Title
Fortich vs. Corona
Case
G.R. No. 131457
Decision Date
Nov 17, 1998
Dispute over reclassification of 144-hectare land in Sumilao, Bukidnon, from agricultural to industrial use; SC voided "win-win" Resolution, upheld finality of administrative decisions, and affirmed LGUs' authority to reclassify land without DAR approval.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 240056)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Administrative Proceedings
    • On November 14, 1994, DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao denied the application of NQSR Management and Development Corporation (NQSR-MDC) and Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development Association (BAIDA) to convert 144 hectares in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon from agricultural to agro-industrial use, ordering distribution to qualified landless farmers.
    • NQSR-MDC and BAIDA filed a motion for reconsideration on January 9, 1995, which was denied by Secretary Garilao on June 7, 1995 for lack of merit.
  • Presidential Intervention and Subsequent Orders
    • Governor Carlos O. Fortich petitioned President Ramos to suspend Garilao’s Order and uphold the Sumilao municipal ordinance reclassifying the land to industrial/institutional use.
    • On March 29, 1996, Executive Secretary Ruben T. Torres issued a “win-lose” decision reversing the DAR denial, approving the conversion and endorsing a comprehensive agro-industrial project.
    • DAR’s motion for reconsideration of the Torres decision was filed late and denied by Executive Secretary Torres in an order dated June 23, 1997, upon declaration that the March 29, 1996 decision had become final and executory.
    • Despite finality, a second motion for reconsideration was entertained; Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona issued the “win-win” Resolution on November 7, 1997, which modified the March 29, 1996 decision by allocating 100 hectares to farmer-beneficiaries and 44 hectares for industrial use.
  • Supreme Court Proceedings
    • Petitioners (Hon. Carlos O. Fortich, Hon. Rey B. Baula, and NQSR-MDC) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the November 7, 1997 “win-win” Resolution.
    • On April 24, 1998, the Supreme Court Second Division nullified the “win-win” Resolution as void for excess of jurisdiction and denied intervenors’ motion to intervene.
    • Respondents (Deputy Executive Secretary Corona and DAR Secretary Garilao) and applicants for intervention filed separate motions for reconsideration, challenging the April 24, 1998 Decision.

Issues:

  • Is the November 7, 1997 “win-win” Resolution a void act in excess of jurisdiction for modifying a final and executory decision?
  • Should petitioners have filed a petition for review under Rule 43 instead of certiorari under Rule 65?
  • Is filing a motion for reconsideration a condition sine qua non before resorting to certiorari under Rule 65?
  • Are petitioners guilty of forum-shopping in their selection of remedies?
  • Do the seasonal farmworkers who sought to intervene possess a “certain right” or “legal interest” to justify intervention?
  • Is the power of local government units to reclassify agricultural lands subject to DAR approval?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.