SEVENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 51531. September 15, 2000.]
SPS. MELCHOR DE CHAVEZ & PAZ DE CHAVEZ, SPS. ARTEMIO MENDOZA & EMELITA B. MENDOZA, SPS. BERTO VILLORENTE & LERMA T. VILLORENTE AND SPS. CATALINO BAJETA & PASCUALA A. BAJETA, petitioners, vs. APLAYA LAIYA CORPORATION and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR), respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GOZO-DADOLE, J p:
This is a Petition for Review dated March 29, 1999 (which was formerly assigned to a Justice who retired and was re-raffled to undersigned recently) seeking the reversal of the Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996 signed by the then Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Hon. Ernesto D. Garilao, in unnumbered Administrative Case re: Application for Land Use Conversion of the Sites for the Regional Agri-Industrial Centers and Tourism Development Areas covered by EO No. 24, covering an area of 151.3850 has. of the Aplaya Laiya Tourism Estate Development Project (ALTEDP) situated in Aplaya Laiya, San Juan, Batangas, Aplaya Laiya Corp., petitioner, dispositive portion of which reads as follows, to wit:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the NLUC Resolution Nos. 1 and 2, Series of 1996, are hereby confirmed-approved without prejudice to the payment of disturbance compensation to the farmers who will be displaced by reason of the conversion into regional agri-industrial centers and tourism development area." (p. 18, Rollo)
for being violative of the 1987 Constitution and existing laws and lack of due process considering that the petitioners herein and those similarly situated were not consulted or at least, given the opportunity to be heard and has no jurisdiction and no authority under the law, for wanting of factual and legal basis, to approve the conversion of the subject landholding on the grounds that portions of or adjacent to the subject properties, which have similar conditions and attributes, were already covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), and in fact Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA's) were already registered with the Register of Deeds of Batangas and corresponding Transfer Certificate of Titles were already issued to the farmers-beneficiaries. In the alternative, petitioners finally submit that the conversion order in question has to be cancelled in view of the failure of private respondent to commence the development of the areas within the period required by the DAR.
The antecedent facts:
Petitioners are all of legal age and reside at Laiya Aplaya, San Juan, Batangas. They may be served with processes of this Honorable Court through their counsel at #51 Parkdrive, Mintcor, Alabang, Muntinlupa.
Private respondent, Aplaya Laiya Corporation, is a corporation duly organized in accordance with Philippine laws with principal offices and may be served processes with this Honorable Court at 2/F FSE Bldg., Bautista St., Makati City.
The subject properties are portions of a large estate — approximately 2,500 has. — acquired by the late Don Marcelo Llana over a long period of time prior to the second world war. Don Marcelo was the common grandfather of the present landowners mostly surnamed Llana. Private respondent Aplaya Laiya Corporation acquired the subject properties from the heirs/transferees of the deceased Marcelo Llana. The property consists of mountain terrain, rolling to hilly terrain, flat land and beach frontage. The areas are classified/zoned principally and are used as such sparse coconut trees, other trees and scrub vegetation. Some level areas are regularly planted to seasonal crops. The western portion is clearly highyield agricultural land.
Sometime in December, 1989, then DAR Secretary Miriam Defensor Santiago issued notices of compulsory acquisition for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in accordance with the provisions of R.A. 6657 to certain portions of the Llana Estate as follows:
Landowners TCT Nos. Total Area
(in hectarage)
Wigberto & Ma. Cristina Llana T-44047 366.5390
Cesar V. Marasigan T-39846 54.4176
Cesar V. Marasigan T-38166 54.4243
Leogarda Abacan T-48781 140.0000
Dativa Madlangbayan T-19849 54.336
Laiya Development Corporation T-43594 16.0086
Anghel Arguelles, et al. T-54097 8.0263
Anghel Arguelles, et al. T-54098 10.0367
Anghel Arguelles, et al. T-54099 43.6628
————
747.4513
In 1995, about 1,080,274 sq. m. were already issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform, Certificates of Landownership Awards (CLOA's) and various Transfer Certificates of Title were then issued by the Register of Deeds of Batangas.
NAME OF FB's CLOA's/TCT Nos. Area
(in sq. m.)
