Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC., Petitioner, - versus - RUBEN ALCAIDE (deceased), substituted
by GLORIA ALCAIDE, representative of the Farmer-Beneficiaries, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 167952 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, REYES,* and PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: February 1, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari seeking
to reverse and set aside the Decision[1]
dated
The procedural and factual antecedents are as follows:
Petitioner Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, Inc. is the registered owner of 14 parcels of land with an aggregate area of 43.7225 hectares located at Barangays Langkiwa and Timbao, Bian, Laguna, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-19884, T-19855, T-19856, T-19857, T-19858, T-19859, T-201524, T-202285, T-207476, T-207477, T-207478, T-207479, T-207481, T-208151.[3]
On
P7,071,988.80
as compensation for the said property.
Petitioner then filed a Petition[6] before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), wherein it argued that the properties were bought from their previous owners in good faith; that the same remains uncultivated, unoccupied, and untenanted up to the present; and, that the subject landholdings were classified as industrial, thus, exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Petitioner prayed, among other things, that the Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition be lifted and that the properties be declared exempt from the coverage of CARP.[7]
Respondents[8] on their part countered, among other things, that the classification of the land as industrial did not exempt it from the coverage of the CARP considering that it was made only in 1997; the HLURB[9] certification that the Municipality of Bian, Laguna does not have any approved plan/zoning ordinance to date; that they are not among those farmer-beneficiaries who executed the waivers or voluntary surrender; and, that the subject landholdings were planted with palay.[10]
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued dismissing the
petition. The MARO/PARO concerned is
directed to immediately proceed with the acquisition of subject landholdings
under CARP, identify the farmer-beneficiaries and generate/issue the corresponding Certificates of Land Ownership Awards
pursuant to Section 16 of RA 6657.
SO ORDERED.[12]
On
On
On
On
In
a Letter[18] sent to
the new address of petitioners counsel, dated September 4, 2001, Director
Delfin B. Samson of the DAR informed petitioners counsel that the case has
been decided and an order of finality has already been issued, copies of which were
forwarded to his last known address.
Nevertheless, Director Samson attached copies of the Order dated
On
On
On
Aggrieved,
petitioner filed an appeal before the Office of the President which was
received by the latter on
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Orders dated
Parties are to INFORM
this Office, within five (5) days from notice, of the dates of their
receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.[25]
On March 24, 2004, there being no appeal or motion for reconsideration interposed despite clear showing that both parties had received their copies of the August 8, 2003 Decision, the Office of the President issued an Order[26] declaring that the decision has become final and executory.
Subsequently, respondents[27] filed a Petition for Relief[28] seeking that the above Decision and Order of the Office of the President be set aside and the Orders of the DAR Secretary reinstated.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Relief dated
SO ORDERED.[29]
Respondents
then sought recourse before the CA assailing the Decision dated
I.
the honorable office of the president committed a reversible error
when it reversed and/or set aside the orders dated june 8, and
II.
the honorable office of the president erred when it ruled that the
subject property is not agricultural.[31]
On
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for review is
hereby GRANTED. The decision dated
SO ORDERED.[33]
Ruling
in favor of the respondents, the CA opined that the Order of the DAR Secretary
dated
Hence, the petition assigning the following errors:
I
The court of appeals erred in
giving due course to the petition as it is basic in law that no appeal may be
taken from the denial of a petition for relief.
II
The court of appeals erred in
holding that the order dated 8 june 2001 issued by the DAR secretary in ADM
case no. a-9999-04-e-01 is already final and executory.
Petitioner argues that respondents availed of the wrong mode of recourse to the CA. Petitioner maintains that under Section 1 (b), Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, no appeal may be taken from an order denying a petition for relief. The only remedy available to a party aggrieved by the denial of a petition for relief is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. Thus, when respondents appealed the denial by way of a petition for review to the appellate court, the CA should have dismissed the petition outright.
More
importantly, petitioner contends that the CA erred when it reversed the
findings of the Office of the President and concluded that the Order dated June
8, 2001 has become final and executory thereby rendering the Office of the
President without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner. Petitioner insists that based on the sequence
of events, the Order dated June 8, 2001 never attained finality, since it was
only on September 7, 2001 that its counsel received a copy of the said
order. Thus, when it filed its motion
for reconsideration on
Moreover, petitioner posits that it is the Decision of the Office of the President that has become final and executory by reason of respondents failure to file any motion for reconsideration or to perfect an appeal after receiving a copy of the Decision.
