Title
ANIBAN NG NAGKAKAISANG MAMAMAYAN NG HACIENDA DOLORES, INC. vs. FL PROPERTIES AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Case
G.R. No. 224457
Decision Date
Jan 23, 2023
The Supreme Court ruled on petitions regarding exemption orders from CARP, allowing DAR to revoke exemptions, establishing jurisdiction over the landholdings.
agrarian reform
exemption orders
jurisdiction
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224457)

Parties, Landholdings, and Governing Law

FL Properties owned a 456.6653-hectare parcel in Barangays Dolores and Banaba, Porac, Pampanga, while LLL Holdings owned five contiguous and adjacent parcels with an aggregate area of 298.3094 hectares, also in Porac, Pampanga. These lands were collectively referred to as Hacienda Dolores and were the properties subject of the DAR exemption orders and subsequent coverage petitions.

The case was anchored on the DAR’s exclusive original jurisdiction over agrarian reform implementation matters, including determinations of whether lands are to be included or excluded from CARP coverage, as provided in Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657. The DAR’s mandate and delegated powers stemmed from Executive Order No. 129-A and the implementing rules for agrarian law implementation.

Initial CARP Exemption Orders

On October 24, 2005 and March 9, 2006, the DAR Regional Office issued two separate Exemption Orders exempting Hacienda Dolores from CARP coverage on the stated grounds that the lands had slopes of at least 18% and were agriculturally undeveloped. Each order contained a reservation clause allowing withdrawal, cancellation, and/or revocation in the event of misrepresentation of material facts.

The LLL Holdings exemption order was granted on its application and contained directives on disturbance compensation and proof of payment within specified periods, with a similar reservation of authority to revoke for misrepresentation. The FL Properties exemption order likewise granted exemption on the basis of slope and lack of agricultural development, again directing disturbance compensation and reserving the same power to revoke for misrepresentation.

ANIBAN’s Renewed Petitions and the DAR’s Procedural Developments

On June 7, 2011, approximately five years after the exemption orders had become final—March 9, 2006 for FL Properties and April 27, 2006 for LLL Holdings—ANIBAN filed two separate “Renewed Petitions for Revocation/Recall/Withdrawal of Order of Exemption and Issuance of Notice of Coverage” for the exempted landholdings. These were docketed as Administrative Case No. A-9999-03-CV-157-12 and were forwarded to the Office of the DAR Secretary.

On December 5, 2011, the DAR Secretary’s Office treated the filings as petitions for coverage and remanded the records to the Regional Office for appropriate action. The Regional Office then created a task force for inspection, ocular survey, and ground verification. Through an April 30, 2012 Order, the Regional Office dismissed ANIBAN’s amended petitions for coverage.

ANIBAN filed a motion for reconsideration on June 18, 2012 with the Office of the DAR Secretary, which referred it back to the Regional Office. In an August 23, 2012 Order, the Regional Office partially modified the April 30, 2012 dismissal, finding that certain portions were below 18% slope and were agriculturally developed. It accordingly lifted the exemption orders only as to those portions identified by the investigating team as flat or below the 18% threshold and agriculturally developed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657, while maintaining the exemption for other areas.

FL Properties and LLL Holdings sought reconsideration of the August 23, 2012 Order, while ANIBAN filed a notice of appeal. The Regional Office denied reconsideration in an October 9, 2012 Order and elevated the matter to the DAR Central Office. The Court of Appeals later dismissed an earlier petition for improper mode of appeal, holding that the remedy was to appeal within the DAR hierarchy. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration of that dismissal as well.

Office of the President and the Cease and Desist Proceedings

On December 23, 2013, FL Properties and LLL Holdings elevated to the Office of the President the October 16, 2013 Order assailing the refusal to dismiss ANIBAN’s amended petitions and seeking dismissal of ANIBAN’s coverage petitions. The Office of the President denied the petition in an October 1, 2014 Order, remanded records to the DAR, and ordered the continuation of clarificatory hearings for a cease and desist order.

On December 2, 2014, FL Properties and LLL Holdings filed an urgent motion to dismiss ANIBAN’s amended petitions, asserting (a) alleged expiry on June 30, 2014 of DAR’s authority to conduct land acquisition and distribution, and (b) alleged finality of the April 30, 2012 dismissal order due to ANIBAN’s supposed belated motion for reconsideration. They also moved to suspend pending clarificatory hearings. The Undersecretary for Legal Affairs denied the motion to suspend in a February 26, 2015 Interlocutory Order, directing immediate continuation of clarificatory hearings and preliminary factual steps, including ocular inspection and ground survey.