Reynaldo S. Ilagan, et al. 00305361/CT-1158 636,142
KSMP 00215241/CT-1159 138,400
KSMP 00215240/CT-1153 59,704
KSMP 00215230/CT-1154 54,195
Catalino L. Bajeta 00215221/CT-1155 20,338
Adriano Castillo 00215222/CT-1156 11,389
————
Flabiano S. Villanueva 00305364/CT-1157
1,080,274
In 1996, the subject properties were recommended to the Department of Agrarian Reform for conversion by the National Land Use Committee (NLUC) per its Resolution No. 1, Series of 1996, as part of the Tourism Development Area (TDA) pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order 124 and joint DAR and NEDA Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 1993 which resolution was apparently based from the Regional Development Council's identifying the subject properties as parts of the Aplaya Laiya Tourism Development Project (ALTDP) and Batangas Tourism Development Area (BTDA) in Region IV.
The NLUC, however, failed to take into account that the identification submitted by the Regional Development Council of region IV was made more than a year after the Department of Agrarian Reform issued the notices of compulsory coverage and CLOA's to almost 700 has. — which are portions of the Llana Estate and which are situated almost adjacent to the subject properties covered by the Conversion Order of November 6, 1996. The recommendations made by these agencies concerned for conversion purposes were done in great haste and without taking into consideration the previous decision of the DAR placing the other portions of the Llana Estate as carpable.
The subject properties are agricultural lands principally devoted to agricultural production and, therefore, fall within the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) pursuant to Republic Act 6657, E.O. 228, 229, 129-A and the implementing rules and regulations of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
For many years now, petitioners have been in actual, open, public, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the aforementioned properties devoted in the production of niyog, atis, etc. in the concept of a holder as qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries under Section 22 (g) of R.A. 6657 otherwise known as "AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES", in relation to R.A. 3844 otherwise known as "AN ACT TO ORDAIN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE AND TO INSTITUTE LAND REFORMS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INCLUDING THE ABOLITION OF TENANCY AND THE CHANNELING OF CAPITAL INTO INDUSTRY, PROVIDE FOR THE NECESSARY IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES, APPROPRIATE FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES", and other related agrarian laws.
The said landholdings have been automatically included in the CARP since the effectivity of the law in June, 1998.
Aggrieved by the issuance of the aforementioned Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996, hence this Petition for Review assigning the following errors:
"A. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 124 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2.7 OF JOINT NEDA-DAR M.C. NO. 1, SERIES OF 1993 IS NULL AND VOID AS IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OF AGRARIAN REFORM UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND THE LEGAL MANDATE UNDER REPUBLIC ACT 6657.
B. ADJACENT TO AND PORTIONS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY COVERED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP). CONSEQUENTLY, THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN NOT TAILING INTO ACCOUNT THE CARPABILITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES SIMILAR TO THOSE ALREADY COVERED BY CARP.
C. THE CONVERSION ORDER IN QUESTION OF NOVEMBER 6, 1996 WAS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OF HEREIN PETITIONERS AS THE OCCUPANTS AND FARMERS — BENEFICIARIES OF CARP UNDER R.A. 6657. AND
D. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR FAILURE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT APLAYA LAIYA CORPORATION TO COMMENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES INSPITE THE CLEARING FROM OCCUPANTS OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS THEREOF, IN VIOLATION OF DAR A.O. NO. 01, S-93 AND 07-S-97, THE CONVERSION ORDER OF NOVEMBER 6, 1996 IS CANCELLABLE AS IT WAS RESORTED TO IN ORDER TO CIRCUMVENT THE CARP COVERAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES UNDER R.A. 6657." (pp. 22-23, Rollo)
The respondents were required to file their Comment per Resolution promulgated on March 7, 2000 which was complied with by the private respondents per its Compliance dated March 20, 2000 by informing this Court that as early as May 14, 1999 it has already filed its Comment/Opposition to this petition and a xerox copy of the said Comment/Opposition was attached to the Compliance dated March 20, 2000 but which Comment/Opposition intended for this Court was and is until now not attached to the rollo although per Judicial Records Division Report, the said Comment/Opposition was indeed filed on May 14, 1999 (p. 56-back, Rollo) and per Special Docket Report said Comment was sent to the office of Atty. de Mesa on May 17, 1999 who forwarded it to the Office of Justice Rasul, the former ponente on May 25, 1999. So per Resolution dated July 17, 2000, the private respondent was required to furnish the Court with a copy of its Comment dated May 14, 1999 with complete annexes, which it did by submitting to this Court a duplicate copy of its Comment etc. dated May 14, 1999 with complete annexes which is now attached to the Rollo.
