A.M. No. MTJ-00-1320 - Bangayan vs. Butacan

A dramatic hunger strike was staged on October 9, 1997, by alleged farmer-beneficiaries protesting the conversion of a 144‑hectare land in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon.
The protest attracted nationwide attention, with involvement by church leaders and even presidential candidates.
The protest was aimed at contesting the March 29, 1996 Decision of the Office of the President (OP), which approved the conversion of the property from agricultural to agro-industrial/institutional use.

The property is a 144‑hectare land located in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC).
It is registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14371.
In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine Packing Corporation (now Del Monte Philippines, Inc.) for ten years, with the lease expiring in April 1994.

In October 1991, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire land under compulsory acquisition and fixed its assessed value at P2.38 million.
NQSRMDC resisted the compulsory acquisition by filing a petition before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), which in March 1992 ordered the DAR and associated agencies to desist from further proceedings.
Despite the DARAB order, the DAR Regional Director issued a memorandum in May 1992 mandating summary proceedings to determine just compensation, leading NQSRMDC to file an omnibus motion which was eventually granted by the DARAB.
The Land Bank of the Philippines complied with the DARAB order by cancelling the trust account previously opened in NQSRMDC’s name.

The Provincial Development Council of Bukidnon, headed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed a resolution in January 1993, designating areas along the Bukidnon‑Sayre Highway (including the subject property) as part of the Bukidnon Agro‑Industrial Zones.
The local Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao enacted Ordinance No. 24 in March 1993 to convert the 144‑hectare property from agricultural to industrial/institutional use.
Various government agencies, including the DAR, DENR, DILG, and others, endorsed the conversion proposal on different grounds and through multiple resolutions and certifications.

On March 29, 1996, the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, reversed the DAR Secretary’s order and approved the conversion of the 144‑hectare land, emphasizing its potential for economic development.
The decision noted that the land, contrary to claims, was not fully irrigated and that previous compulsory acquisition processes were nullified by DARAB findings.
The decision also observed that distributing the land to purported claimants did not guarantee the anticipated economic benefits.

Amid mounting pressure—including a hunger strike initiated on October 9, 1997—the Office of the President, through Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, issued the so‑called “aWin‑Wina Resolution” on November 7, 1997.
The Resolution modified the earlier OP Decision: it approved the conversion of only approximately 44 hectares adjacent to the highway for agro‑industrial purposes, while directing that the remaining 100 hectares be distributed to qualified farmer‑beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
This modified resolution also ordered the DAR to undertake a segregation survey, valuation, and titling of the remaining land, and to ensure proper identification of qualified beneficiaries.
Following the issuance of the aWin‑Wina Resolution, petitioners (including NQSRMDC, Governor Fortich, and Mayor Baula) filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction, arguing that the Resolution was a grave abuse of discretion and beyond the jurisdiction of the Office of the President.

Prior to the aWin‑Wina Resolution, NQSRMDC had pursued various legal remedies, including filing a petition for certiorari and a complaint for annulment and cancellation of title, leading to temporary restraining orders and injunctions at different levels of the judiciary.
The DAR also filed motions for reconsideration regarding earlier decisions, but these were denied or deemed untimely, contributing to the controversy over the finality of the March 29, 1996 OP Decision.
Allegations of forum shopping were raised by the respondents, who contended that the petitioners had concurrently initiated multiple legal actions on essentially the same subject matter, although the Court later clarified that the cases rested on distinctly separate issues.

Whether the aWin‑Wina Resolution, which modified the final and executory OP Decision of March 29, 1996, can be legally regarded as effective or if it should be annulled.
Whether the modification of a decision that had already attained finality contravenes principles of administrative finality and res judicata.

Whether the issuance of the aWin‑Wina Resolution by Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona constitutes an abuse of discretion and an act taken beyond his jurisdiction.
Whether reopening the case through a second motion for reconsideration, after finality had been declared, was permissible under the applicable rules and administrative orders.

Whether the failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration before initiating the current petition renders the petition improper or if the alleged patent illegality of the Resolution justifies bypassing such procedural requirements.
Whether the appropriate remedy in this controversy is an original special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, rather than invoking appeal mechanisms under Rule 43.

Whether the separate legal actions filed by the petitioners—including the petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals and the complaint for annulment with the Regional Trial Court—constitute improper forum shopping.
Whether the distinct factual and legal bases of the various actions negate the forum shopping claim.

Whether the alleged farmer‑beneficiaries who filed a motion to intervene have the requisite “real party in interest” status to be allowed participation in the proceedings.
Whether their interest in the land, as derived from recommendations in the aWin‑Wina Resolution, is a mere expectancy or a present, substantial right.