Case Digest (G.R. No. 146061)
Facts:
Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. James T. Litton, et al., G.R. No. 146061, August 31, 2006, First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan challenged resolutions of the Office of the President that affected respondents James T. Litton, Emma L. Laperal, Gloria L. Del Rio, George T. Litton, Jr., Grace L. Gallego and the heirs of Edward T. Litton concerning the conversion of a large tract of titled land in Barangay Sumalo, Hermosa, Bataan.On August 16, 1989 respondents filed a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for three contiguous parcels totaling about 213.6189 hectares (TCT Nos. 80135–80137). DAR’s Region III office gave notice on August 26, 1991 that it would acquire only a portion (42.4034 hectares); the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer later proposed acquisition of 45.3789 hectares at P1.17 per square meter (total P529,414.68). Respondents subsequently withdrew the VOS and applied for conversion of the entire property from agricultural to industrial/commercial/residential uses, citing R.A. No. 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992), local reclassification ordinances, a DA finding that the land was not economically suited for agriculture, and lack of tenurial relationships.
DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao denied the conversion application on May 14, 1996, and denied reconsideration on September 18, 1996. Respondents appealed to the Office of the President (O.P. Case No. 97‑A‑7020). While the appeal was pending, the Sangguniang Bayan of Hermosa reclassified the area to industrial. On June 16, 1997 Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres issued a Resolution setting aside DAR’s orders and approving conversion of the entire 213.6819 hectares. Petitioners (Sumalo Homeowners Association), claiming to be qualified agrarian beneficiaries/occupants, moved for reconsideration before the Office of the President and sought to overturn the Torres Resolution.
On September 4, 1998 Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora issued a Resolution giving due course to petitioners’ motion and reversing the Torres Resolution, thereby reinstating DAR’s denial. Respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, which on June 16, 2000 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 52014, penned by Valdez, Jr., with two concurring justices) reversed the Zamora Reso...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the petitioners real parties in interest with standing to assail the Torres Resolution?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly rely on Fortich v. Corona in annulling the Zamora Resolution and reinstating the Tor...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)