G.R. No. 196028, April 18, 2016 - SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO NASWE, INC. [SAMMANA], REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO A. COMMENDADOR, PRESIDENT, Petitioner, v. TOMAS TAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 196028, April 18, 2016 - SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO NASWE, INC. [SAMMANA], REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO A. COMMENDADOR, PRESIDENT, Petitioner, v. TOMAS TAN, Respondent.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The petitioner Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio Naswe, Inc. (petitioner) is an association of farmers and fishermen residing at Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan.4 The petitioner claimed that its members "have resided in the area for several years doing farming activities" from which they "derive their income for their daily sustenance."5
On April 4, 1995, the PCGG published in the newspaper an Invitation to Bid for the sale of its assets, which included 34 hectares of a 129.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, previously owned by Anchor Estate Corporation.6 The PCGG sequestered the properties of Anchor Estate Corporation after it was identified to be a dummy corporation of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Respondent Tomas Tan emerged as the highest bidder in the bidding of the 34-hectare property.7 The PCGG Committee on Privatization approved the sale and a Notice of Award was issued to the respondent on May 2, 2000. The OP, through former Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora, also approved the sale of the property to the respondent on July 16, 2000.8 On August 1, 2000, the" PCGG, representing the Republic of the Philippines, executed a Deed of Sale in the respondent's favor.9
On July 25, 2000, then Chairman of the PCGG Committee on Privatization Jorge V. Sarmiento wrote the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) requesting to stop the acquisition of the property under the CARP.10 It appeared that, on June 16, 1994, a Notice of Coverage had been issued over the 129.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan,11 and that the 34 hectares sold by the PCGG to the respondent had been already identified for CARP coverage and targeted for acquisition in the year 2000.12
In an Order13 dated July 26, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. granted Chairman Sarmiento's request and lifted the Notice of Coverage on the 129.4227-hectare property. Secretary Morales also ordered to stop the acquisition proceedings on the property.14
On October 29, 2004,15 the petitioner filed with the DAR a Petition to Revoke Secretary Morales's July 26, 2000 Order.16 The DAR denied both the petitioner's petition in an Order dated February 3, 2006, and its subsequent motion for reconsideration in an order dated September 26, 2006.17 The DAR based its genial oh the ground that the subject property, being government-owned, does not fall as 'private agricultural land' subject to the CARP. The petitioner then appealed to the OP.
In a decision dated April 10, 2007, the OP dismissed the petitioner's appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the DAR Secretary's Order lifting the subject Notice of Coverage.18 The petitioner moved to reconsider but the OP denied its motion in a resolution dated August 6, 2007.19 The petitioner then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 4320 with the CA.
In a decision21 dated July 27, 2010, the CA held that, while the lifting of the subject Notice of Coverage was irregular and erroneous, the petitioner's petition for review must be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not a real party in interest to the case. It held:
The petitioner moved to reconsider the ruling but the CA denied its motion for reconsideration; hence, the petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari before this Court.
OUR RULING
We DENY the present petition for review on certiorari as we find no reversible error committed by the CA in issuing its assailed decision and resolution.A. The petitioner is not a realparty-in-interest to
question the July 26, 2000 DAR Order; the
Constitutional right to form associations does
not make the petitioner a realparty-in-interest
in this case.Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.23 The Rules of Court defines a real party in interest as "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."24 To be properly considered as such, the party must have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action,25 NOT a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.26
Republic Act (RA) No. 665727 in relation with Section 3 of the Rules of Court expressly allows farmers, farmworkers, tillers, cultivators, etc., organizations and associations, 'through their leaders, to represent their members in any proceedings before the DAR. It must be pointed out, however, that the law should be harmonized with the interest requirement in bringing actions and suits. " In other words, while organizations and associations may represent their members before the DAR, these members must have such real, actual; material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action, NOT merely' an expectancy, or a future contingent interest.
Here, the petitioner alleged that it is duly registered with the SEC acting on behalf of its farmers, and fishermen members which allegation gave it the right to represent its members. However, it failed to allege and prove that these members are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of the subject land, or have already been actually awarded portions of it, or have been issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) for which they could validly claim the status of the land's grantees having a real, actual, material interest to question the July 26, 2000 Order of the DAR Secretary lifting the Notice of Coverage. Not being identified and duly registered qualified beneficiaries, these members' interest over the subject land were at most an expectancy that, unfortunately for them, did not ripen to actual award and ownership.
In Fortich v. Corona,28 the Court did not consider as real parties in interest the movants in the case who were merely recommendee farmer-beneficiaries. The movants in Fortich, who claimed to be farmer-beneficiaries of the disputed agricultural land in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, attached to their motion' for intervention a "Master List of Farmer-Beneficiaries" to show that they are real parties in interest in the case. The document merely showed that the movants were those "Found Qualified and Recommended for Approval" as farmer-beneficiaries; thus, the Court held that they were not real parties in interest as their interest over the land in question was a mere expectancy.
The Court was later confronted with the same issue in Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton29 and Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosquera.30
In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan, the Court rejected the petitioners' claim as real parties in interest in the case because, aside from their self-serving 'assertions, the records were devoid of proof that they have been identified and registered as qualified CARP beneficiaries.
Subsequently, in Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya, the Court ruled that being 'mere qualified beneficiaries of the CARP' was not enough to be considered a party in interest The Court, applying Fortich, held that "farmer-beneficiaries, who are not approved awardees of CARP, are not real parties in interest;"31 that the fact that there was "x x x certification that CLOAs were already generated in their names, but were not issued because of the present dispute, does not vest any right to the farmers since the fact remains that they have not yet been approved as awardees, actually awarded lands, or granted CLOAs x x x."32
As earlier pointed out, the petitioner in this case merely alleged that its members, composed of farmers and fishermen, were long-time residents of Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, and were conducting farming activities in the area. No evidence was presented to show that the petitioner's members were approved as awardees, or were granted CLOAs over their respective portions of the disputed property. The petitioner even admits that the case folders of its members were not processed because of the DAR Secretary's July 26, 2000 Order.33
Thus, notwithstanding its representative capacity, the petitioner and its members are not real parties-in-interest to question the DAR's July 26, 2000 Order.
In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education Culture and Sports, the BARC certified the farmers-individuals who claimed to be permanent and regular farmworkers of the disputed land as potential CARP beneficiaries. Also, the Notice of Coverage issued by the MARO over the disputed land was approved by the DAR Regional Director, and finally by the DAR Secretary. On the DECS's appeal, the CA set aside the DAR Secretary's decision approving the Notice of Coverage.
The Court reversed the CA decision, declaring (on the issue of whether the farmers are qualified beneficiaries of CARP) that the identification of actual and potential beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the DAR Secretary pursuant to Section 15 of RA No. 6657. "Since the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, it behooves the courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of the issue, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the administrative agency. In this case,there was none."34
In contrast with the petitioner's case, its members were not identified and registered by the BARC as the subject land's beneficiaries; and the Notice of Coverage was in fact lifted by the DAR Secretary via the July 26, 2000 Order which Order the OP subsequently affirmed.
As the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP which the Court generally respects, the CA's finding that the subject land is covered by RA No. 6657 (which is not even reflected in its decision's fallo) cannot be validly relied upon by the petitioner. At most, it is a non-binding obiter dictum.
DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994,35 the rules governing the hearing of protests involving the coverage of lands under RA No. 6657 at the time the PCGG Chairman filed the letter request with the DAR Secretary, did not provide any minimum period of time within which the protest or, in this case,;the PCGG letter-request must be decided. As A.O. No. 9, series of 1994 provided, the MARO or PARO shall, once the protest is filed, "comment oh said protest and submit the same to the Regional Director who shall rule on the same."36
In short, the DAR's lifting of the Notice of Coverage issued by the MARO over the subject land one day after the PCGG letter-request was filed was not inconsistent with then existing rules and was, therefore, not irregular.
The constitutional considerations:
provisions governing agrarian
reform program do not entail
automatic grant of lands to
every farmer and farmworker.
Social justice in the land reform program also applies to landowners, not merely to farmers and farmworkers. This is precisely why the law - RA No. 6657 - and the applicable rules provide for the procedure for determining the proper beneficiaries and grantees or awardees of the lands covered or to be covered under the CARP.
These procedures ensure that; only the qualified, identified, and registered farmers and/or farmworkers-beneficiaries acquire the covered lands which they themselves actually till (subject to the landowners retention rights as protected by the law). Conversely, these procedures likewise ensure that landowners do not lose their lands to usurpers and other illegal settlers who wish to take advantage of the agrarian reform program to acquire lands to which they are not entitled.
In this light, for a particular land and its farmers, farmworkers, tillers, etc. to be covered under the CARP, two requisites must concur: first, the land should be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage;37 and second, the beneficiaries must be qualified and registered by the DAR, in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC); copy of the BARC list or registry must be posted38 in accordance with the guidelines established by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).39
In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton, et al.,40 the Court pointed out that the "CARL is specific in its requirements for registering qualified beneficiaries." Those who have not been identified and registered as qualified beneficiaries are not real parties-in-interest.
Thus, Section 15 of the CARL explicitly provides:
In other words, a claimant may fall under one of the categories of qualified beneficiaries as enumerated under Section 22 of RA No. 6657, but he or she does not automatically become a grantee of the covered land. RA No. 6657 specifically requires that not only must he or she be a qualified beneficiary, he or she must, above everything else, be identified and registered as such in accordance with the procedures and guidelines laid out in the law and applicable rules.
In these lights, the views of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) that the social justice principles of the Constitution guarantees the petitioner automatic standing to question the DAR's July 26, 2000 Order is misplaced. So also, Justice Leonen cannot rely on Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education Culture and Sports that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest because the land has already been subjected to the coverage of the CARP. To emphasize and reiterate, the land must be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage and the beneficiaries must be both qualified and registered by the DAR for the subject land and the petitioner's farmers and fishermen members to be covered by the CARP. There is thus nothing irregular in the procedure undertaken by the DAR Secretary in the lifting of the Notice of Coverage a day after the request was filed by the PCGG Chairman.
The July 26, 2000 DAR Order has already
attained finality is no longer reviewable
by this Court.
Even assuming that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest, which we reiterate it is not, the present petition for review on certiorari still fails because the July 26, 2000 Order of the DAR, which the petitioner ultimately seeks this Court to review, has already attained finality.
The petitioner alleged that they filed with the DAR their petition to revoke the lifting of the Notice of Coverage on the subject 129.4227-hectare property only on October 29, 2004, or more than four (4) years after the Order was issued by Secretary Morales on July 26, 2000. Section 15 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292,41 the applicable general law at the time the assailed order was issued, provides that:
Without any motion for reconsideration or appeal filed from the assailed July 26, 2000 order, the order lapsed to finality and can no longer be reviewed.
