G.R. No. 136827 - Secretary of Agrarian Reform vs. Tropical Homes, Inc.

Two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari were filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging separate decisions of the Court of Appeals.
The petitions involve the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, its regional and provincial officials, as well as various farmers‐beneficiaries and other private respondents versus Tropical Homes, Inc.
One petition (G.R. No. 136827) sought the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision dated August 5, 1998, and the denial of a motion for reconsideration filed beyond the reglementary period.
The other petition (G.R. No. 136799) aimed to set aside a resolution ordering the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (filed as an extension motion) to be expunged from the court record.

Carlos Iaigo, the former registered owner, owned several parcels of land in Davao City covered by specific Transfer Certificate of Titles (TCT Nos. 30843–30846), totaling approximately 1,532,415 square meters.
On July 17, 1971, Iaigo and Tropical Homes, Inc. entered into a Joint Venture Agreement for developing the property into the “Better Living Subdivision.”
As the property was within an agricultural zone, Tropical Homes sought reclassification from agricultural to residential, which was granted by the City Council of Davao in Resolution No. 558 dated October 2, 1972.
Following the reclassification and a subsequent extra-judicial partition among the heirs of the late Carlos Iaigo, original TCTs were cancelled and replaced by new titles issued in the name of Tropical Homes.

On August 29, 1990, the DAR notified Tropical Homes that the property would be covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
On April 25, 1991, DAR issued Notices of Acquisition covering approximately 1,037,272 square meters, subjecting the land to compulsory acquisition.
Subsequent actions included the cancellation of titles related to the acquired area and the issuance of a new title in the name of the Republic, followed by the distribution of the land to identified farmer-beneficiaries through a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA).

Tropical Homes, Inc. filed a petition with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) seeking cancellation of the CLOA on the ground that the land was outside the scope of CARP.
A Motion for Intervention was later filed by a group claiming to be bona fide residents who alleged exclusion from the CLOA, which PARAD denied, stating that their rights could be pursued in a separate proceeding.
The petitioners, dissatisfied with the PARAD ruling, filed a Notice of Appeal with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) and later obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) and subsequent writs for preliminary injunctions.
The Court of Appeals rendered its decision in favor of Tropical Homes on August 5, 1998.
Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration; one was denied due to being filed beyond the fifteen (15) day reglementary period, and the other (as an extension motion) was ordered expunged from the rollo, prompting the present petitions.

Whether the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, which was filed outside the prescribed fifteen (15) day reglementary period, can be accepted or given due course.
Whether the motion for extension of time to file the reconsideration could toll or extend the deadline for filing such a motion under existing jurisprudence.

Whether petitioners-appellants, by filing a Motion for Intervention, demonstrated a substantial and direct right or interest in being part of the proceedings.
Whether the denial of the intervention by PARAD should be revisited by higher courts, considering the separate and distinct nature of the interests involved.

Whether the reclassification of the property from agricultural to residential by the City Council of Davao validly removed the property from the coverage of CARP, thereby affecting the legality of the CLOA.
Whether the issue of reclassification and subsequent agrarian reform proceedings should be adjudicated in the present petition or through separate legal processes.