[DARCO ORDER NO. A-9999-03-EXE-129-09. February 7, 2011.]
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM CARP COVERAGE UNDER SECTION 10 OF R.A. 6657 IN RELATION TO DAR A.O. NO. 13, SERIES OF 1990, AS AMENDED BY DAR A.O. NO. 10., SERIES OF 1994, OVER LANDHOLDINGS LOCATED AT BARANGAYS SIBUL AND CALUMPANG, MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL, PROVINCE OF BULACAN, WITH AN AGGREGATE AREA OF 375.2775 HECTARES
LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE, represented by DR. MYLENE VILLAFUERTE-MATI, applicant-appellee, ROSALIZA DELA CRUZ, RODELIO GALUNO, BERNARDO GALUNO, ARTEMIO GALUNO, SULFICIO GALUNO, DOMINGO RAPORTE, ERIC ESTRAMADORA, JOLITO OGOD, MARVIN ANTONIO, TEDDY SUMAWAY, ANGELITO JOSE, RODRIGO ALVAREZ, RAYMUNDO GABRIEL, RANDY ALVAREZ, RONNIE JOSE, FRANCISCO BLANCO, SIRVILLANO ALVAREZ, ROLANDO ANTONIO, HENRY PLACIENTE, MARCELO PALOMO, TIRSO CARDINIO, JR., DICTOR BASADA, LUIS GONZALES, VIRNILITO GONZALES, JOSELITO DURIA, VIRGILIO GONZALES, JR., VIRGILITO GONZALES, FLORDELIZA LIBUNAO, LEONILA DE GUZMAN, ABRAHAM ADREANO, HERNANDO MANZANO, JR., MANUEL LIWANAG, NOLASCO MANIQUIZ, ROSAUR OLIWANAG, PABLO REOSIA, ESTER SAMILLANO, ABUETIS SAMILLANO, LEANDRO GALONO, ALEJANDRO GALONO, ALFREDO ENRIQUEZ, JOVITA GONZALES, EFREN CAVIA, AND ANGELITO DE GUZMAN, protestant-appellants.
ORDER
For resolution is an Appeal dated 17 August 2009 (Rollo, pp. 390-404), interposed by the protestant-appellants, through counsel, assailing the Order dated 28 July 2009 (Rollo, pp. 386-388) issued by the Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Region III, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, an ORDER is hereby issued DENYING the instant protest for lack of merit. As far as this Office is concerned, the above-entitled case has been closed and terminated.
SO ORDERED."
The facts and antecedents of the case are, as follows:
This case involves the Application for Exemption from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform (CARP) coverage of landholdings covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. RT-27756, RT-27757, RT-27758, T-30411, T-30746, T-30745, T-30434, T-30433, T-30430, and T-30429 (Rollo, pp. 85-95), situated in Barangays Sibul and Calumpang, San Miguel, Bulacan, comprising an aggregate area of 375.2775 hectares, and registered in the name of Luis R. Villafuerte, married to Nelly Villafuerte.
Applicants Luis R. Villafuerte and Nelly Favis Villafuerte (Villafuerte, for brevity), through counsel, filed an Application for Exemption dated June 5, 2003 (Rollo, pp. 99-102), stating that eighty percent (80%) of the subject landholdings, or an area of 300.22 hectares, is 18% and above in slope, as evidenced by a Certification issued to that effect by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) (Rollo, p. 35). Likewise, a Certification from the Department of Agriculture (DA) stating that the subject landholdings will be best used for either agro-forest or pasture development use was attached (Rollo, p. 33).
