Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CA GR SP No. 48564 LUZVIMINDA SAMAHANG NAYON VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
CA GR SP No. 48564 LUZVIMINDA SAMAHANG NAYON VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
CA GR SP No. 48564 LUZVIMINDA SAMAHANG NAYON VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
48564
Preface
Philippine Constitution
LUZVIMINDA SAMAHANG NAYON, INC., represented by Daniel R. De Luna, in
Laws, Statutes and Presidential Issuances
his capacity as president, petitioner, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Supreme Court Decisions and Issuances Represented by Alexander Aguirre, in his official capacity as Executive
Court of Appeals Decisions Secretary and MANPHIL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, represented by
Alberto Reyes, in his capacity as Bangko Sentral Liquidator of Manphil,
Implementing Rules and Regulations respondents.
Issuances from Other Government Agencies
Lecture Materials
The substantial issue in this petition for review is whether the subject
landholdings should be covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
Login (CARP) thus sustaining the ruling of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), or
whether they should be exempt from the coverage of CARP thus affirming the
ruling of the Office of the President. HTCaAD
Herein protestants allege inter alia: that the owner of the subject landholdings is
Manphil by virtue of a dacion en pago executed by Lakeview Golf and Country Club,
Inc. (Lakeview, for short) way back in 1984; that BSP is seriously considering to finally
approve the rehabilitation of Manphil; that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
has no jurisdiction or authority to acquire the subject landholdings under the CARP, the
same being already in custodia legis in the hands of the BSP Liquidator, Alberto V.
Reyes, when R.A. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1988; that the lands involved have
already been classified as residential or commercial by virtue of Resolution No. 6 of
the Sangguniang Bayan of Carmona, Cavite dated March 9, 1980; that the proposed
valuation of the Land Bank is grossly inadequate to constitute a just compensation;
and that in deference to the Order of the Office of the President in the case of The
Manila Banking Corporation (TMBC) date August 30, 1995, the DAR should desist
from further action towards the acquisition of subject landholdings, considering that the
legal issue in the instant case is almost identical to the TMBC case.
Records show that a Notice of Coverage pursuant to Section 7 of R.A. 6657 has been
issued to Lakeview on September 7, 1992. Thereafter, a conference called by the
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) was held on September 15, 1992 and
attended by farmers seeking to become CARP beneficiaries of the lands involved and
by the representative of Lakeview, Atty. Dennis Chua. During the meeting, Atty. Chua
disclosed that the Notice of Coverage is under protest as the subject landholdings are
proposed for conversion into residential use and golf course, even as the MARO
representatives announced that the documentation (leading to the CARP acquisition
and distribution) of said landholdings has already been completed. AaHcIT
xxx xxx xxx
There are two main issues involved in this case, to wit: (1) whether the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) has jurisdiction over the subject landholdings; and (2) whether
the lands involved are within the scope or coverage of the CARP under R.A. 6657.
The instant protest is basically premised on the arguments that Manphil is the owner of
subject landholdings by virtue of the dacion en pago executed by Lakeview in its favor
in 1984, and that said landholdings are now classified as residential or commercial
and, therefore, the Notice of Coverage issued to Lakeview was invalid or erroneous.
We took note that there was no showing by the protestants that Manphil has secured a
certificate of ownership over the subject landholdings. As such, the DAR cannot be
faulted in relying on the ownership of Lakeview based on TCT Nos. T-75093 and T-
91583 in its name. Nevertheless, whatever defect, if any, in the issuance of the Notice
of Coverage is now moot; it has been cured in view of above-entitled case.
The protestants argued that DAR has no jurisdiction over the lands involved the same
being in custodia legis in the hands of the BSP Liquidator. We beg to disagree. The
coverage of CARP extends to all agricultural lands, regardless of ownership and
commodity produced. With the issuance of the Notice of Coverage affecting the
subject landholdings and the filing by herein protestants of their objection thereto, our
Department has acquired jurisdiction not only with respect to the lands involved but
also as regard the question raised relative to such coverage. Furthermore, the issue
raised by protestants that such lands are exempt from CARP is primarily cognizable by
DAR.
In support of the averment that the lands involved are no longer agricultural and
therefore exempt from CARP, a certification issued by Regional Technical Coordinator
Alfredo M. Tan II of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRB), dated
November 7, 1991 was submitted, to wit:
"CERTIFICATION
"SECTION 7. Priorities. — The DAR, in coordination with the PARC shall plan
and program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands through a period of
ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired and distributed
as follows:"
"Phase Three: All other private agricultural lands commencing with large landholdings
and proceedings to medium and small landholdings under the following schedule:
a.) Landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares, to begin
on the fourth (4th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within three
(3) years;"
Considering the scope of the CARP Law and the clear statutory mandate of the DAR
in the implementation thereof, there is no legal basis in protestants' averment (that the
lands in question are exempt from CARP on the ground that DAR has no jurisdiction
but the BSP Receiver in custodia legis of the same).
