FORTICH VS CORONA Facts:

1. The office of the president approved the conversion of a one hundred fourty-four ( 144 )
hectare land from agricultural to agro- industrial/ institutional area in land located at San icente! Sumilao! "u#idnon through issued $% &ase 'o. ()-&-)4*4. The +,-! denied the order and invo#e the -, ))./ (&,-%) and the distri0ution thereof to all 1ualified farmer- 0eneficiaries. The latter 2ent on hunger stri#e. $n the other hand! The local government unit of "u#idnon prayed for the conversion/reclassification of the su03ect land as the same 2ould 0e more 0eneficial to the people. *. The office of the president through +eputy 45ecutive Secretary -enato &orona provided the 2in-2in resolution to settle 0oth parties6 177h su03ect to &,-% and 44 hectares for reclassification. 8o2ever! 9overnor Fortitch opposed and appealed to such order.

:. ;n see#ing the nullification of the <=in-=in< -esolution! the petitioners claim that the
$ffice of the %resident 2as prompted to issue the said resolution <after a very 2ellmanaged hunger stri#e led 0y fa#e farmer-0eneficiary >inda >igmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically 0lac#mailing the $ffice of the %resident to come up 2ith this purely political decision to appease the ?farmers!? 0y reviving and modifying the +ecision of *( @arch 1(() which has been declared final and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997.

4. The respondents! through the Solicitor 9eneral! opposed the petition and prayed that it
0e dismissed outright. ;SSA4: =$' the proper remedy of petitioners should have 0een to file a petition for revie2 directly 2ith the &ourt of ,ppeals in accordance 2ith -ule 4: of the -evised -ules of &ourt =$' the proper remedy is rule 4. or -ule ). +4&;S;$': 'o ;n this particular case! the remedy prescri0ed in -ule 4: is inapplica0le considering that the present petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is <patently illegal< 43 and 2as issued 2ith <grave a0use of discretion< and <0eyond his (respondent Secretary -enato &. &orona?s) 3urisdiction< 44 2hen said resolution su0stantially modified the earlier $% +ecision of @arch *(! 1(() 2hich had long 0ecome final and e5ecutory. ;n other 2ords! the crucial issue raised here involves an error of 3urisdiction! not an error of 3udgment 2hich is revie2a0le 0y an appeal under -ule 4:. Thus! the appropriate remedy to annul and set aside the assailed resolution is an original special civil action for certiorari under -ule ).. =herefore! petion is here0y 9-,'T4+. The challenged -esolution dated 'ovem0er /! 1((/! issued 0y the $ffice of the %resident in $% &ase 'o. ()-&-)4*4! is here0y 'A>>;F;4+ and S4T ,S;+4.