Taking into consideration the Application for Exemption filed by Villafuerte, and the documentary evidence attached thereto together with the findings of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) and the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), the Regional Director a quo granted the said Application, in an Order dated 02 March 2009 (Rollo, pp. 227-231), the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, an ORDER is hereby issued:
a. GRANTING the application for exemption pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1990, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1994, involving the above-described landholdings (TCT Nos. RT-27756, RT-27757, RT-27758, T-30411, T-30746, T-T-30745, T-3034, T-30433, T-30429, and T-30430) located at Sibul & Calumpang, San Miguel, Bulacan, with an aggregate area of 375.2775 hectares, and registered in the name of Luis R. Villafuerte, married to Nelly Villafuerte as EXEMPT from CARP coverage except those portions under TCT Nos. T-30430, T-30433 and T-30411 found to be established rice lands by the Department of Agriculture involving about thirty (30) hectares, eight (8) hectares, and two (2) hectares, respectively, including those portions that may be covered under agrarian laws, rules, and regulations and as a result of the segregation survey being conducted at the time of the issuance of this Order;
b. DIRECTING the cancellation of EPs/CLOAs affected by this Order in the proper forum and in accordance with agrarian laws, rules and regulations;
c. DIRECTING that the security of tenure of tenants enjoyed prior to 15 June 1988 be respected, should there be any and qualified, under agrarian laws, rules and regulations; and,
Finally, any misrepresentation of facts material to the issuance of this Order shall cause the nullity of this Order without need for court action.
SO ORDERED."
On 03 April 2009, a Motion for Reconsideration dated 30 March 2009 (Rollo, pp. 199-204, 206-208) of the Order dated 02 March 2009 was filed by Wilfredo Enriquez, et al. Subsequently or on 27 April 2009, the Regional Director a quo received a Manifestation of Withdrawal signed by the movants except Wilfredo Enriquez, Honorio Adelante, Arlene Santos, and Reynaldo Enriquez, who did not signify their manifestation to withdraw.
Consequently, an Order of Finality dated 29 April 2009 (Rollo, pp. 259-261) was rendered by the Regional Director a quo, the dispositive portion which reads, as follows:
"IN VIEW HEREOF and as a consequence of the Manifestation of Withdrawal to the Motion for Reconsideration assailing the Order dated 02 March 2009, the same has now become Final and Executory except those portions being occupied/awarded to those (4) movants, namely, Wilfredo Enriquez, Honorio Adelante, Arlene Santos and Reynaldo Enriquez, who did not signify their Manifestation to Withdraw.
SO ORDERED."
Suddenly, on 08 May 2009, oppositors Wilfredo Adelante, et al., through counsel Atty. Glicero A. Sampana, filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 30, 2009 (Rollo, pp. 269-274), seeking to reconsider the Order dated 02 March 2009 by denying Villafuerte's application for exemption. On the other hand, movants Wilfredo Enriquez, et al., and Luis Villafuerte filed separate motions for reconsideration (Rollo, pp. 282-286) relative to the Order of Finality dated 29 April 2009. Luis Villafuerte seeks the inclusion of Wilfredo Enriquez, Honorio Adelante, Arlene Santos, and Reynaldo Enriquez in the Order of Finality.
The Regional Director a quo, in an Order dated 29 May 2009 (Rollo, pp. 333-337), granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Luis Villafuerte and dismissed the other two (2) Motions for Reconsideration, the dispositve portion of which reads, as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, an Order is hereby issued GRANTING the Motion for Reconsideration filed by movant Luis Villafuerte to include in the Order of Finality dated 29 April 2009 the lands distributed to Honorio Adelante and generated in favor of Arlene Santos, respectively and DISMISSING the Motions for Reconsideration filed by Wilfredo Enriquez, et al., in relation to the Order issued by this Office on 29 April 2009 and that of Wilfredo Adelante et al., dated 30 April 2009 for lack of merit. The Order dated 02 March 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
As far as this Office is concerned, this case is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
On June 30, 2009, a protest styled as "Protest (Motion for Reconsideration)" dated 24 June 2009 was filed by Rosaliza dela Cruz, et al., through counsel, Atty. Norberto S. Agulay, Jr. of the Sentro Para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo (SENTRA), another group identifying themselves as Protestant-Oppositors. The Protest raised three errors, to wit: 1) the Order dated 02 March 2009 is contrary to law; 2) the protestant-oppositors have been denied of their constitutional rights to due process; and 3) the Office of the Regional Director of the DAR Region III has no jurisdiction to issue the Order dated 02 March 2009 (Rollo, pp. 369-383).
