Fortich v.
Corona - In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the PH Packing
G.R. No. 131457 | April 24, 1998 | Martinez, J.
Petitioners: HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF
BUKIDNON, HON. REY B. BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SUMILAO,
BUKIDNON, NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
Respondents: HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, HON. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
TOPIC: Reclassification of Lands
SUMMARY: The case involves a 114-hectare land in Bukidnon owned by
NQSRMDC. The Sangguniang Bayan of Bukidnon enacted an Ordinance
converting the property from agricultural to industrial/institutional to attract
investors since under Section 20 of the LGC 4th to 5th class municipalities may
authorize the classification of 5% of their agricultural land area and provide for the
manner of utilisation. However, DAR Sec. Garilao placed the property under the
compulsory coverage of CARP and directed the distribution to all qualified
beneficiaries. The OP, however, reversed the DAR Sec.'s decision because
converting the land would open great opportunities for employment and bring
about great development in economic growth of the municipality. The OP's
decision was declared final and executory. Some alleged farmer-beneficiaries
staged a hunger strike in front of the DAR compound in QC, which led to the
issuance of the Win/Win Resolution penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary
Renato C. Corona, stating that only 44 ha of the property would be converted.
Petitioners aver the OP was only prompted to issue it, modifying the order of the
OP which had already become final and executory. SC held that the Win-Win
Resolution is void because when the OP issued the Order declaring the March
1996 Decision final and executory, as no one had seasonably filed an MR, OP lost
its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision.
FACTS:
(Preliminaries)
- The case involves a 144 ha land located in Bukidnon owned by one of the
Petitioners in this case, Norberto Quisimbing, Sr. Management and
Development Corporation (NQSRMDC)
Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. for a period of 10 years
under the Crop Producer and Growers Agreement. The lease expired in
April 1994.
- In 1991, during the existence of the lease, the DAR placed the entire
property under compulsory acquisition and assessed the land value at
P2.38M
• NQSRMDC resisted the DAR's action.
• In 1992, it sought and was granted by the DARAB a writ of prohibition
with preliminary injunction to desist from pursuing any activity
concerning the subject land until further orders
- Despite the 1992 DARAB Order, the DAR Regional Director issued a
Memo:
1. ordering the Land Bank to open a trust account for the P2.38M in
the name of NQSRMDC; and
2. to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just
compensation of the property
• NQSRMDC objected and filed an Omnibus Motion to enforce the 1992
DARAB order and to nullify the proceedings of the DAR Regional
Director
• The DARAB acted favorably on the Omnibus Motion and Land Bank
complied with the DARAB order cancelling the trust account
- Meanwhile, the Provincial Development Council (PDC) of Bukidnon,
headed by Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6, designating certain areas
along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial
Zones where the subject property is situated
(Start of Controversy)
- In 1993, Pursuant to the LGC, the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao,
Bukidnon enacted Ordinance No. 24 converting the subject property from
agricultural to industrial/institutional with a view of providing an
opportunity to attract investors who can inject new economic vitality,
provide more jobs and raise the income of its people
• Under LGC, Section 20, 4th to 5th class municipalities may authorize
the classification 5% of their agricultural land area and provide for the
manner of their utilization or disposition
 • The said industrial area, as conceived by NQSRMDC (proposal) is
supposed to have the following components:
1. Development Academy of Mindanao for 24 ha
2. Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Park for 67 ha
3. Forest development which includes open spaces and parks for
recreation for 33 ha
4. Support facilities for a hotel, restaurants and dorms for 20 ha
• The proposal was adopted by the DTI Bukidnon provincial office as one
of its flagship projects and Director Macalindong of the DAR Central
Office, in a public consultation, endorsed the project
- However, in 1994, the DAR, through Sec. Garilao, invoking its powers to
approve conversion of lands under Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, issued an
Order denying the instant application for the conversion of the subject land
from agricultural to agro-industrial and, instead, placed the same under the
compulsory coverage of CARP and directed the distribution thereof to all
qualified beneficiaries since the area is considered as a prime agricultural
land with irrigation facility
• An MR was filed by the DAR but was denied
• Thus, the DAR Sec ordered the DAR Regional Director to proceed with
the compulsory acquisition and distribution of the property
- Gov. Fortrich appealed the Order of Denial to the OP and prayed for the
conversion/reclassification of the subject land as the same would be more
beneficial to the people of Bukidnon
• To prevent enforcement of the DAR Sec's order, NQSRMDC filed with
the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition
• Meanwhile, the Presidential Assistant for Mindanao and the DILG Sec
recommended the conversion of the subject land
- In March 1996, OP, through Exec Sec Torres, reversed the DAR Sec's
decision
• "To be sure, converting the land in question from agricultural to agro-
industrial would open great opportunities for employment and bring
about real development in the area towards a sustained economic
growth of the municipality. On the other hand, distributing the land to
would-be beneficiaries (who are not even tenants, as there are none)
does not guarantee such benefits."
• SC Took special note of the fact that the Quisimbing family had already
contributed substantially to the land reform program of the government
• "LGC, Section 20 is clear and affords no room for interpretation. By
unequivocal legal mandate, it grants local government units autonomy
in their local affairs including the power to convert portions of their
agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization and
disposition to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-
reliant communities"
- DAR filed an MR of the OP Decision
- In compliance with the OP Decision, NQSRMDC and the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) executed a MOA whereby the
former donated four (4) hectares from the subject land to DECS for the
establishment of the NQSR High School
• When NQSRMDC was about to transfer the title over the 4-hectare
donated to DECS, it discovered that the title over the subject property
was no longer in its name
• It found that during the pendency of the petitions filed with the CA and
the appeal to the OP, the DAR, without just compensation, caused the
cancellation of their title and had it transferred in the name of the
Republic of the PH. Thereafter, DAR caused the issuance of Certificates