On
their part, respondents maintain that the Order dated
The petition is meritorious.
At the outset, appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be brought to the CA, under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43. Under the rule, appeals from their judgments and final orders are now brought to the CA on a verified petition for review. This Rule was adopted precisely to provide a uniform rule of appellate procedure from quasi-judicial agencies.[34]
In the case at bar, the petition for relief filed by the respondents was treated by the Office of the President as a motion for reconsideration. However, the Office of the President dismissed the petition based on the premise that respondents failed to file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal within the 15-day reglementary period, thereby rendering the August 8, 2003 Decision final and executory. Thus, respondents availed of the proper remedy when it sought recourse to the CA via a petition for review.
Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost.[35]
Anent,
the main controversy. Simply put, the
resolution of the issues advanced by the parties hinges on whether or not the
Order dated
Respondents buttressed their claim that petitioner belatedly filed its motion for reconsideration within the period allowed by the Rules on the strength of petitioners declaration in its Motion to Lift Order of Finality,[36] particularly on the following admission:
5. That the undersigned only received said Orders on
However,
analyzing the subject of the said motion, it is clear that petitioner was
referring only to the receipt of the Order of Finality dated
Moreover, confirming petitioners allegation that it did not receive a copy of the June 8, 2001 Order, the DAR Secretary in his Order denying petitioners motion for reconsideration dated November 5, 2001, categorically stated that petitioner was not furnished a copy of the June 8, 2001 Order, the pertinent part of which reads:
This Office notes of the Certification of B. De Paz,
Officer-in-Charge of this Departments Records Management Division stating that
petitioner-movants counsel was not served a copy of the disputed 8 June 2001
Order due to change in address. In any
case, this matter has been addressed with the service of said Order upon petitioner-movants
counsel at his new address.[40]
Based
on the foregoing, it was clearly admitted that petitioner was not properly served
a copy of the disputed Order and this oversight by the DAR was rectified by subsequently
serving a copy of the Order upon petitioners counsel at his new address. This belated service to petitioners counsel
was coursed through a Letter[41]
dated
Contrary
to petitioners contention, however, that it received a copy of the June 8,
2001 Order only on September 7, 2001 when it received the letter of Director
Delfin B. Samson, it appears that the date stamped on the face of the said
letter indicates that it was received on September 10, 2001 and not September
7, 2001. Thus, when petitioner filed its
motion for reconsideration on
Hence, contrary to the conclusion of the CA, the June 8, 2001 Order of the DAR Secretary has not attained finality. The Office of the President, therefore, validly entertained petitioners appeal when the DAR Secretary denied its motion for reconsideration. With the foregoing disquisition, the CA erred in setting aside the decision of the Office of the President on the mistaken conclusion that the DAR Secretarys Orders had attained finality.
Consequently,
the determination of whether or not petitioners landholdings are agricultural
land is yet to be determined. As found
by the Office of the President in its
DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2003, or the 2003 Rules Governing Issuance of Notice of Coverage and Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Under RA 6657,[42] provides:
1.
Commencement
1.1 Commencement by the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officer (MARO) After determining that a landholding is coverable
under the CARP, and upon accomplishment of the Pre-Ocular Inspection Report, the MARO shall prepare the NOC[43]
(CARP Form No. 5-1).[44]
Corolarilly, Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1998,[45] which outlines the steps in the acquisition of lands, details that in the 3rd step, the Department of Agrarian Reform Municipal Office (DARMO) should conduct a preliminary ocular inspection to determine initially whether or not the property maybe covered under the CARP, which findings will be contained in CARP Form No. 3.a, or the Preliminary Ocular Inspection Report.
From the foregoing, a preliminary ocular inspection is necessary to determine whether or not a subject landholding may be considered under the coverage of the CARP even before a Notice of Coverage is prepared by the MARO.
However, a perusal of the undated CARP Form No. 3.a[46] covering the subject properties would reveal that the appropriate check boxes for Land Condition/Suitability to Agriculture on whether the subject properties are presently being cultivated/suitable to agriculture or are presently idle/vacant were not marked. Also, the MARO failed to mark any of the check boxes for Land Use to indicate whether the subject properties were sugarland, cornland, un-irrigated riceland, irrigated riceland, or any other classification of agricultural land.