FL Properties and LLL Holdings then filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by DAR for refusing to rule on the urgent motion to dismiss before proceeding with the scheduled inspection and hearings. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Office set schedules for ocular inspection, which were initially deferred pending motions, but were later directed to proceed through subsequent orders and guidance instruments.

The Court of Appeals Rulings

In its October 16, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 139472, the Court of Appeals granted FL Properties and LLL Holdings’s petitions for certiorari and supplemental petition. It dismissed ANIBAN’s amended petitions for coverage and permanently enjoined DAR from continuing Administrative Case No. A-9999-03-CV-157-12 and related acquisition and distribution proceedings concerning Hacienda Dolores.

The Court of Appeals excused FL Properties and LLL Holdings’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration, citing alleged exceptional circumstances, and held that DAR acted with grave abuse of discretion by proceeding with inspections and hearings without first ruling on the pending urgent motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the issue of jurisdiction had to be resolved first. It further held that ANIBAN’s alleged failure to timely file reconsideration caused the two Exemption Orders to become final, and it considered the exemption orders to have attained “double finality,” thus being immutable.

The Court of Appeals denied both ANIBAN’s and DAR’s motions for reconsideration in an April 28, 2016 Resolution, with the latter resolution taking note of representation rules under Rule 65 and DAR’s position that it could be represented through appropriate counsel.

Issues Raised on Review

Before the Supreme Court, ANIBAN challenged the procedural propriety of FL Properties and LLL Holdings’s direct certiorari filing before the Court of Appeals, alleging violations of the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and primary jurisdiction, and asserting that the Court of Appeals improperly reviewed factual matters. ANIBAN also invoked issues of finality and immutability, estoppel, and forum shopping.

DAR contended that the Court of Appeals erred in granting certiorari despite procedural lapses, and it argued that its authority to conduct agrarian implementation proceedings and continuing review of exempted lands meant the exemptions could be revisited when conditions no longer existed. DAR further asserted that the Court of Appeals had no authority to issue injunctive relief against it in connection with agrarian reform implementation due to statutory restrictions under Section 55 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended.

The Supreme Court’s Treatment of DAR’s Participation

The Supreme Court first addressed respondents’ attack on DAR’s standing, holding that DAR had a present and substantial interest as the agency whose mandate was affected by the Court of Appeals decision. It relied on Rule 3, Section 2 of the Rules of Court on real parties in interest, and on the “direct, substantial, and material” requirement. The Court stressed DAR’s exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian reform implementation disputes, including whether lands are covered or exempt. Since the Court of Appeals ruling effectively curtailed DAR’s authority to lift exemption orders and to conduct continuing review of exempted lands, DAR was a real party in interest.

On DAR’s mode of representation, the Court recognized the general role of the Office of the Solicitor General under Administrative Code of 1987, Section 35, but it accepted that DAR could appear through its own legal personnel or representatives when the Office of the Solicitor General declined to take a position deemed necessary. Thus, DAR’s separate petition was not dismissed on the ground of lack of proper representation.

Procedural Defects in the Court of Appeals’ Grant of Certiorari

The Supreme Court ruled that respondents had failed to justify their nonobservance of procedural requirements. It emphasized that procedural rules are essential, and that relaxation requires a clear and plausible showing. While the Court acknowledged that exceptions exist to the need for a prior motion for reconsideration before resorting to certiorari under Rule 65, it found the Court of Appeals’ stated reasons to be unsupported speculation.

The Court held that respondents did not substantiate futility of a motion for reconsideration. It also rejected the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the issue was purely legal in a manner that dispensed with the prerequisite procedure. The Court further held that respondents did not exhaust administrative remedies. It observed that DAR Administrative Order No. 3 (2003) prescribed a specific route: from the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs decision via a motion for reconsideration, then appeal to the Office of the President. It noted that the petitioners had earlier availed of the administrative appeal process when contesting the October 16, 2013 Order before the Office of the President. Yet for the February 26, 2015 Interlocutory Order, they bypassed

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms