G.R. No.

139051 (June 26, 2000)

Kooperatiba ng Sandigan ng Magsasakang Pilipino, Inc. (KSMP) vs. Department of Agrarian
ReformAdjudication Board, et al.

Facts:
The case stemmed from the Order dated May 27, 1975 by then DAR Secretary Conrado Estrella
grantingthe request for conversion of 1,837.30 hectares of agricultural land situated in Nasugbu,
Batangas intoresidential, commercial, industrial and other urban purposes. In essence, the Order
stated that thesubject land is not economically suited for agricultural cultivation and that if there
are any tenant-tillers,disturbance compensation should be paid to them in accordance with
law.Fifteen (15) occupants assisted by the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) claiming to be tenants
of a forty-four (44) hectare portion filed a motion for reconsideration of the said Order. But prior
to such, formerPresident Ferdinand B. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1520 on November
27, 1975 declaring theMunicipalities of Maragondon and Ternate, Cavite and Nasugbu, Batangas as
tourist zones more suitablefor residential, commercial, industrial and urban uses.In December
1989, apparently unaware of the conversion orders and presidential proclamation, thenDAR
Secretary Miriam Defensor-Santiago issued Notices of Acquisition dated December 14-27,
1989.Private respondents, Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, filed their objections to these Santiago
notices.Thereafter, on January 22, 1991, Secretary Benjamin T. Leong who succeeded Secretary
Santiago ruledon the validity of the questioned Order issued on May 27, 1975 and denied the
Motion forReconsideration holding that pursuant to Proclamation No. 1520, Maragondon, Ternate
and Nasugbuare declared as tourist zones.Meanwhile, on May 14, 1991, the private respondents
filed a Petition with the DARAB docketed asDARAB Case No. 0335 for the purpose of implementing
the Conversion Orders which in effect suggestedthe manner of invalidating the Santiago Notices as
it was contrary to the Leong Order of January 22,1991.Petitioner KSMP (Kooperatiba ng Sandigan
ng Magsasakang Pilipino, Inc.) filed a complaint-in-intervention on the aforementioned case. This
was dismissed by the DAR. Subsequently, KSMP filed aPetition for Certiorari with the Court of
Appeals docketed as G.R. No. 47813 imputing grave abuse of discretion on the DARAB. The CA
dismissed the same. Hence, this Petition.

Held:
We find no error with the ruling of the CA that petitioner's cause is lost considering that the
ConversionOrders have long become final and executory. There was, therefore, no more case to
which it couldintervene. The complaint-in-intervention was, therefore, correctly dismissed
pursuant to the 1997 Rulesof Civil Procedure.

Petitioner's insistence that there was no final disposition yet of the conversion case, as in fact,
DARABCase No. 0335 was initiated by the private respondents is untenable. A perusal of the
records reveal thatDARAB Case No. 0335 was filed by the private respondents for the purpose of
implementing theConversion Orders particularly the fixing of the final disturbance compensation to
the legitimate farmer-occupants. The complaint-in-intervention, however, puts in issue petitioner's
alleged tenancyrelationship and security of tenure which the DARAB does not have any
jurisdiction.Furthermore, petitioner, a juridical entity, has no personality to file the instant petition
to intervene inthe case as the real parties-in-interest are the members thereof who were not even
recognized as therightful tenants occupying the subject land. As observed by the DAR, "members of
petitioner are merelyholding on to an expectancy that they will become the beneficiaries assuming
that the land is stillCARPable." The fact, however, remains that the land in question has already
been excluded from thepurview of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) by the Estrella
and Leong Orders which hadlong become final and executory.