Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > April 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 196028, April 18, 2016 - SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO NASWE, INC. [SAMMANA], REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO A. COMMENDADOR, PRESIDENT, Petitioner, v. TOMAS TAN, Respondent.:

We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari¹ assailing the July 27, 20l0 decision² and February 10, 2011 resolution³ of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100926. The CA dismissed the petitioner's appeal from the decision of the Office of the President (OP), which affirmed the lifting of the Notice of Coverage from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) issued over land sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The petitioner Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio Naswe, Inc. (petitioner) is an association of farmers and fishermen residing at Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan.⁴ The petitioner claimed that its members "have resided in the area for several years doing farming activities" from which they "derive their income for their daily sustenance."⁵

On April 4, 1995, the PCGG published in the newspaper an Invitation to Bid for the sale of its assets, which included 34 hectares of a 129.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, previously owned by Anchor Estate Corporation.⁶ The PCGG sequestered the properties of Anchor Estate Corporation after it was identified to be a dummy corporation of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos.

Respondent Tomas Tan emerged as the highest bidder in the bidding of the 34-hectare property.⁷ The PCGG Committee on Privatization approved the sale and a Notice of Award was issued to the respondent on May 2, 2000. The OP, through former Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora, also approved the sale of the property to the respondent on July 16, 2000.⁸ On August 1, 2000, the" PCGG, representing the Republic of the Philippines, executed a Deed of Sale in the respondent's favor.⁹

On July 25, 2000, then Chairman of the PCGG Committee on Privatization Jorge V. Sarmiento wrote the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) requesting to stop the acquisition of the property under the CARP.¹⁰ It appeared that, on June 16, 1994, a Notice of Coverage had been issued over the 129.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan,¹¹ and that the 34 hectares sold by the PCGG to the respondent had been already identified for CARP coverage and targeted for acquisition in the year 2000.¹²

In an Order¹³ dated July 26, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. granted Chairman Sarmiento's request and lifted the Notice of Coverage on the 129.4227-hectare property. Secretary Morales also ordered to stop the acquisition proceedings on the property.¹⁴

On October 29, 2004,¹⁵ the petitioner filed with the DAR a Petition to Revoke Secretary Morales's July 26, 2000 Order.¹⁶ The DAR denied both the petitioner's petition in an Order dated February 3, 2006, and its subsequent motion for reconsideration in an order dated September 26, 2006.¹⁷ The DAR based its genial oh the ground that the subject property, being government-owned, does not fall as 'private agricultural land' subject to the CARP. The petitioner then appealed to the OP.

In a decision dated April 10, 2007, the OP dismissed the petitioner's appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the DAR Secretary's Order lifting the subject Notice of Coverage.¹⁸ The petitioner moved to reconsider but the OP denied its motion in a resolution dated August 6, 2007.¹⁹ The petitioner then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43²⁰ with the CA.

In a decision²¹ dated July 27, 2010, the CA held that, while the lifting of the subject Notice of Coverage was irregular and erroneous, the petitioner's petition for review must be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not a real party in interest to the case. It held:

We, nonetheless,, find that the Petitioner is not a real party in interest in the case at bench. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. All that has been alleged in the records was that the members of the Petitioner are in actual possession of the Subject Property and that farming activities were conducted thereon. Nothing, however, is stated as to them being beneficiaries, or at least potential beneficiaries, under CARP. This Court cannot be made to guess how a judgment setting aside the Assailed Decision and Assailed Resolution would positively affect the Petitioner simply because it is composed of farmers and fishermen x x x.²² (Citations omitted)

The petitioner moved to reconsider the ruling but the CA denied its motion for reconsideration; hence, the petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari before this Court.

OUR RULING
We DENY the present petition for review on certiorari as we find no reversible error committed by the CA in issuing its assailed decision and resolution.A. The petitioner is not a realparty-in-interest to
question the July 26, 2000 DAR Order; the
Constitutional right to form associations does
not make the petitioner a realparty-in-interest
in this case.Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.²³ The Rules of Court defines a real party in interest as "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."²⁴ To be properly considered as such, the party must have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action,²⁵ NOT a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.²⁶

Republic Act (RA) No. 6657²⁷ in relation with Section 3 of the Rules of Court expressly allows farmers, farmworkers, tillers, cultivators, etc., organizations and associations, 'through their leaders, to represent their members in any proceedings before the DAR. It must be pointed out, however, that the law should be harmonized with the interest requirement in bringing actions and suits. " In other words, while organizations and associations may represent their members before the DAR, these members must have such real, actual; material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action, NOT merely' an expectancy, or a future contingent interest.

Here, the petitioner alleged that it is duly registered with the SEC acting on behalf of its farmers, and fishermen members which allegation gave it the right to represent its members. However, it failed to allege and prove that these members are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of the subject land, or have already been actually awarded portions of it, or have been issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) for which they could validly claim the status of the land's grantees having a real, actual, material interest to question the July 26, 2000 Order of the DAR Secretary lifting the Notice of Coverage. Not being identified and duly registered qualified beneficiaries, these members' interest over the subject land were at most an expectancy that, unfortunately for them, did not ripen to actual award and ownership.

In Fortich v. Corona,²⁸ the Court did not consider as real parties in interest the movants in the case who were merely recommendee farmer-beneficiaries. The movants in Fortich, who claimed to be farmer-beneficiaries of the disputed agricultural land in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, attached to their motion' for intervention a "Master List of Farmer-Beneficiaries" to show that they are real parties in interest in the case. The document merely showed that the movants were those "Found Qualified and Recommended for Approval" as farmer-beneficiaries; thus, the Court held that they were not real parties in interest as their interest over the land in question was a mere expectancy.

The Court was later confronted with the same issue in Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton²⁹ and Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosquera.³⁰

In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan, the Court rejected the petitioners' claim as real parties in interest in the case because, aside from their self-serving 'assertions, the records were devoid of proof that they have been identified and registered as qualified CARP beneficiaries.

Subsequently, in Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya, the Court ruled that being 'mere qualified beneficiaries of the CARP' was not enough to be considered a party in interest The Court, applying Fortich, held that "farmer-beneficiaries, who are not approved awardees of CARP, are not real parties in interest;"³¹ that the fact that there was "x x x certification that CLOAs were already generated in their names, but were not issued because of the present dispute, does not vest any right to the farmers since the fact remains that they have not yet been approved as awardees, actually awarded lands, or granted CLOAs x x x."³²

As earlier pointed out, the petitioner in this case merely alleged that its members, composed of farmers and fishermen, were long-time residents of Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, and were conducting farming activities in the area. No evidence was presented to show that the petitioner's members were approved as awardees, or were granted CLOAs over their respective portions of the disputed property. The petitioner even admits that the case folders of its members were not processed because of the DAR Secretary's July 26, 2000 Order.³³

Thus, notwithstanding its representative capacity, the petitioner and its members are not real parties-in-interest to question the DAR's July 26, 2000 Order.

In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education Culture and Sports, the BARC certified the farmers-individuals who claimed to be permanent and regular farmworkers of the disputed land as potential CARP beneficiaries. Also, the Notice of Coverage issued by the MARO over the disputed land was approved by the DAR Regional Director, and finally by the DAR Secretary. On the DECS's appeal, the CA set aside the DAR Secretary's decision approving the Notice of Coverage.

The Court reversed the CA decision, declaring (on the issue of whether the farmers are qualified beneficiaries of CARP) that the identification of actual and potential beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the DAR Secretary pursuant to Section 15 of RA No. 6657. "Since the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, it behooves the courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of the issue, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the administrative agency. In this case,there was none."³⁴

In contrast with the petitioner's case, its members were not identified and registered by the BARC as the subject land's beneficiaries; and the Notice of Coverage was in fact lifted by the DAR Secretary via the July 26, 2000 Order which Order the OP subsequently affirmed.

As the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP which the Court generally respects, the CA's finding that the subject land is covered by RA No. 6657 (which is not even reflected in its decision's fallo) cannot be validly relied upon by the petitioner. At most, it is a non-binding obiter dictum.

DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994,³⁵ the rules governing the hearing of protests involving the coverage of lands under RA No. 6657 at the time the PCGG Chairman filed the letter request with the DAR Secretary, did not provide any minimum period of time within which the protest or, in this case,;the PCGG letter-request must be decided. As A.O. No. 9, series of 1994 provided, the MARO or PARO shall, once the protest is filed, "comment oh said protest and submit the same to the Regional Director who shall rule on the same."³⁶

In short, the DAR's lifting of the Notice of Coverage issued by the MARO over the subject land one day after the PCGG letter-request was filed was not inconsistent with then existing rules and was, therefore, not irregular.
The constitutional considerations:
provisions governing agrarian
reform program do not entail
automatic grant of lands to
every farmer and farmworker.
Social justice in the land reform program also applies to landowners, not merely to farmers and farmworkers. This is precisely why the law - RA No. 6657 - and the applicable rules provide for the procedure for determining the proper beneficiaries and grantees or awardees of the lands covered or to be covered under the CARP.

These procedures ensure that; only the qualified, identified, and registered farmers and/or farmworkers-beneficiaries acquire the covered lands which they themselves actually till (subject to the landowners retention rights as protected by the law). Conversely, these procedures likewise ensure that landowners do not lose their lands to usurpers and other illegal settlers who wish to take advantage of the agrarian reform program to acquire lands to which they are not entitled.

In this light, for a particular land and its farmers, farmworkers, tillers, etc. to be covered under the CARP, two requisites must concur: first, the land should be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage;³⁷ and second, the beneficiaries must be qualified and registered by the DAR, in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC); copy of the BARC list or registry must be posted³⁸ in accordance with the guidelines established by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).³⁹

In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton, et al.,⁴⁰ the Court pointed out that the "CARL is specific in its requirements for registering qualified beneficiaries." Those who have not been identified and registered as qualified beneficiaries are not real parties-in-interest.

Thus, Section 15 of the CARL explicitly provides:

SEC. 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. - The DAR in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farm workers who are qualified to be beneficiaries with the assistance of the BARC and the DAR shall provide the following data:

a) Names and members of their immediate farm household;
b) Location and area of the land they work;
c) Crops planted; and
d) Their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages received.

A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the barangay shall be posted in the barangay hall, school or other public buildings in the barangay where it shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.

In other words, a claimant may fall under one of the categories of qualified beneficiaries as enumerated under Section 22 of RA No. 6657, but he or she does not automatically become a grantee of the covered land. RA No. 6657 specifically requires that not only must he or she be a qualified beneficiary, he or she must, above everything else, be identified and registered as such in accordance with the procedures and guidelines laid out in the law and applicable rules.

In these lights, the views of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) that the social justice principles of the Constitution guarantees the petitioner automatic standing to question the DAR's July 26, 2000 Order is misplaced. So also, Justice Leonen cannot rely on Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education Culture and Sports that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest because the land has already been subjected to the coverage of the CARP. To emphasize and reiterate, the land must be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage and the beneficiaries must be both qualified and registered by the DAR for the subject land and the petitioner's farmers and fishermen members to be covered by the CARP. There is thus nothing irregular in the procedure undertaken by the DAR Secretary in the lifting of the Notice of Coverage a day after the request was filed by the PCGG Chairman.
The July 26, 2000 DAR Order has already
attained finality is no longer reviewable
by this Court.
Even assuming that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest, which we reiterate it is not, the present petition for review on certiorari still fails because the July 26, 2000 Order of the DAR, which the petitioner ultimately seeks this Court to review, has already attained finality.

The petitioner alleged that they filed with the DAR their petition to revoke the lifting of the Notice of Coverage on the subject 129.4227-hectare property only on October 29, 2004, or more than four (4) years after the Order was issued by Secretary Morales on July 26, 2000. Section 15 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292,⁴¹ the applicable general law at the time the assailed order was issued, provides that:

SECTION 15. Finality of Order.

Back to Home | Back to Main