This Court has held that administrative decisions must end sometime, as fully as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial controversies.42 In the absence of any showing that the subject final order was rendered without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, no court, not even this Court, has the power to revive, review, change, or alter a final and executory judgment or decision.chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petitioner's petition for review on certiorari. The decision dated July 27, 2010 and resolution dated February 10, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100926 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
DISSENTING OPINION
The ponencia affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision dismissing the Petition on the ground that petitioner was not a real party-in-interest.1 The ponencia discussed that "the party must have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action."2 Petitioner is not the real party-in-interest to file an action questioning the order lifting the Notice of Coverage over the 129.4227-hectare land3 in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan since "it failed to allege and prove that [its] members are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of the subject land, or have already been actually awarded portions of it, or have been issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs)[.]"4 The ponencia noted that "petitioner even admits that the case folders of its members were not processed because of [Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr.'s] July 26, 2000 Order."5
Associations have legal personality to represent their members in actions before our courts when the outcome of these actions affects the members' vital interests.6 This holding has been reiterated in our jurisprudence.
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Health Secretary Duque III7 involves the constitutionality of the Milk Code's8 implementing rules and regulations.9 In resolving the preliminary issue of whether petitioner association "representing its members that are manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes"10 is a real party-in-interest, this Court adopted the following discussion from Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals:11
This Court held that the "petitioner, whose legal identity is deemed fused with its members, should be considered as a real party-in-interest which stands to be benefited or injured by any judgment in the present action."13 This Court considered the petitioner's amended articles of incorporation in that it was formed "to represent directly or through approved representatives the pharmaceutical and health care industry before the Philippine Government and any of its agencies, the medical professions and the general public."14
Executive Secretary involves the constitutionality15 of certain provisions of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.16 This Court took cognizance of Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc.'s petition on behalf of its recruitment agencies members and discussed that "[it] is but the medium through which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their voices and the redress of their grievances."17 This Court noted that the 11 licensed and registered recruitment agencies members approved separate resolutions expressly authorizing Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. to file the petition on their behalf.18
No less than our Constitution guarantees "[t]he right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law[.]"19 It is easy to discern the convenience and benefits in forming and joining associations. Labor organizations, for example, "[exist] in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment."20 Those similarly situated can band together to find solutions for their common concerns based on shared experience. An association can also provide a layer of protection for individual members who have complaints and grievances against their employers or landowners, but fear being singled out, intimidated, or ignored if they raise their issues alone.
II
One of the key changes introduced in the 1987 Constitution was Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights. Article XIII includes provisions on the role and rights of people's organizations21 defined as "bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure."22 Section 15 mandates the state to "respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means."
Article XIII also includes provisions that specifically focus on agrarian reform. Section 4 provides:
Section 5 also mandates the state to "recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services." Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,23 pursuant to these provisions.24
Farmers should not be dissuaded from availing themselves of their rights under the Constitution and agrarian reform laws. They can organize and join associations that can represent their interests not only before executive bodies, but even before our courts.
III
The Rules of Court requires that "[u]nless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest[,]"25 or "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."26
Samahang Magsasakang 53 Hektarya v. Masquera27 discussed in the ponencia, involves the exemption of a 53-hectare land from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage.28 This Court harmonized Republic Act No. 665729 with the Rules of Court provisions30 governing real parties-in-interest in that organizations, represented by their authorized representatives, may bring actions before the courts:
This Court held that the Samahan was not the real party-in-interest since its members "have not yet been approved as awardees, actually awarded lands, or granted CLOAs."32 It cited Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona33 in that mere recommendee farmer-beneficiaries are not real parties-in-interest.34
The ponencia also discussed Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton35 in that those who claim to be qualified beneficiaries, by mere assertion of "clearing, tilling and planting the land under claim of ownership,"36 cannot be considered as real parties-in-interest to question a parcel of land's conversion or consequent coverage or non-coverage under the CARP.37
Associations filing suits must comply with certain standards under relevant laws, jurisprudence, and rules. An association must establish that its members are the real parties-in-interest, and that it has the authority to represent its members pursuant to its Articles of Incorporation or by board resolution.
Petitioner alleged in its Motion for Extension of Time to file Petition that it "is a farmer Association duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, representing its members who are actual tillers and cultivators of subject landholding located in Brgy. Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan."38 This matter was never contested by respondent Tomas Tan, who failed to file a comment despite several show cause resolutions issued by this Court requiring compliance.39 This Court then required the Office of the Solicitor General to file a comment.40 The Office of the Solicitor General never questioned petitioner's allegation of its registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission.41 Instead, it argues that petitioner is not the real party-in-interest since its members have not been declared as qualified CARP beneficiaries; thus, their interest in the land grounds on a mere hope, insufficient for claiming an enforceable right before a court of law.42
We apply the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law always within its context of social justice, to further its objective of giving the highest consideration for the welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers.43
In this case, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Dominador M. Delda issued a Notice of Coverage over the land in 1994,44 even before the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) published an Invitation to Bid its Assets, which included the land in April 4, 1995.45 Respondent won as highest bidder and was issued a Notice of Award on May 2, 2000.46 The Office of the President gave its approval, and by August 1, 2000, the PCGG executed a Deed of Sale with respondent.47
Meanwhile, ocular inspection was conducted sometime in late 1999, and the land was targeted for CARP acquisition for year 2000.48 Jorge V. Sarmiento (Commissioner Sarmiento), Chairperson of the PCGG Committee on Privatization, then wrote a letter dated July 25, 2000 requesting the Department of Agrarian Reform to stop the acquisition of the land.49 The following day, Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. granted the request in the Order dated July 26, 2000, and lifted the Notice of Coverage.50 On October 29, 2004, petitioner filed a Petition to Revoke the July 26, 2000 Order, but this, its motion for reconsideration, and its appeal to the Office of the President51 were denied.
