: they were never informed of the proceedings concerning the
cancellation of the CLOAs or of the application by respondent for the exemption
of the subject lots from CARP; MSDC introduced as evidence fraudulently
acquired and perjured documents such as the supposed sworn statements of
deceased CLOA holders; MSDC threatened
and intimidated the farmers to sign blank waivers and declarations of
abandonment of the area purportedly because the land is non-agricultural in
nature; and, the DAR lawyers appointed to protect the rights and interests of
the affected farmers colluded with MSDC.[7]
On
Public hearings were respectively
conducted, and on
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. Direct the Regional Office to conduct a massive information campaign in the area, regarding the following:
a. The
extent of the coverage of the sale between APT and the MSDC;
b. The status of the ongoing case between
MSDC and the farmers;
c.
The rights and responsibilities of the EP holders who
are not covered by the case under litigation; and
d. Such other information that will fully apprise the farmers of their rights and responsibilities under agrarian law.
5. Intervene in the ECC process being undertaken by the DENR by preparing the following interventions:
a.
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
b. 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.
6. 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.
On the basis of the fact-finding
report of Undersecretary Soliman, the DAR Secretary issued memoranda[9] on
Meanwhile, on December 26, 1996, the DAR
Regional Director for Region IV issued an Order granting the Petition for
Exclusion filed by Fil-Estate pursuant to Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 10, Series
of 1994. As a result, the subject ten parcels of land with an aggregate area of
1,219.0133 hectares were exempted from CARP coverage.
On
In view of the appeal, the Office of
the DAR Secretary organized a team composed of DAR and LBP officials to perform
the following: 1) segregate the contested area from the rest of the hacienda
through boundary surveys; 2) determine,
from the slope maps, the slope of the contested areas; 3) conduct a lot by lot determination of the
areas to be placed under CARP by identifying and segregating the agriculturally
developed areas, if any; 4) receive evidence to be presented by the
protesting farmers and other farmers interested in the case; and 5) submit its
reports on the contested lots.[10]
On
The
Team, after making its findings, had also … recommended the coverage of the
developed areas and the exclusion of the undeveloped areas. x x x
On
x x x
“The main implications of these recommendations are as follow:
· 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.”
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.
WHEREFORE, given these different recommendations of four different Committees and Task Forces, this Order is hereby issued as follows:
1. 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:
a. 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;
b. 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;
c.
d. 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;
e. 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;
g. 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;
h. 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;
i. 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;
j.
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
2. 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.
3.
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;
4. 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;
5. Nullifying the alleged sale or transfer of rights over the CLOAs as contrary to the provisions of agrarian law; and
6.
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]
Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the DAR Secretary
in an order dated
On
On
At
the outset, four (4) premises need to be underscored:
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
SO
ORDERED.[12]
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
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]
Petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA in its resolution dated
… 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.
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]
Hence,
this petition raising these issues:
1.
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
2.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying the substantial rights of the petitioners.[16]
Petitioners
argue as follows:
First, the cancellation of the ten
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) is an issue that has to be
resolved because the farmers were not accorded due process. The proceedings for
the exemption of the property from CARP coverage, and the cancellation of the
CLOAs were improvidently done without the knowledge and participation of the
affected farmers.
Second, the signatures in the waivers
allegedly executed by the farmers who declared that the lands they were tilling
were not agriculturally viable and developed were forged as the latter had been
dead at the time the waivers were supposedly executed;
Third, the segregation of a portion of
the hacienda which involves 1,219 hectares that private respondent applied for
exemption from CARP coverage for conversion to non-agricultural use such as a
golf course, will adversely affect the entire ecological balance and social
order of the hacienda;
Fourth,
the hacienda is agricultural in character, therefore, covered by CARP. It is
suitable for agriculture, that is, developed and productive, and the fact that only
patches or certain portions of the disputed lots are actually planted with crops
does not make them non-agricutural;
Fifth, in the fact-finding report, DAR
Undersecretary Soliman stated that the question as to whether the area is
excluded from CARP coverage because it had been reclassified as a tourism area
has not been resolved yet by the DAR Secretary, who, under Administrative Order
No. 6, Series of 1994, is mandated to issue certificates of exemption under DOJ
Opinion No. 44. In addition, tourist zones are not included among the
categories of lands which are exempted under Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657.
Finally, the area to be excluded has not been sufficiently delineated in order
to make the exemption realistic and implementable at an operational level,
unlike other municipal ordinances which are accompanied by specific land use
maps of adequate scale and size;
Sixth,
with respect to petitioners’ non-compliance with Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules
on Civil Procedure on verification and certification of non-forum shopping as a
ground cited by the CA for the dismissal of the petition, petitioners aver that
the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) of Guillermo Bautista which they had
executed way before constituting him as their attorney-in-fact was not attached
to the petition due to the inadvertence of their counsel’s secretary;
Seventh,
on the point that petitioners violated Sec. 13, Rule 13 and Sec. 6(c), Rule 43,
petitioners state that copies of the petition to the Court of Appeals were actually
furnished to the DAR Secretary, the DAR Regional Director and the adverse
counsel via personal service as shown by their respective signatures on
the last page of the petition attesting to the receipt thereof; and,
Finally,
petitioners insist that they should be given a fair chance to present the
merits of their case because technicalities must not be used to stay the hands
of justice and frustrate the novel objectives of the agrarian law.
Clearly,
a resolution of the case rests upon a determination of whether the disputed ten
parcels of land are exempt from CARP coverage.
In
relation to the instant petition, Section 10 of R.A. No 6657 states that “all
lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.”
One
of the reasons why petitioners are objecting to the cancellation of their CLOAs
and the exclusion of the ten parcels of land from CARP coverage is because
these lots are agricultural and developed. While it is true that the DAR
officials have generally found the lots to have an average slope of 18%, the
contention that the same have been cultivated and are actually agriculturally
developed so as to make them subject to CARP is a factual matter that must be
looked into. As indicated by
Undersecretary Soliman in his fact-finding report:
…
[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.
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]
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.
While, generally, petitioners’
failure to comply with the procedural requirements prescribed under the Rules
of Court would warrant the dismissal of the petition,[18] fundamental
considerations of substantial justice persuade the Court to have the present
case decided on the merits rather than dismissed on a technicality.[19]
It is settled that the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very
strict and technical sense. These are used only to help secure rather than
override substantial justice. The stringent
application of the rules must yield to the demands of substantial justice.[20]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court
of Appeals, dated November 23, 2000 and May 8, 2001, in CA-G.R. SP No. 60203
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for it
to render a decision on the merits with DISPATCH,
giving this Court a report on the progress thereon every three months.
No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Chief Justice
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[2] The
petition was dismissed for: 1) failure of all of the petitioners to sign the
verification and certificate of non-forum shopping; 2) the absence of affidavit
of service; and 3) non-submission of certified true copies of the assailed
decision and other supporting papers.
[3] The
administrative order provides the rules and procedures governing the exemption
of lands from CARP coverage.
[4] Rollo, p. 25.
[5] Rollo, p. 437.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Annexes “K,” “K-1” and “K-2” of Petition (Rollo, pp. 397-398).
[10] Emphasis supplied; Rollo, p. 74.
[11] Rollo, pp. 91-94.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Gonzalo
D. Labudahon v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 112206,
[19] Antonio
Surima v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 121147,
[20] Lopez
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127827,