Title
Secretary of Agrarian Reform vs. Tropical Homes, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 136827
Decision Date
Jul 31, 2001
A joint venture's land reclassified as residential was excluded from CARP coverage; petitioners' procedural lapses and failed intervention claims led to the Supreme Court denying their petitions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136827)

Legal Proceedings Overview

The two consolidated petitions seek to overturn the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 46262, dated August 5, 1998. In G.R. No. 136827, the petitioners contest the appellate court's resolution that denied their motion for reconsideration, while in G.R. No. 136799, they appeal the expunging of their motion for reconsideration from the court's records. The case intricately navigates procedural restrictions against a backdrop of socio-economic concerns tied to agrarian reform.

Background Facts

Carlos I. Aigo was the original owner of the lands in question, which were subject to a Joint Venture Agreement with Tropical Homes, Inc. for development into a residential subdivision called the "Better Living Subdivision." After a series of land title changes due to inheritance and reclassifications of the land's use, Tropical Homes, Inc. was identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform as a landholding subject to CARP.

Key Legal Issues

The Department of Agrarian Reform issued notices for the compulsory acquisition of approximately one million square meters of land from Tropical Homes, which led to legal disputes. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator ruled in favor of Tropical Homes initially, prompting an appeal to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), which later reversed the earlier decision.

Procedural Problems

Alongside procedural disputes in the various lower jurisdictions, significant procedural flaws emerged. The petitioners in G.R. No. 136827 filed their motion for reconsideration beyond the requisite period as established by law, which fundamentally undermined their legal standing. Similar issues afflicted the petitioners in G.R. No. 136799, whose motions to intervene were dismissed due to not meeting the necessary legal criteria.

Timing and Filing Errors

The Court reiterated the strict adherence to procedural timelines, establishing that the petitioners’ claims regarding understaffing and delays were non-legal excuses insufficient to justify their late filings. The Supreme Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals that had not been perfected within the fixed timeframe, leading to the finality of the Court of Appeals' decisions.

Intervention Denied

The application for intervention by several individuals was also deemed inappropri

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.