The Court of Appeals found no indication that the property is not agricultural land and held that the property is covered under Republic Act No. 6657.52 It found that the lifting of the Notice of Coverage merely a day after the request of Commissioner Sarmiento "seem[ed] irregular in view of [Department of Agrarian Reform]'s own rules on protests involving the coverage under CARP";53 thus, the July 26, 2000 Order cannot bind petitioner.54 Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition upon finding that petitioner is not a real party-in-interest.55
In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports,56 this Court held that pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6657, "the identification of actual and potential beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the Secretary of Agrarian Reform[.]"57 In that case, the Barangay Agrarian Reform, Committee found that the farmers "were potential CARP beneficiaries of the subject properties"58 and that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office issued a Notice of Coverage over the land.59 Thus:
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 196028, April 18, 2016
SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO NASWE, INC. [SAMMANA], REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO A. COMMENDADOR, PRESIDENT, Petitioner, v. TOMAS TAN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the July 27, 20l0 decision2 and February 10, 2011 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100926. The CA dismissed the petitioner's appeal from the decision of the Office of the President (OP), which affirmed the lifting of the Notice of Coverage from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) issued over land sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG).
The petitioner Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio Naswe, Inc. (petitioner) is an association of farmers and fishermen residing at Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan.4 The petitioner claimed that its members "have resided in the area for several years doing farming activities" from which they "derive their income for their daily sustenance."5
On April 4, 1995, the PCGG published in the newspaper an Invitation to Bid for the sale of its assets, which included 34 hectares of a 129.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, previously owned by Anchor Estate Corporation.6 The PCGG sequestered the properties of Anchor Estate Corporation after it was identified to be a dummy corporation of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Respondent Tomas Tan emerged as the highest bidder in the bidding of the 34-hectare property.7 The PCGG Committee on Privatization approved the sale and a Notice of Award was issued to the respondent on May 2, 2000. The OP, through former Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora, also approved the sale of the property to the respondent on July 16, 2000.8 On August 1, 2000, the" PCGG, representing the Republic of the Philippines, executed a Deed of Sale in the respondent's favor.9
On July 25, 2000, then Chairman of the PCGG Committee on Privatization Jorge V. Sarmiento wrote the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) requesting to stop the acquisition of the property under the CARP.10 It appeared that, on June 16, 1994, a Notice of Coverage had been issued over the 129.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan,11 and that the 34 hectares sold by the PCGG to the respondent had been already identified for CARP coverage and targeted for acquisition in the year 2000.12
In an Order13 dated July 26, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. granted Chairman Sarmiento's request and lifted the Notice of Coverage on the 129.4227-hectare property. Secretary Morales also ordered to stop the acquisition proceedings on the property.14
On October 29, 2004,15 the petitioner filed with the DAR a Petition to Revoke Secretary Morales's July 26, 2000 Order.16 The DAR denied both the petitioner's petition in an Order dated February 3, 2006, and its subsequent motion for reconsideration in an order dated September 26, 2006.17 The DAR based its genial oh the ground that the subject property, being government-owned, does not fall as 'private agricultural land' subject to the CARP. The petitioner then appealed to the OP.
In a decision dated April 10, 2007, the OP dismissed the petitioner's appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the DAR Secretary's Order lifting the subject Notice of Coverage.18 The petitioner moved to reconsider but the OP denied its motion in a resolution dated August 6, 2007.19 The petitioner then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 4320 with the CA.
In a decision21 dated July 27, 2010, the CA held that, while the lifting of the subject Notice of Coverage was irregular and erroneous, the petitioner's petition for review must be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not a real party in interest to the case. It held:
We, nonetheless,, find that the Petitioner is not a real party in interest in the case at bench. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. All that has been alleged in the records was that the members of the Petitioner are in actual possession of the Subject Property and that farming activities were conducted thereon. Nothing, however, is stated as to them being beneficiaries, or at least potential beneficiaries, under CARP. This Court cannot be made to guess how a judgment setting aside the Assailed Decision and Assailed Resolution would positively affect the Petitioner simply because it is composed of farmers and fishermen x x x.22 (Citations omitted)
The petitioner moved to reconsider the ruling but the CA denied its motion for reconsideration; hence, the petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari before this Court.
We DENY the present petition for review on certiorari as we find no reversible error committed by the CA in issuing its assailed decision and resolution.A. The petitioner is not a realparty-in-interest to
question the July 26, 2000 DAR Order; the
Constitutional right to form associations does
not make the petitioner a realparty-in-interest
in this case.Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.23 The Rules of Court defines a real party in interest as "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."24 To be properly considered as such, the party must have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action,25 NOT a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.26
Republic Act (RA) No. 665727 in relation with Section 3 of the Rules of Court expressly allows farmers, farmworkers, tillers, cultivators, etc., organizations and associations, 'through their leaders, to represent their members in any proceedings before the DAR. It must be pointed out, however, that the law should be harmonized with the interest requirement in bringing actions and suits. " In other words, while organizations and associations may represent their members before the DAR, these members must have such real, actual; material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action, NOT merely' an expectancy, or a future contingent interest.
Here, the petitioner alleged that it is duly registered with the SEC acting on behalf of its farmers, and fishermen members which allegation gave it the right to represent its members. However, it failed to allege and prove that these members are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of the subject land, or have already been actually awarded portions of it, or have been issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) for which they could validly claim the status of the land's grantees having a real, actual, material interest to question the July 26, 2000 Order of the DAR Secretary lifting the Notice of Coverage. Not being identified and duly registered qualified beneficiaries, these members' interest over the subject land were at most an expectancy that, unfortunately for them, did not ripen to actual award and ownership.