As aptly found by the Office of the President, the importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot be understated, since it is one of the steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The Office of the President stressed this in its Decision, to wit:
In other words, before the MARO sends a Notice of
Coverage to the landowner concerned, he must first conduct a preliminary ocular
inspection to determine whether or not the property may be covered under
CARP. The foregoing undertaking is
reiterated in the latest DAR AO No. 01, s. of 2003, entitled 2003 Rules
Governing Issuance of Notice of Coverage and Acquisition of Agricultural Lands
Under RA 6657. Section 1 [1.1] thereof provides that:
1.1
Commencement by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) After determining that a landholding is coverable
under the CARP, and upon accomplishment of the Pre-Ocular Inspection Report,
the MARO shall prepare the NOC (CARP Form No. 5-1). (NOC stands for Notice of Coverage)
Found on the records of this case is a ready-made form
Preliminary Ocular Inspection Report (undated) signed by the concerned
MARO. Interestingly, however, the check
box allotted for the all-important items Land Condition/Suitability to Agriculture
and Land Use was not filled up. There
is no separate report on the record detailing the result of the ocular
inspection conducted. These
circumstances cast serious doubts on whether the MARO actually conducted an
on-site ocular inspection of the subject land.
Without an ocular inspection, there is no factual basis for the MARO to
declare that the subject land is devoted to or suitable for agricultural
purposes, more so, issue Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition.
The importance of conducting an ocular inspection
cannot be understated. In the event that
a piece of land sought to be placed from CARP coverage is later found
unsuitable for agricultural purposes, the landowner concerned is entitled to,
and the DAR is duty bound to issue, a certificate of exemption pursuant to DAR
Memorandum Circular No. 34, s. of 1997, entitled Issuance of Certificate
of Exemption for Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory
Acquisition (CA) Found Unsuitable for Agricultural Purposes.
More importantly, the need to conduct ocular
inspection to determine initially whether or not the property may be covered
under the CARP is one of the steps designed to comply with the requirements of
administrative due process. The CARP was
not intended to take away property without due process of law (Development
Bank of the
Considering the claim of appellant that the subject
land is not agricultural because it is unoccupied and uncultivated, and no
agricultural activity is being undertaken thereon, there is a need for the DAR
to ascertain whether or not the same may be placed under CARP coverage.[47]
Thus, the question of whether or not petitioners properties could be covered by the CARP has not yet been resolved. Until such determination, it follows that petitioners landholdings cannot be the proper subject of acquisition and eventual distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. However, these involve factual controversies, which are clearly beyond the ambit of this Court. Verily, the review of factual matters is not the province of this Court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and is not the proper forum for the ventilation and substantiation of factual issues.[48]
Under the circumstances, the directive of the Office of the President for the DAR to ascertain whether or not petitioners landholdings may be placed under CARP was proper. To be sure, it is the DAR that is procedurally prepared to handle such controversies and is better suited to resolve such factual issues in the exercise of its mandate to implement the CARP and its vested quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters.[49]
Consequently, the other issues raised by the parties need not be discussed further.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition is GRANTED. The Decision
and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 86069 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision
dated
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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 Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Third Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
*
Designated as an additional
member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, per Special Order No. 1178
dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, concurring; rollo, pp. 30-42.
[2]
[3] Rollo, p. 31.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Then represented by a certain
Rogelio Mahilum.
[9] Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board.
[10] Rollo, pp. 32-33.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] CA
rollo, pp. 50-52.
[20] Rollo,
pp. 92-93.
[21] CA
rollo, pp. 53-56.
[22] Rollo,
p. 103.
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] Now
represented by Ruben Alcaide.
[28] Rollo,
pp. 123-135.
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] Carpio v. Sulu Resources Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 148267,
[35] Stolt-Nielsen
Marine Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
147623,
[36] Rollo,
p. 81.
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40] CA
rollo, pp. 54-55.
[41] Rollo,
p. 86.
[42] Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
[43] Notice
of Coverage.
[44] Emphasis
supplied.
[45] Amendments
to Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1996, Entitled, Revised Rules and
Procedures Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary
Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657
[46] Folder,
Office of the President, p. 145.
[47] Rollo,
pp. 120-121.
[48] Titan Construction Corporation v. David, Sr.,
G.R. No. 169548, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 362, 363.
[49] Republic Act No.
6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.