KSMP, INC. vs. DARAB, et al.

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 26 2000.

G.R. No. 139051 (Kooperatiba ng Sandigan ng Magsasakang Pilipino, Inc. (KSMP) vs. Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board, et al.)

Petitioner questions the dismissal of its complaint-in-intervention filed in DARAB Case No. 0335 before
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) "Group Developers, Inc., BioLoop Farms, Inc.,
Petitioners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, Land Bank of the Philippines, Respondents; Kooperatiba ng Sandigan
ng Magsasakang Pilipino, Inc. (KSMP), Intervenor vs. Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, Group Developers, Inc., Secretary,
department of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Philippines, Respondents-in-Intervenors."

On February 25, 1975, the private respondents filed with the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) a request
for conversion of 1,837.30 hectares of agricultural land situated in Nasugbu, Batangas, into residential,
commercial, industrial and other urban purposes.

After surveys and investigations made by the Department of Local Government and Community
Development (DLGCD) and the Agrarian Reform District Officer, the DAR through Secretary Conrado Estrella issued
an order on May 27, 1975 stating that:

xxx (T)he subject land is not economically suited for agricultural cultivation, the parcels of land subject
hereof are hereby declared suitable for residential, economical, industrial and other urban purposes
and the request of the petitioner for conversion thereof to non-agricultural use is hereby given due course, subject
however, to the payment of the disturbance compensation to the tenant tillers, if there are any, according to
law."1 Rollo, p. 50.

To this Order, a motion for reconsideration was filed by fifteen (15) occupants, assisted by the Federation
of Free Farmers (FFF) who claimed to be tenants of a forty four hectare portion of the subject landholding.

Prior to this, or on November 27, 1975, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued a Proclamation No.
1520 declaring the Municipalities of Maragondon and Ternate, Cavite and Nasugbu, Batangas as tourist zone. The
proclamation declared and reserved the area as more suitable for residential, commercial, industrial and urban
uses.2 Id., at 105.

In December 1989, apparently unaware of the conversion orders and the presidential proclamation, then
DAR Secretary Miriam Defensor-Santiago, issued Notices of Acquisition, dated December 1427, 1989, making the
subject land available for immediate acquisition and distribution by the government to tenant beneficiaries/actual
tillers.

Consequently, the private respondents filed their objections to these Santiago notices.

On January 22, 1991, Secretary Benjamin T. Leong who succeeded Secretary Santiago issued an Order
finally resolving the motion for reconsideration earlier interposed by the fifteen movants. The dispositive portion
of the Order reads as follows:

Based on these findings and recommendations of the DLGCD and the DAR by the District Officer which
were concurred in by the DAR Regional Director of Region IV, and by the Chief of Land Acquisition Division of the
DAR, the questioned Order was issued on May 27, 1975.
 In fine, on November 27, 1975, or before the movants filed the instant motion for reconsideration, then
President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1520, declaring the municipalities of Maragondon and
Ternate in the province of Batangas as tourist zone.

Precisely the landholdings in issue are included in said proclamation. Up to now this office is not aware
that said issuance has been repealed or amended.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued denying the instant motion for reconsideration
and affirming the Order dated May 27, 1975 issued by then Secretary Conrado F. Estrella.3 Id., at
152153.

On May 14, 1991, the private respondents filed a Petition with the DARAB docketed as DARAB Case No.
0335 for the purpose of implementing the Conversion Orders. The petition suggested the manner of execution and
to lift/invalidate the Santiago notices as it was being exploited and/or causing chaos in view of the Leong Order of
January 22, 1991.

On November 24, 1991, petitioners KSMP filed a Complaint-in-Intervention, the subject of the
controversy.

On April 21, 1998, the DAR issued a decision, disposing to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint-in-intervention is dismissed because as far as the Dar is
concerned the conversion orders dated May 27, 1975 and January 22, 1991 have become final and executory to
which the Board has no jurisdiction to review, amend or to declare their nullity.4 Id., at 92.

Thus, on May 29, 1998, KSMP filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals docketed as G.R. No.
47813 imputing to the DARAB grave abuse of discretion in holding that it has no jurisdiction over the matter
subject of petitioner's complaintinintervention.5 Id., at 14.

On June 17, 1999, the CA promulgated a decision holding that the petition was not sufficient in form and
in substance for failure to conform to Sec. 6 Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure6 Sec. 6. Contents of the
petition. The petition for review shall x x x be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certificate
true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of
such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; xxx petitioner having failed
to attach to its supposed "Complaint-in-Intervention" its alleged "tenancy arrangement" with private respondents
and copies of the Conversion Orders dated May 27, 1975 and January 22, 1991. At the same time, the CA upheld
the findings of the DARAB that the Estrella Leong Orders for the conversion of the land had long become
final and executory.

The motion for reconsideration was denied.

Hence, this petition.

Respondents were required to file their Comments to which petitioner filed a Reply thereto, averring that
the issue is merely a question of procedure whether or not the complaint-in-intervention was done during the
pendency of the case in accordance with the rules.

We find no merit in the petition.

Petitioner cannot deny that its complaint-in-intervention, in effect, seeks to nullify the Conversion Orders
and to recognize its rights as tenants of the land in question. The complaint-in-intervention prayed among others,
to wit:
 1. To declare as withdrawn, cancelled or annulled the conversion orders of May 27, 1975 and January 22,
1991 of then Secretaries, Conrado Estrella and Benjamin Leong respectively;

2. Ordering respondent Secretary to implement the Notice of Acquisition of then Sec. Miriam Defensor-
Santiago dated December, 1989 in favor of the petitioners tenants beneficiaries/actual tillers involving the
agricultural lands in question;7 Rollo, p. 29.

We find no error with the ruling of the CA that petitioner's cause is lost considering that the Conversion
Orders have long become final and executory. There was, therefore, no more case to which it could intervene. The
complain-in-intervention was, therefore, correctly dismissed pursuant to the 19976 Rules of Civil Procedure.8 Rule
19. Sec. 2. Time to intervene. The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of the judgment by
the trial court.

xxx Petitioner's insistence that there was no final disposition yet of the conversion case, as in fact, DARAB
CASE No. 0335 was initiated by the private respondents is untenable. A perusal of the records reveal that DARAB
Case No. 0335 was filed by the private respondents for the purpose of implementing the Conversion Orders
particularly the final fixing of the disturbance compensation to legitimate farmer occupants. The complaint-in-
intervention, however, puts in issue petitioner's alleged tenancy relationship and security of tenure which the
DARAB does not have any jurisdiction.

Furthermore, petitioner, a juridical entity, has no personality to file the instant petition nor to intervene in
the case as the real parties-in-interest are the members thereof who were not even recognized as the rightful
tenants occupying the subject land. As observed by the DAR, "members of petitioners are merely holding on to
expectancy that they will become the beneficiaries assuming that the land is still CARPable." 9 Rollo, p. 193. The
fact, however, remains that the land in question has already been excluded from the purview of the
Comprehensive Agrarian reform Law (CARL) by the Estrella and Leong Orders which had long become final and
executory.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETASORIANO