Case Digest (G.R. No. 131457)
Facts:
Hon. Carlos O. Fortich, Hon. Rey B. Baula, NQSR Management and Development Corporation v. Hon. Renato C. Corona, Hon. Ernesto D. Garilao, G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998, the Supreme Court Second Division, Martinez, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerned a 144-hectare tract in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon owned by NQSR Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC). During a ten-year lease the land was planted to pineapple; the lease expired in April 1994. In October 1991 the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the property under compulsory acquisition and issued a Notice of Compulsory Acquisition; NQSRMDC successfully sought a writ of prohibition from the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) in early 1992, which DARAB reaffirmed in October 1992 and directed the Land Bank to desist from processing valuation proceedings.
Local bodies — the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao (Ordinance No. 24 of March 4, 1993), the Bukidnon Provincial Land Use Committee, and the Provincial Development Council — approved an application to convert the property to agro-industrial/institutional use. In November 1994 DAR Secretary Garilao denied the conversion on grounds including that the area was prime agricultural land and already covered by an NCA; his denial was sustained in June 1995. Governor Fortich appealed the DAR denial to the Office of the President (OP).
In CA-G.R. SP No. 37614 NQSRMDC sought certiorari/prohibition against DAR’s order (filed June 29, 1995) and the Court of Appeals directed status quo. On March 29, 1996 the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, reversed DAR and approved the conversion of the entire 144 hectares. DAR filed a motion for reconsideration on May 20, 1996. Meanwhile, during the pendency of these and related proceedings, DAR cancelled NQSRMDC’s title (August 11, 1995) and issued CLOAs to purported farmer-beneficiaries (September 25, 1995); NQSRMDC filed Civil Case No. 2687-97 in the RTC of Malaybalay (April 10, 1997) for annulment and cancellation of title, obtaining TRO (April 30, 1997) and preliminary injunction (May 19, 1997).
On June 23, 1997 the OP denied DAR’s first motion for reconsideration as untimely and declared the March 29, 1996 decision final and executory. DAR filed a second motion for reconsideration. On October 9, 1997 alleged farmer-beneficiaries staged a hunger strike; the President created a Fact-Finding Task Force. On November 7, 1997 the OP, through Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, issued the so-called “Win-Win Resolution,” substantially modifying the March 29, 1996 decision by approving conversion only for ~44 hectares adjacent to the highway and directing DAR to distribute the remaining ~100 hectares to qualified farmer-beneficiaries and to pay just compensation to NQSRMDC for lands to be covered by CARP.
Governor Fortich, Mayor Baula and NQSRMDC filed an original special civil action under Rule 65 (certiorari, prohibition) on December 4, 1997 to nullify and set aside the Win-Win Resolution and to enjoin DAR’s implementation; alleged farmer-beneficiaries moved to int...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was an original special civil action under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the Win-Win Resolution, or should petitioners have pursued a petition for review under Rule 43 to the Court of Appeals?
- Was the failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Win-Win Resolution a fatal procedural lapse?
- Did petitioners’ filings in other tribunals constitute forum-shopping?
- Were the alleged farmer-beneficiaries real parties in interest entitled to intervene?
- Could the Office of the President validly substantially modify its March 29, 1996 decision by issuing the Win-Win Resolution ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)