However, before resolving the assigned errors of the petitioner, this Court opted to resolve first as to whether this Petition for Review was timely filed in accordance with Section 4, Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:
"SEC. 4. Period of appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. . . ."
considering that if there was no timely filing of this petition, the Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996 can no longer be a subject of a petition for review it being already final and executory.
Petitioners contend that it was only on March 1, 1999 when they discovered the existence of the Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996 after the receipt of the summons and complaints for ejectment filed against them by private respondent, Aplaya Laiya Corp. before the Municipal Trial Court of San Juan, Batangas docketed therein as Civil Case Nos., 731, 732, 733 and 734. So, on March 2, 1999 petitioners through counsel filed with this Court a Motion for an Extension of Time to File Petition for Review praying that petitioners be granted an extension of fifteen (15) days from March 16, 1999 or until March 31, 1999 within which to file their Petition for Review of the aforesaid Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996 of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform which motion was granted per Resolution promulgated on March 12, 1999. Hence, when this petition was filed with this Court on March 31, 1999 it was filed within the supposed extended period.
However, the supposed timeliness of the filing of this Petition for Review by herein petitioner is belied by their own admission that such Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996 was a subject of an appeal initiated by the Kooperatiba ng Sandigan ng Magsasakang Pilipino, Inc. (KSMP) of which petitioner are members thereof docketed as CA-G.R. No. 48041 before the Court of Appeals, 8th Division which denied the latter's Motion for Extension of Time within which to file a Petition for Review in its Order dated July 17, 1998 which Order is now final and executory. In fact, according to herein petitioners, the KSMP did not pursue to question the said Order dated July 17, 1998 of the Court of Appeals, 8th Division because said KSMP realized that it was not the real party-in-interest but its members which includes herein petitioners who will stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the said case pursuant to Section 2, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court and consistent with the ruling of the case of House of International Bldg. Tenants Association, Inc. vs. IAC, 151 SCRA 703, this admission by the petitioners in effect is an admission on their part that even before the KSMP filed its Petition for Review of the subject Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996 before the Department of Agrarian Reform on January 26, 1998 which was denied by the latter in its Order dated May 25, 1998 and which later on could have been the subject matter of the KSMP's appeal with the Court of Appeal's, 8th Division had its Motion for Extension of Time within which to file a Petition for Review not been denied by the Order dated July 17, 1998, they already knew of the existence of the Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996. Such being the case, it is not true then that it was only on March 1, 1999 when the private respondent has filed complaints for ejectment that they came to know of the existence of the DAR Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996 and because of their inaction since they know of its existence, particularly on January 26, 1998, they have already lost their rights to question the said Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996 which is now final and executory.
Furthermore, the subject DAR Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996, as required under Section XII of DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994, has been published and complied with by the private respondent as shown in the Certification of Publication dated January 29, 1997 issued by Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, Municipality of San Juan, Batangas which publication was a notice to all concerned farmers-beneficiaries in the Municipality of San Juan, Batangas. This fact again belies the contention of herein petitioners that it was only on March 1, 1999 that they were aware of the existence of the Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996.
Finally, in pursuant to the conditions imposed by the said Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996, private respondent Aplaya Laiya Corp. has to accelerate its negotiations with the tenants-farmers as beneficiaries including the plain occupants of the properties like the petitioners who are not beneficiaries (tenants-farmers) but are residing inside the 151 hectares covered by the Conversion Order for the payment of their disturbance compensation. In fact, the negotiation with the tenant-farmers and occupants within the ALC properties started on the year 1996 continuously up to the present, so that it is impossible that it was only on March 1, 1999 when petitioners received copies of the Summons and Complaints in the ejectment case that they were accordingly informed of the existence of the Conversion Order dated November 6, 1996.
Having settled the untimeliness of the filing of this petition, it is already useless and a waste of time to still discuss the assigned errors considering that the Conversion Order dated November 4, 1996, is now final and executory.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Petition for Review dated March 29, 1999 is DENIED and DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Guerrero and Aquino, JJ., concur.