In Fortich v. Corona,28 the Court did not consider as real parties in interest the movants in the case who were merely recommendee farmer-beneficiaries. The movants in Fortich, who claimed to be farmer-beneficiaries of the disputed agricultural land in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, attached to their motion' for intervention a "Master List of Farmer-Beneficiaries" to show that they are real parties in interest in the case. The document merely showed that the movants were those "Found Qualified and Recommended for Approval" as farmer-beneficiaries; thus, the Court held that they were not real parties in interest as their interest over the land in question was a mere expectancy.
The Court was later confronted with the same issue in Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton29 and Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosquera.30
In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan, the Court rejected the petitioners' claim as real parties in interest in the case because, aside from their self-serving 'assertions, the records were devoid of proof that they have been identified and registered as qualified CARP beneficiaries.
Subsequently, in Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya, the Court ruled that being 'mere qualified beneficiaries of the CARP' was not enough to be considered a party in interest The Court, applying Fortich, held that "farmer-beneficiaries, who are not approved awardees of CARP, are not real parties in interest;"31 that the fact that there was "x x x certification that CLOAs were already generated in their names, but were not issued because of the present dispute, does not vest any right to the farmers since the fact remains that they have not yet been approved as awardees, actually awarded lands, or granted CLOAs x x x."32
As earlier pointed out, the petitioner in this case merely alleged that its members, composed of farmers and fishermen, were long-time residents of Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, and were conducting farming activities in the area. No evidence was presented to show that the petitioner's members were approved as awardees, or were granted CLOAs over their respective portions of the disputed property. The petitioner even admits that the case folders of its members were not processed because of the DAR Secretary's July 26, 2000 Order.33
Thus, notwithstanding its representative capacity, the petitioner and its members are not real parties-in-interest to question the DAR's July 26, 2000 Order.
In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education Culture and Sports, the BARC certified the farmers-individuals who claimed to be permanent and regular farmworkers of the disputed land as potential CARP beneficiaries. Also, the Notice of Coverage issued by the MARO over the disputed land was approved by the DAR Regional Director, and finally by the DAR Secretary. On the DECS's appeal, the CA set aside the DAR Secretary's decision approving the Notice of Coverage.
The Court reversed the CA decision, declaring (on the issue of whether the farmers are qualified beneficiaries of CARP) that the identification of actual and potential beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the DAR Secretary pursuant to Section 15 of RA No. 6657. "Since the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, it behooves the courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of the issue, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the administrative agency. In this case,there was none."34
In contrast with the petitioner's case, its members were not identified and registered by the BARC as the subject land's beneficiaries; and the Notice of Coverage was in fact lifted by the DAR Secretary via the July 26, 2000 Order which Order the OP subsequently affirmed.
As the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP which the Court generally respects, the CA's finding that the subject land is covered by RA No. 6657 (which is not even reflected in its decision's fallo) cannot be validly relied upon by the petitioner. At most, it is a non-binding obiter dictum.
DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994,35 the rules governing the hearing of protests involving the coverage of lands under RA No. 6657 at the time the PCGG Chairman filed the letter request with the DAR Secretary, did not provide any minimum period of time within which the protest or, in this case,;the PCGG letter-request must be decided. As A.O. No. 9, series of 1994 provided, the MARO or PARO shall, once the protest is filed, "comment oh said protest and submit the same to the Regional Director who shall rule on the same."36
In short, the DAR's lifting of the Notice of Coverage issued by the MARO over the subject land one day after the PCGG letter-request was filed was not inconsistent with then existing rules and was, therefore, not irregular.
The constitutional considerations:
provisions governing agrarian
reform program do not entail
automatic grant of lands to
every farmer and farmworker.
Social justice in the land reform program also applies to landowners, not merely to farmers and farmworkers. This is precisely why the law - RA No. 6657 - and the applicable rules provide for the procedure for determining the proper beneficiaries and grantees or awardees of the lands covered or to be covered under the CARP.
These procedures ensure that; only the qualified, identified, and registered farmers and/or farmworkers-beneficiaries acquire the covered lands which they themselves actually till (subject to the landowners retention rights as protected by the law). Conversely, these procedures likewise ensure that landowners do not lose their lands to usurpers and other illegal settlers who wish to take advantage of the agrarian reform program to acquire lands to which they are not entitled.
In this light, for a particular land and its farmers, farmworkers, tillers, etc. to be covered under the CARP, two requisites must concur: first, the land should be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage;37 and second, the beneficiaries must be qualified and registered by the DAR, in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC); copy of the BARC list or registry must be posted38 in accordance with the guidelines established by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).39
In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton, et al.,40 the Court pointed out that the "CARL is specific in its requirements for registering qualified beneficiaries." Those who have not been identified and registered as qualified beneficiaries are not real parties-in-interest.
Thus, Section 15 of the CARL explicitly provides:
SEC. 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. - The DAR in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farm workers who are qualified to be beneficiaries with the assistance of the BARC and the DAR shall provide the following data:
a) Names and members of their immediate farm household;
b) Location and area of the land they work;
c) Crops planted; and
d) Their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages received.
A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the barangay shall be posted in the barangay hall, school or other public buildings in the barangay where it shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.
In other words, a claimant may fall under one of the categories of qualified beneficiaries as enumerated under Section 22 of RA No. 6657, but he or she does not automatically become a grantee of the covered land. RA No. 6657 specifically requires that not only must he or she be a qualified beneficiary, he or she must, above everything else, be identified and registered as such in accordance with the procedures and guidelines laid out in the law and applicable rules.
In these lights, the views of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) that the social justice principles of the Constitution guarantees the petitioner automatic standing to question the DAR's July 26, 2000 Order is misplaced. So also, Justice Leonen cannot rely on Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education Culture and Sports that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest because the land has already been subjected to the coverage of the CARP. To emphasize and reiterate, the land must be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage and the beneficiaries must be both qualified and registered by the DAR for the subject land and the petitioner's farmers and fishermen members to be covered by the CARP. There is thus nothing irregular in the procedure undertaken by the DAR Secretary in the lifting of the Notice of Coverage a day after the request was filed by the PCGG Chairman.
The July 26, 2000 DAR Order has already
attained finality is no longer reviewable
by this Court.
Even assuming that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest, which we reiterate it is not, the present petition for review on certiorari still fails because the July 26, 2000 Order of the DAR, which the petitioner ultimately seeks this Court to review, has already attained finality.
The petitioner alleged that they filed with the DAR their petition to revoke the lifting of the Notice of Coverage on the subject 129.4227-hectare property only on October 29, 2004, or more than four (4) years after the Order was issued by Secretary Morales on July 26, 2000. Section 15 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292,41 the applicable general law at the time the assailed order was issued, provides that:
SECTION 15. Finality of Order. — The decision of the agency shall become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected.
One motion for reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the running of the said period.
Without any motion for reconsideration or appeal filed from the assailed July 26, 2000 order, the order lapsed to finality and can no longer be reviewed.
This Court has held that administrative decisions must end sometime, as fully as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial controversies.42 In the absence of any showing that the subject final order was rendered without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, no court, not even this Court, has the power to revive, review, change, or alter a final and executory judgment or decision.chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petitioner's petition for review on certiorari. The decision dated July 27, 2010 and resolution dated February 10, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100926 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 9-20.
2 Penned by CA Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring; Id. at 25-32.
3Id. at 33-34.
4Id. at 10.
5Id. at 16-17.:
6Id. at 26.
7Id.
8Id.
9Id. at 11.
10Id. at 26.
11 Id. at 25
12Id. at 26.
13 The dispositive portion of the order stated:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryWHEREFORE, premises considered, the Notice of Coverage issued on 16 June 1994 by MARO Dominador M. Delda is hereby LIFTED. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Bataan and the MARO of Mariveles, Bataan, are hereby directed to stop acquisition proceedings for CARP coverage of the subject property.14Rollo, p. 26.
15 The CA decision, however, stated that the petitioner filed their petition to revoke on November 11, 2004.
16Rollo, p. 12.
17Id. at 26.
18Id. at 26-27,
19Id.
20 Of the Rules of Court.
21Supra note 2.
22Rollo, p. 31.
23 RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Section 2.
24 Id.cralawred
25 Subido v. City of Manila, et al, 108 Phil. 462-468 (1960).
26Garcia v. David, 67 Phil. 279, 285.cralawred
27 See Section 50 ofRA No. 6657.
28 G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 624, 628.
29 G.R. No. 146061, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 385.
30 G.R. No. 152430, March 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 668.
31 Id. at 679. Id.
33Rollo, p. 17.
34 469 Phil. 1083, 1094-1095 (2004).
35 Entitled "AUTHORIZING ALL REGIONAL DIRECTORS (RDS) TO HEAR AND DECIDE ALL PROTESTS INVOLVING COVERAGE UNDER R.A. NO. 6657 OR P.D. NO. 27 AND DEFINING THE APPEAL PROCESS FROM THE RDS TO THE SECRETARY", issued on August 30, 1994.
36 See Subsection A, Part III of A.O. No. 9, series of 1994.
37 See Chapter of RA No. 6657.
38 See Sections 15 and 47 RA No. 6657.
39 See Section 7 of RA No. 6657.cralawred
40 532 Phil. 86 (2006).
41 Entitled "Instituting the Administrative Code of 1987," signed into law July 25, 1987.
42Camarines None Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres, 350 Phil. 315, 330-331 (1998).
LEONEN, J.:
The ponencia affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision dismissing the Petition on the ground that petitioner was not a real party-in-interest.1 The ponencia discussed that "the party must have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action."2 Petitioner is not the real party-in-interest to file an action questioning the order lifting the Notice of Coverage over the 129.4227-hectare land3 in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan since "it failed to allege and prove that [its] members are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of the subject land, or have already been actually awarded portions of it, or have been issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs)[.]"4 The ponencia noted that "petitioner even admits that the case folders of its members were not processed because of [Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr.'s] July 26, 2000 Order."5
Associations have legal personality to represent their members in actions before our courts when the outcome of these actions affects the members' vital interests.6 This holding has been reiterated in our jurisprudence.
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Health Secretary Duque III7 involves the constitutionality of the Milk Code's8 implementing rules and regulations.9 In resolving the preliminary issue of whether petitioner association "representing its members that are manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes"10 is a real party-in-interest, this Court adopted the following discussion from Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals:11
The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents.
....
... We note that, under its Articles of Incorporation, the respondent was organized ... to act as the representative of any individual, company, entity or association on matters related to the manpower recruitment industry, and to perform other acts and activities necessary to accomplish the purposes embodied therein. The respondent is, thus, the appropriate party to assert the rights of its members, because it and its members are in every practical sense identical. . . . The respondent [association] is but the medium through which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their voices and the redress of their grievances.12
This Court held that the "petitioner, whose legal identity is deemed fused with its members, should be considered as a real party-in-interest which stands to be benefited or injured by any judgment in the present action."13 This Court considered the petitioner's amended articles of incorporation in that it was formed "to represent directly or through approved representatives the pharmaceutical and health care industry before the Philippine Government and any of its agencies, the medical professions and the general public."14
Executive Secretary involves the constitutionality15 of certain provisions of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.16 This Court took cognizance of Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc.'s petition on behalf of its recruitment agencies members and discussed that "[it] is but the medium through which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their voices and the redress of their grievances."17 This Court noted that the 11 licensed and registered recruitment agencies members approved separate resolutions expressly authorizing Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter, Inc. to file the petition on their behalf.18
No less than our Constitution guarantees "[t]he right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law[.]"19 It is easy to discern the convenience and benefits in forming and joining associations. Labor organizations, for example, "[exist] in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment."20 Those similarly situated can band together to find solutions for their common concerns based on shared experience. An association can also provide a layer of protection for individual members who have complaints and grievances against their employers or landowners, but fear being singled out, intimidated, or ignored if they raise their issues alone.
One of the key changes introduced in the 1987 Constitution was Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights. Article XIII includes provisions on the role and rights of people's organizations21 defined as "bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure."22 Section 15 mandates the state to "respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means."
Article XIII also includes provisions that specifically focus on agrarian reform. Section 4 provides:
ARTICLE XIII
....
Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform
SECTION 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking Nmto account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention Hmita,'the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
Section 5 also mandates the state to "recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services." Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,23 pursuant to these provisions.24
Farmers should not be dissuaded from availing themselves of their rights under the Constitution and agrarian reform laws. They can organize and join associations that can represent their interests not only before executive bodies, but even before our courts.
The Rules of Court requires that "[u]nless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest[,]"25 or "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit."26
Samahang Magsasakang 53 Hektarya v. Masquera27 discussed in the ponencia, involves the exemption of a 53-hectare land from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage.28 This Court harmonized Republic Act No. 665729 with the Rules of Court provisions30 governing real parties-in-interest in that organizations, represented by their authorized representatives, may bring actions before the courts:
R.A. 6657 allows farmer leaders like Elvira Baladad to represent the Macabud farmers or their Samahan in the proceedings before the DAR. The law, however, should be harmonized with the provisions of the Rules of Court. Assuming that the Macabud farmers are real parties-in-interest as defined by Sec, 2 of Rule 3 [of the Rules of Court], the appeal may be brought by their representative since such is allowed by R.A. 6657. The action may then be brought by 1) the organization represented by its authorized representative (Sec. 1) OR 2) the representative with the beneficiaries identified in the title of the case (Sec. 3). In the first option, the organization should be duly registered in order to be clothed with juridical personality (Sec. 1). Admittedly, petitioner Samahan is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Thus, it is not a juridical person which can be a party in a case. The Rules of Court, however, does not prevent the Macabud farmers from filing an appeal since an action may be instituted in the name of their representative with each farmer-beneficiary identified in the title of the case in accordance with Sec. 3 of Rule 3. Unfortunately, petitioner also failed to comply with this simple requirement. The petition was brought by the unregistered Samahan represented by Elvira Baladad without mentioning the members of it. On this score, the petition can already be dismissed.31 (Emphasis supplied)
This Court held that the Samahan was not the real party-in-interest since its members "have not yet been approved as awardees, actually awarded lands, or granted CLOAs."32 It cited Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona33 in that mere recommendee farmer-beneficiaries are not real parties-in-interest.34
The ponencia also discussed Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton35 in that those who claim to be qualified beneficiaries, by mere assertion of "clearing, tilling and planting the land under claim of ownership,"36 cannot be considered as real parties-in-interest to question a parcel of land's conversion or consequent coverage or non-coverage under the CARP.37
Associations filing suits must comply with certain standards under relevant laws, jurisprudence, and rules. An association must establish that its members are the real parties-in-interest, and that it has the authority to represent its members pursuant to its Articles of Incorporation or by board resolution.
Petitioner alleged in its Motion for Extension of Time to file Petition that it "is a farmer Association duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, representing its members who are actual tillers and cultivators of subject landholding located in Brgy. Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan."38 This matter was never contested by respondent Tomas Tan, who failed to file a comment despite several show cause resolutions issued by this Court requiring compliance.39 This Court then required the Office of the Solicitor General to file a comment.40 The Office of the Solicitor General never questioned petitioner's allegation of its registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission.41 Instead, it argues that petitioner is not the real party-in-interest since its members have not been declared as qualified CARP beneficiaries; thus, their interest in the land grounds on a mere hope, insufficient for claiming an enforceable right before a court of law.42
We apply the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law always within its context of social justice, to further its objective of giving the highest consideration for the welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers.43
In this case, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Dominador M. Delda issued a Notice of Coverage over the land in 1994,44 even before the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) published an Invitation to Bid its Assets, which included the land in April 4, 1995.45 Respondent won as highest bidder and was issued a Notice of Award on May 2, 2000.46 The Office of the President gave its approval, and by August 1, 2000, the PCGG executed a Deed of Sale with respondent.47
Meanwhile, ocular inspection was conducted sometime in late 1999, and the land was targeted for CARP acquisition for year 2000.48 Jorge V. Sarmiento (Commissioner Sarmiento), Chairperson of the PCGG Committee on Privatization, then wrote a letter dated July 25, 2000 requesting the Department of Agrarian Reform to stop the acquisition of the land.49 The following day, Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. granted the request in the Order dated July 26, 2000, and lifted the Notice of Coverage.50 On October 29, 2004, petitioner filed a Petition to Revoke the July 26, 2000 Order, but this, its motion for reconsideration, and its appeal to the Office of the President51 were denied.
The Court of Appeals found no indication that the property is not agricultural land and held that the property is covered under Republic Act No. 6657.52 It found that the lifting of the Notice of Coverage merely a day after the request of Commissioner Sarmiento "seem[ed] irregular in view of [Department of Agrarian Reform]'s own rules on protests involving the coverage under CARP";53 thus, the July 26, 2000 Order cannot bind petitioner.54 Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition upon finding that petitioner is not a real party-in-interest.55
In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports,56 this Court held that pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6657, "the identification of actual and potential beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the Secretary of Agrarian Reform[.]"57 In that case, the Barangay Agrarian Reform, Committee found that the farmers "were potential CARP beneficiaries of the subject properties"58 and that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office issued a Notice of Coverage over the land.59 Thus:
Since the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, it behooves the courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of the issue, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the administrative agency. In this case, there was none.
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is the bastion of social justice of poor landless farmers, the mechanism designed to redistribute to the underprivileged the natural right to toil the earth, and to liberate them from oppressive tenancy. To those who seek its benefit, it is the means towards a viable livelihood and, ultimately, a decent life. The objective of the State is no less certain: "landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization."60 (Emphasis supplied)
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Endnotes:
1 Ponencia, p. 3.
2 Id. at 4.
3 Id. at 2.
4 Id. at 4.
5 Id. at 5. 6
6Purok Bagong Silang Association, Inc. v. Judge Yuipco, 523 Phil. 51, 64 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division,].
7 561 Phil. 386 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En Banc].
8 Exec. Order No. 51 (1986).
9Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Health Secretary Duque III, 561 Phil. 386, 392 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En Banc].
10 Id. at 394.
11 473 Phil. 27, 50-51 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
12Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Health Secretary Duque III, 561 Phil. 386, 395-396 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En Banc].
13 Id. at 396.
14 Id.
15Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, 473 Phil. 27, 36-37 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
16 Rep. Act No. 8042 (1995).
17Executive Secretary v. Court of Appeals, 473 Phil. 27, 51 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, St., Second Division].
19 CONST., art. III, sec. 8.
20 LABOR CODE, art, 219(g).
21 CONST., art. XIII, sees, 15 and 16.
22 CONST., art. XIII, see. 15.
23 Rep. Act No, 9700 was passed in 2009, amending Rep. Act No. 6657.
24See Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sees. 15 and 22 on qualified beneficiaries:
SECTION 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. — The DAR in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are qualified to be beneficiaries of the CARP. These potential beneficiaries with the assistance of the BARC and the DAR shall provide the following data:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) names and members of their immediate farm household;
(b) owners or administrators of the lands they work on and the length of tenurial relationship:
(c) location and area of the land they work;
(d) crops planted; and
(e) their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages received.
A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the barangay shall be posted in the barangay hall, school or other public buildings in the barangay where it shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.
....
SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority: (a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; (b) regular farmworkers; (c) seasonal farmworkers; (d) other farmworkers; (e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands; (f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and (g) others directly working on the land. Provided, however, That the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents: and Provided, further, That actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or removed therefrom. Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under this Program. A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC. If, due to the landowner's retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership of other lands available for distribution under this Act, at the option of the beneficiaries. Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of privately-owned lands will be given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from the public domain.)
25 RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, sec. 2.
26 RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, sec, 2.cralawred
27 547 Phil. 560 (2007) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
28 Id. at 563-564.
29See Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 50, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9700 (2009), sec. 18, which provides:
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — .... Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR[.]
30Samahang Magsamka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosquera, 547 Phil. 560, 569-570 (2007) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division]. The case quoted Rule 3, sees. 1 to 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provide:
SECTION 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. — Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action....
SEC. 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
SEC. 3. Representatives as parties. — Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules[.]
31Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosqmra, 547 Phil. 560, 570 (2007) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division],
32 Id, at 571.
33 352 Phil. 461, 484 (1998) [Per J. Martinez, Second Division]. This was also discussed in the ponencia.
34Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosquera, 547 Phil. 560, 571 (2007) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division],
35 532 Phil. 86 (2006): [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
36 Id. at 98.
37 Id. at 96-98,
38Rollo, p. 3, Motion for Extension of Time.
39 Id. at 46 (Supreme Court Resolution dated June 6, 2011), 59 (Supreme Court Resolution dated October 10, 2011), 63 (Supreme Court Resolution dated March 7, 2012), 67 (Supreme Court Resolution dated July 30, 2012), 71 (Supreme Court Resolution dated March 18, 2013).cralawred
40 Id. at 112, Supreme Court Resolution dated March 3, 2014.
41 Id. at 123-133, Solicitor General's Comment.
42 Id. at 126-127, Solicitor General's Comment.
43 Rep. Act No. 6557(1988), sec. 2, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9700 (2009), sec, 1, provides:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Principles and Policies. — It is the policy of the State to pursue a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization, and the establishment of owner cultivatorship of economic-size farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture[.]
44Rollo, pp. 25-26, Court of Appeals Decision dated July 27, 2010.
45 Id. at 26, Court of Appeals Decision dated July 27, 2010.
46 Id.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Id.
50 Id.
51 Id. at 26-27, Court of Appeals Decision dated July 27, 2010.
52 Id. at 29, Court of Appeals Decision dated July 27, 2010.
53 Id. at 30-31, Court of Appeals Decision.
54 Id. at 31, Court of Appeals Decision dated July 27, 2010.
55 Id. at 31.
56 469 Phil. 1083 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-Santlago, First Division].
57 Id. at 1094.
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 Id. at 1094-1095, citing Lercana v. Mandoni, 426 Phil. 319, 329 (2002) [Per J. Quisumblng, Second Division] and Secretary of Agrarian Reform v. Tropical Homes, Inc., 414 Phil. 389, 396-397 (2001) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second Division].