The exemptions and exclusions from the coverage of CARP are provided in Section 10
of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No. 7881. Also, lands which
are no longer agricultural in classification prior to the effectivity of the CARP Law on
June 15, 1988 are excluded from said coverage pursuant to Section 3 (c) thereof, as
interpreted by Department of Justice Opinion No. 44.
The grounds raised by protestants do not come within the purview of the exemptions
and exclusions as set forth in Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. As such, we have
no authority to exclude or otherwise exempt the subject landholdings from coverage,
acquisition and distribution under the CARP. STcADa
With respect to the matter of just compensation for the lands here involved, the
determination thereof is beyond our competence the same being a judicial function.
However, protestants may exhaust administrative remedies relative to the valuation
made by Land Bank by availing of the summary administrative proceeding before the
DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
As regards the submission that our Department should desist from proceeding further
action towards the acquisition and distribution of the subject landholdings under the
CARP, we cannot do so without abdicating our statutory mandate unless, perhaps, the
Office of the President orders us to so desist. Besides, the TMBC matter is not litis
pendentia to the instant case there being no concurrence of parties, issue and subject
matter between the former and the latter cases.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the above-stated Protest of Manphil Investment Corporation and
BSP Liquidator Alberto V. Reyes is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the
concerned units under this Office shall proceed with the process of acquisition and
distribution of the subject landholdings under the CARP pursuant to Republic Act No.
6657.
SO ORDERED. (pp. 40-46, Rollo)
Private respondents' appeal to the DAR Secretary was dismissed for lack
of merit in the order dated April 8, 1997. (pp. 48-52)
Manphil's appeal to the Office of the President (O.P. Case no. 97-11-8119)
was granted. The dispositive portion of the resolution dated March 17, 1998 by
then Executive Secretary Alexander P. Aguirre provides:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby GIVEN DUE
COURSE and the DAR orders of January 31, 1996 and April 8, 1997 are hereby
REVOKED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, the landholdings subject hereof are
declared EXEMPT from coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
SO ORDERED. (p. 64, Rollo)
The DAR filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the Honorable
Executive Secretary erred in ruling that reclassification of appellant's property
predates the passage of the CARP law; in ruling that land under custodia legis is
no longer subject to CARP; in concluding that all lands with slope over eighteen
percent (18%) is exempted from the CARP. (pp. 65-70, Rollo) In its resolution
dated May 19, 1998, the Office of the President denied DAR's motion. DAR
received a copy of the resolution on May 26, 1998. The fifteen-day period of
appeal having been lapsed without the DAR thru the OSG having filed a petition
for review to this court, the resolutions of the Office of the President exempting the
landholdings in question from the CARP coverage became final and executory.
AcHEaS
However, on July 20, 1998, herein petitioner intervened for the first time in
this case by filing without the assistance of counsel the present petition for review
on the grounds that the Office of the President thru the Executive Secretary —
I
ERRED IN RULING THAT RECLASSIFICATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT-
APPELLEE'S PROPERTY PREDATES THE PASSAGE OF THE CARP LAW.
II
ERRED IN RULING THAT LAND UNDER CUSTODIA LEGIS IS NO LONGER
SUBJECT TO CARP COVERAGE.
III
LIKEWISE ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT ALL LANDS WHICH SLOPES OVER
EIGHTEEN PERCENT (18%) IS EXEMPT FROM CARP. (p. 34, Rollo)
The findings of the DAR and the Office of the President are diametrically
opposed because they are anchored on different grounds, the former focused on
the inclusion in the CARP coverage the subject landholdings while the latter ruled
that the lands are excluded or exempted from the CARP coverage. Upon scrutiny
of their respective arguments, we decided to adopt the ruling of the Office of the
President which exhaustively analyzed Manphil's evidence as regards the
applicability or inapplicability of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA No.
6657, as amended). The subject landholdings are therefore exempted from the
coverage of the CARP.
On the procedural issue, while RA No. 6657 does not provide a rule on
who may appeal or seek judicial review to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme
Court, Section 25, Chapter 4, Book VIII of the Administrative Code (E.O. No. 292)
can be applied suppletorily, to wit:
SEC. 25. Judicial Review. — (1) Any agency decision shall be subject to judicial
review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws.
(2) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision may seek
judicial review.
(3) The action for judicial review may be brought against the agency, or its
officers, and all indispensable and necessary party as defined in the Rules of Court.
(emphasis supplied)
The compulsory acquisition of landholdings to the CARP is equated to an
expropriation proceedings wherein the real parties in interest are only the State, as
the expropriator, and the owner of the land. In Association of Small Landowners in
the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. Nos. 78742, 78310,
79744, and 79777, July 14, 1989, the Supreme Court en banc ruled that
compulsory acquisition in agrarian cases is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.
The case before the DAR was a protest against the State's (represented
by the DAR) compulsory acquisition of Manphil's private property. The parties
involved are the protestants, Manphil Investment Corporation, herein private
respondent and the DAR itself by virtue of its exercise of the right of compulsory
acquisition. Petitioner Luzviminda Samahang Nayon, Inc. was not impleaded as a
party to the case nor was it mentioned in the orders of the Regional Director of
DAR, the DAR Secretary, and the Office of the President.