of Land Ownership Award and had it registered in the name of 137
farmer-beneficiaries
- In 1997, NQSRMDC filed a complaint with the RTC for annulment and
cancellation of title, damages and injunction against DAR and 141 others
• RTC issued a TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction restraining the
DAR and 141 others from entering, occupying and/or wresting from
NQSRMDC the possession of the subject land
- On June 23, 1997, Exec Sec Torres issued an Order denying DAR's MR
for being filed beyond reglementary period of 15 days and declared the
March 1996 OP Decision final and executory
- On October 9, 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries began their hunger
strike in front of the DAR Compound in Quezon City to protest the March
1996 OP Decision
• Pres. Ramos held a dialogue with the strikers and promised to resolve
their grievance within the framework of the law. He created an 8-man
Fact Finding Task Force chaired by Agriculture Secretary Salvador
 Escudero to look into the controversy and recommend possible solutions
to the problem
- On November 7, 1997, the OP resolved the strikers protest by issuing the
so-called Win/Win Resolution penned by then Deputy Executive
Secretary Renato C. Corona
• The March 1996 OP Decision was modified as follows:
1. NQSRMDC's application for conversion is APPROVED only with
respect to the approximately 44 ha portion of the land adjacent to
the highway, as recommended by the Department of Agriculture
2. The remaining 100 ha traversed by an irrigation canal and found to
be suitable for agriculture shall be distributed to qualified farmer-
beneficiaries in accordance with RA 6657 or the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law
3. DAR directed to determine who among the claimants are qualified
farmer-beneficiaries
4. DAR directed to expedite payment of just compensation to
NQSRMDC for the portion of the land to be covered by the CARP
5. PNP directed to render full assistance to the DAR for the
implementation of this Order
- Petitioners: OP was prompted to issue the said resolution after a very
well-managed hunger strike led by fake farmer-beneficiary Linda Ligmon
succeeded in pressuring and/or politically blackmailing the OP to come up
with purely political decision to appease the farmers by modifying the
March 1996 Decision, which had already become final and executory
- Respondents (through OSG): (1) proper remedy should have been to file
a petition for review directly with the Court of Appeals in accordance with
Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court; (2) petitioners failed to file an MR
of the assailed Win-Win Resolution before filing the present petition; (2)
Petitioner is guilty of forum shopping
ISSUES + HELD:
1. WON the recourse of the Petitioners is proper or not? -YES, the recourse is
proper
- Petitioners undertook to annul and set aside the assailed resolution with an
original special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, which was the
appropriate remedy for errors of jurisdiction
- SC resolved to take primary jurisdiction over the present petition in the
interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations to put an end to
the present controversy which (as observed by Petitioners) has sparked
national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by the
issuance of the assailed resolution
- The Resolution was wholly void and requiring Petitioners to file their
petition with the CA would only result in a waste of time and money
2. WON the Petitioners committed a fatal procedural lapse when they failed to
file an MR to the assailed Resolution before seeking judicial recourse? -NO
- Motion is not necessary when the questioned Resolution is a patent nullity
3. WON the Petitioners are guilty of forum shopping? - NO
- Respondents claim that the filing by Petitioners of: (a) a petition for
certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction (CA-G.R. SP No.
37614) with the Court of Appeals; (b) a complaint for annulment and
cancellation of title, damages and injunction against DAR and 141 others
(Civil Case No. 2687-97) with the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay,
Bukidnon; and (c) the present petition, constitute forum shopping.
- There is forum shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or
certiorari) in another
• The test for determining whether a party violated the rule against forum
shopping has been laid down in the 1986 case of Buan vs. Lopez:
"forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present
or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the
other"
- Clear that the Petitioners are not guilty of forum shopping
• A cursory examination of the cases filed by the petitioners does not
show that the said cases are similar with each other
 - Petition for certiorari sought the nullification of the DAR Secretary's
Order to proceed with the annulment and cancellation of title issued
in the name of the Republic of the Philippines
- Present petition is entirely different because it seeks the nullification
of the assailed Win-Win Resolution of the OP, which was issued long
after the previous 2 cases were instituted
4. WON the final and executory March 1996 OP Decision can still be
substantially modified by the Win-Win Resolution? -NO
- AO No. 18, Section 17 provides the rules and regulations governing
appeals to the OP:
"SEC. 7. Decisions resolutions/orders of the Office of the
President shall, except as otherwise provided for by special
laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of
a copy thereof by the parties, unless a motion for reconsideration
thereof is filed within such period.
be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle
must always be maintained by those who wield the power of
adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately
be struck down.
DISPOSITION:
The assailed Win-Win Resolution which substantially modified the Decision of
March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality, is utterly void. Such void resolution,
as aptly stressed by Justice Thomas A. Street, in a 1918 case, is a lawless thing,
which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and
whenever it exhibits its head.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged
Resolution dated November 7, 1997, issued by the Office of the President in OP
Case No. 96-C-6424, is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.

Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be

allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally meritorious
cases."

- When the OP issued the Order declaring the March 1996 Decision final
and executory, as no one had seasonably filed an MR, OP lost its
jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision
• Having lost its jurisdiction, the OP has no more authority to entertain
the second MR filed by the DAR Secretary, which became the basis of
the assailed Win-Win Resolution
• The act of the OP in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its
March1996 Decision which had already become final and executory,
was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord
finality to administrative determinations
• The orderly administration of justice requires that the
judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a
point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. This a
fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would