Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > March 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 175052 : March 21, 2012] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REPRESENTED BY OIC SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN v. MANUEL DEL ROSARIO. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 March 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 175052 (Department of Agrarian Reform represented by OIC Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman v. Manuel del Rosario).  � Petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) filed before this Court a Rule 45 Petition, which seeks the review of the 28 April 2006 Decision and 11 October 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA Decision affirmed with modification the computation of the just compensation for respondent Manuel del Rosario's property. The computation was made by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Sorsogon in its 8 December 2004 Decision in Agrarian Case No. 2000-6746.^[1] Petitioner argues that the computation was not in accordance with Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988).

The Petition on its face identifies the assailed Decision and Resolution as rendered by the CA in the case entitled "Department of Agrarian Reform, rep. by Secretary Rene C. Villa, Petitioner, vs. Manuel del Rosario, Respondent" and docketed as "CA-G.R. SP No. 89669."^[2] The Petition further alleges that copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution were supposedly attached to the Petition as Annexes "A" and "B," respectively.

However, what were actually attached to the Petition as Annexes "A" and "B" thereof were the CA Decision^[3] and Resolution^[4] in CA-G.R. SP No. 88739 entitled "Department of Agrarian Reform, rep. by Secretary Rene C. Villa, Petitioner, versus Manuel del Rosario, Respondent."

Subsequently, petitioner filed with this Court a Memorandum, in which it alleged this time that it was seeking a review of the CA Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. No. 89669 entitled "Department of Agrarian Reform, rep. by Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman vs. Manuel del Rosario."^[5]

In addition to the two CA case numbers mentioned by petitioner, a third CA case was mentioned, this time, by respondent in his Manifestation dated 4 February 2008. He alleged therein that the issues in the present Petition had already been settled in CA-G.R. SP No. 88693  entitled "Land Bank of the Philippines, Petitioner, versus Manuel del Rosario, Respondent." Respondent attached as Annex "A" of his Manifestation what purports to be a photocopy of an Entry of Judgment of the 26 August 2005 Decision in CA-G.R. SP.No. 88693.^[6] As quoted in the Entry of Judgment, the dispositive portion of the cited CA Decision reads: 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52 of Sorsogon City, dated December 8, 2004 and its order dated February 3, 2005 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the DAR Adjudication Board, Office of the Provincial Adjudicator, upholding the valuation of LBP in the amount of P1,304,845.35 as the just compensation for the 22.5151 hectares of land of the respondent covered by CARP is AFFIRMED and REINSTATED. 

SO ORDERED.

Notably, petitioner neither refuted nor confirmed the allegations in respondent's Manifestation in subsequent pleadings it filed with this Court.

In view of the inconsistencies in the allegations contained in the pleadings of petitioner and the documents attached to the records of this case, the parties are directed to clarify to this Court the correct title and CA-G.R. number of the CA Decision and Resolution being assailed in the present Petition, as well as how the present Petition relates to CA-G.R. SP No. 89669 and CA-G.R. SP No. 88739. Considering further respondent's allegation that the issues in the present Petition have already been settled in CA-G.R. SP No. 88693, the parties are moreover directed to comment on the effect of CA-G.R. SP No. 88693 on the present case in relation to the doctrine of res judicata. cralaw

WHEREFORE, the parties, are directed to COMPLY  with the following within ten (10) days from receipt hereof:

a) Specifically only for petitioner, to CLARIFY  the correct title and CA-G.R. number of the CA Decision and Resolution being assailed in the present Petition;

b) EXPLAIN how the present Petition is related to CA-G.R. SP No. 89669 and CA-G.R. SP No. 88739; and

c) COMMENT on the effect of CA-G.R. SP No. 88693 on the present case in relation to the doctrine of res judicata.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1]  Rollo, p. 11.

^[2] Id. at 8.

^[3] Id. at 23-30.

^[4] Id. at 32-33.

^[5] Id. at 148.

^[6] Id. at 58.