Eventually, the Regional Director a quo in an Order dated 28 July 2009 (Rollo, 385-388) denied the protest for lack of merit, maintained the finality of the Order dated 02 March 2009, and declared the case as closed and terminated. According to the Regional Director, out of the forty three (43) protestant-oppositors in this case, only twenty four (24) are included in the list provided for by the PARO as CARP beneficiaries within the landholdings of Villafuerte and eighteen (18) were present during the meeting held on 07 April 2009.
Hence, the protestant-oppositors filed a Notice of Appeal with Notice of Change of Address dated 17 August 2009 (Rollo, pp. 390-404).
Villafuerte interposed their objection to the notice of appeal on the ground that the above-entitled case had already attained finality and was even declared closed and terminated. They also insist that out of the forty-three (43) protestant-oppositors in this case, nineteen (19) are not included in the list provided for by the PARO as CARP beneficiaries of the subject landholdings and are therefore not real parties-in-interest, while the claims of the remaining twenty four (24) were already ruled upon with finality.
In their Comments dated 02 October 2009, the protestant-oppositors strongly disagreed with the contention of Villafuerte and assiduously maintained that the Order dated 02 March 2009 has not attained finality on the ground that they were not informed of the application for exemption filed by Villafuerte. That even assuming that the said Order had already attained finality, they believe that their notice of appeal can still be entertained by applying the liberal interpretation of the rules.
It must be noted that the protestant-oppositors admitted that not all of them are holders of Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Certificates of Landownership Award (CLOAs); this only serves to confirm the findings of the Regional Director that not all of them are included in the list of farmer-beneficiaries (FBs) provided for by the PARO.
A careful perusal of the attendance sheets (Rollo, pp. 288-327) of the General Assembly on the Villafuerte properties held on 07 April 2009 reveals that out of the forty three (43) protestant-oppositors, only 24 of them are listed or identified as FBs on the properties of Villafuerte, they are:
1. Galuno, Rodelio 13. Gonzales, Virgilito
2. Galuno Bernardo 14. Adreano, Abraham
3. Galuno, Artemio 15. Liwanag, Manuel
4. Galuno, Sulpicio 16. Maniquiz, Nolasco
5. Jose, Angelito 17. Enriquez, Alfredo
6. Alvarez, Rodrigo 18. Cavia, Efren
7. Gabriel, Raymundo 19. Alvarez, Randy
8. Jose, Ronnie 20. Raporte, Domingo
9. Blanco, Francisco 21. Placiente Henry
10. Gonzales, Luis 22. Galono, Alejandro
11. Gonzales, Virnilito 23. De Guzman, Angelito
12. Gonzales, Virgilio 24. Galuno, Leandro
Out of the above-enumerated 24 identified FBs included in the list, who are protestant-oppositors in this case, 20 attended the General Assembly meeting on 07 April 2009. It must be noted that Gonzales, Virgilio was represented by his wife, while Alvarez, Rodrigo and Galuno, Leandro were represented by their sons Alvarez, Randy and Galuno, Rodelio, respectively. Hence, only four (4) actually did not attend, namely: 1) Raporte, Domingo; 2) Placiente, Henry; 3) Galono, Alejandro; and 4) De Guzman, Angelito.