It is obvious that the alleged members of the petitioner is not adversely
affected by the decision of the Office of the President since the land was not yet
transferred to them by the DAR, assuming they are qualified beneficiaries.
Petitioner even failed to state its claim over the subject parcels of land in the
petition. The only reference that it mentioned in the petition was that the farmers-
members of the Luzviminda Samahang Nayon, Inc. were among those present in
the 1992 meeting together with the MARO and the representative of Manphil. If the
farmers-members are really qualified beneficiaries of CARP, they can pursue their
right with the DAR. Even assuming that they are farmers, they have not even an
inchoate right over the subject property since they are obviously not the actual
tillers of the said land. The disquisition of the Office of the President on the status
of the members of the petitioner would put to rest this issue. EATCcI
Further, the records of the case are bereft of any report by the DAR or any office for
the matter to show that there had been agricultural activities undertaken on the subject
land, such as crops planted, the quantity of harvested crops and other data to confirm
that the land is indeed agricultural. We, therefore, agree with appellant that the subject
land has no tenants, farm workers, or qualified beneficiaries, as defined in RA No.
6657, and the persons claiming to be beneficiaries are but squatters and intruders who
entered the land after the enactment of RA No. 6657. (p. 63, Rollo, emphasis supplied)
It is worth emphasizing that after the Office of the President reversed the
decision of the DAR, the latter filed a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner never
ever questioned the ruling of the Office of the President precisely because it was
not a party to the case. However, the DAR through the Office of the Solicitor
General did not pursue its case by filing to this court a petition for review as the
party adversely affected by ruling of the Office of the President exempting the
subject landholdings from the coverage of the CARP. For failure of the DAR to file
a petition for review to this court with the prescribed 15-day appeal period, the
ruling of the Office of the President became final and executory.
On the question of whether the petition is defective in form since petitioner
is not assisted by counsel, reference can be made to the Rules of Court 1 as well
as to the RIRCA. 2 In the Bulacan v. Torcino, G.R. No. L-44388, January 30, 1985,
Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court 3 was again construed that [I]n
municipal courts, the litigant may be assisted by a friend, agent, or an attorney.
However, in cases before the regional trial court, the litigant must be aided by a
duly authorized member of the bar. The rule invoked by the Trocinos applies only
to cases filed with the regional trial court and not to cases before a municipal court.
Court procedures are often technical and may prove like snares to the ignorant or
the unwary. In the past, our law has allowed non-lawyers to appear for party
litigants in places where duly authorized members of the bar are not available.
(U.S. v. Bacansas, 6 Phil. 539). For relatively simple litigation before municipal
courts, the Rules still allow a more educated or capable person to appear in behalf
of a litigant who cannot get a lawyer. But for the protection of the parties and in the
interest of justice, the requirement for appearances in regional trial courts and
higher courts is more stringent. In another case, it was held that in the Regional
Trial Court and the appellate Courts, a party may conduct his litigation personally
or by attorney (Catimbuhan v. Cruz, G.R. No. 51813, November 29, 1983), unless
the party is a juridical person, in which case it may appear only by attorney
(Lichauco v. Alejandro, 21 Phil. 58 [1911]). While the RIRCA allows petitions in
agrarian cases to be filed by the appellant himself in case the appellant is a
laborer, or employee, agricultural lessee or tenant, this does not apply when
appellant is a juridical person as in the case at bar. Since petitioner was not
represented by counsel, the petition suffers procedural infirmity.
While the policy of the State is to provide landless farmers and
farmworkers to own lands, directly or collectively, and to this end, a more equitable
distribution and ownership of land, it also recognizes certain exemptions to the
CARP coverage. The subject landholdings are exempted from CARP.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The resolutions of
the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 97-11-8118 dated March 17, 1998 and
May 19, 1998 are affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Hofileña and Agcaoili, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Procedure on review. —Review by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as
the case may be, shall be governed by the Rules of Court. (Section 61, Chapter XIII, RA.
No. 6867, as amended)
2. Rule 6, Section 4 (c), RIRCA:
Unless the appellant has been authorized to litigate as pauper, the Judicial Records
Division shall immediately send a notice to his counsel or to the appellant himself if not
represented by counsel requiring payment of the docketing and other legal fees within
fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. In case the appellant is a laborer, or employee,
agricultural lessee or tenant, he may file a verified motion setting forth said fact and praying
that he be exempted from payment of docketing and other legal fees and the deposit for
costs. If the court denies the motion, the appellant shall pay the docketing and other legal
fees within fifteen (15) days from notice of the denial otherwise the appeal shall be
dismissed.
3. SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace
a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by
him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct
his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal
or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
HELP CENTER CONTACT INFORMATION Copyright Information
How to Use the ERC Legal Information Archive Department of Agrarian Reform All material contained in this site is
Elliptical Road, Diliman copyrighted by the Department of Agrarian
Quezon City, Philippines Reform unless otherwise specified. For the
purposes of this demo, information are
Tel. No.: (632) 928-7031 to 39
intended to show a representative example of
a live site. All images and materials are the
copyright of their respective owners.