On the other hand, nineteen (19) of the protestant-oppositors are not listed or identified as FBs, namely:
1. De la Cruz, Rosaliza 11. Duria, Joselito
2. Estramadora, Eric 12. Libunao, Flordeliza
3. Ogod, Jolito 13. De Guzman, Leonila
4. Antonio, Marvin 14. Manzano Jr., Hernando
5. Sumaway, Teddy 15. Oliwanang, Rosaur
6. Alvarez, Servillano 16. Reosia, Pablo
7. Antonio, Rolando 17. Samillano, Ester
8. Palomo, Marcelo 18. Samillano Abuetis
9. Cardino Jr., Tirso 19. Gonzales, Jovita
10. Basada, Dictor
From the foregoing, it is clear that twenty (20) of the protestant-oppositors who were listed as FBs and who were able to attend the General Assembly cannot claim that they were not informed of the application for exemption filed by Villafuerte. Also, the attendance sheets of the General Assembly will clearly show that almost all who are present during the meeting were able to receive on the same day a copy of the Order of Exemption dated 02 March 2009. It is likewise clear that they were not able to seasonably file their motion for reconsideration or appeal therefrom. Instead, it was only after the Order of Exemption was declared final and executory that they filed their protest; when the same was denied, they filed the present appeal.
Accordingly, insofar as the aforesaid 20 protestant-oppositors are concerned, the Order of Exemption had already attained finality. While administrative proceedings are usually not bound by technical rules, this Office must assert that the instant appeal can no longer be entertained in so far as the said twenty (20) protestant-oppositors are concerned in view of the absence of compelling reasons to justify the relaxation of the application of the rules. On the contrary, as graciously explained by the Regional Director a quo in his previous Orders, the Office had always been steadfast in observing the constitutional rights of FBs as far as due process is concerned. In fact, the Regional Office a quo had gone the extra mile, when it set up a mediation conference on 07 April 2009 to apprise the farmers involved of the course of the case, as evidenced by such attendance sheets, copies of which form part of the case records.
Well settled is the rule that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land (Collantes vs. Court of Appeals, 15 SCRA 561).
Procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review are generally inviolable. It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail themselves of this privilege must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in law must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of judicial business. Furthermore, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory (McBurnie v. Ganzon, 600 SCRA 658, 672; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ascot Holdings and Equities, Inc., 537 SCRA 396, 406).
Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Raut, 597 SCRA 66, 72, citing Accessories Specialist, Inc. v. Alabanza, 559 SCRA 550, 562-563).
Regarding the nineteen (19) protestants-oppositors who are not identified FBs and who are not even included in the list of FBs, this Office is inclined to adopt the position of Villafuerte that they are not real parties-in-interest. Section 19 of Republic Act No. 9700, categorically provides that "In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall have a legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective rights and/or interest under CARP". The protestants-oppositors who are not identified FBs and not included in the list of FBs have no legal standing or personality therefore to file the present appeal.
Finally, concerning the four (4) protestants-oppositors who are included in the list of FBs on the property of Villafuerte, namely, Raporte, Domingo, Placiente, Henry, Galono, Alejandro, and De Guzman, Angelito, there is no proof showing that they were furnished a copy of the assailed Order of Exemption or at the very least, informed of the same. The attendance sheets of the General Assembly clearly show that they did not attend the said meeting as their signatures do not appear therein.
Considering that the said four (4) protestants-oppositors were neither furnished nor informed of the Order dated 02 March 2009, the same has not attained finality insofar as they are concerned.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued:
1. Declaring the Order dated 02 March 2009 final and executory, except as it involves protestants-oppositors Domingo Raporte, Henry Placiente, Alejandro Galono, and Angelito De Guzman;
2. Giving due course to the Notice of Appeal filed by protestants-oppositors Domingo Raporte, Henry Placiente, Alejandro Galono, and Angelito De Guzman but denying the appeal of the rest of protestants-oppositors; and
3. Directing appellants Domingo Raporte, Henry Placiente, Alejandro Galono, and Angelito De Guzman to submit an appeal brief with the BALA within ten (10) days from receipt of this Order, furnishing a copy thereof to the adverse party and the Regional Director.
SO ORDERED.
Diliman, Quezon City, February 07, 2011.
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Secretary