Professional Documents
Culture Documents
103125 expropriation and the order dated February 26, 1990, denying the
May 17, 1993 motion to admit the amended motion to dismiss, be set aside. They
also asked that an order be issued to restrain the trial court from
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, represented by GOV. LUIS R. enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter to issue a writ of
VILLAFUERTE and HON. BENJAMIN V. PANGA as Presiding Judge of injunction.
RTC Branch 33 at Pili, Camarines Sur, petitioners,
vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION), ERNESTO SAN In its answer to the petition, the Province of Camarines Sur claimed
JOAQUIN and EFREN SAN JOAQUIN, respondents. that it has the authority to initiate the expropriation proceedings
under Sections 4 and 7 of Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) and
FACTS: In this appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of that the expropriations are for a public purpose.
Appeals in AC-G.R. SP No. 20551 entitled "Ernesto N. San Joaquin, et
al., v. Hon. Benjamin V. Panga, et al.," this Court is asked to decide Asked by the Court of Appeals to give his Comment to the petition,
whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government the Solicitor General stated that under Section 9 of the Local
units is subject, to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337), there was no need for the approval
Reform, as the implementator of the agrarian reform program. by the Office of the President of the exercise by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of the right of eminent domain. However, the Solicitor
On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the General expressed the view that the Province of Camarines Sur must
Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the
authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing
property contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in order to establish project.
a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a
housing project for provincial government employees. The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court, allowing
the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private
The "WHEREAS" clause of the Resolution states: respondents' lands and the order denying the admission of the
WHEREAS, the province of Camarines Sur has adopted a five- amended motion to dismiss. It also ordered the trial court to suspend
year Comprehensive Development plan, some of the vital the expropriation proceedings until after the Province of Camarines
components of which includes the establishment of model and Sur shall have submitted the requisite approval of the Department of
pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops, Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of the property of the
soil testing and tissue culture laboratory centers, 15 small scale private respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural land.
technology soap making, small scale products of plaster of paris,
marine biological and sea farming research center,and other Hence this petition.
progressive feasibility concepts objective of which is to provide
the necessary scientific and technology know-how to farmers It must be noted that in the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked
and fishermen in Camarines Sur and to establish a housing for: (i) the dismissal of the complaints for expropriation on the ground
project for provincial government employees; of the inadequacy of the compensation offered for the property and
(ii) the nullification of Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988 of the
WHEREAS, the province would need additional land to be Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur.
acquired either by purchase or expropriation to implement the
above program component; The Court of Appeals did not rule on the validity of the questioned
resolution; neither did it dismiss the complaints. However, when the
WHEREAS, there are contiguous/adjacent properties to be (sic) Court of Appeals ordered the suspension of the proceedings until the
present Provincial Capitol Site ideally suitable to establish the Province of Camarines Sur shall have obtained the authority of the
same pilot development center; Department of Agrarian Reform to change the classification of the
lands sought to be expropriated from agricultural to non-agricultural
WHEREFORE . . . . use, it assumed that the resolution is valid and that the expropriation
is for a public purpose or public use.
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province of Camarines Sur, through
its Governor, Hon. Luis R.Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for Modernly, there has been a shift from the literal to a broader
expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and Efren N. San interpretation of "public purpose" or "public use" for which the power
Joaquin, docketed as Special Civil Action Nos. P-17-89 and P-19-89 of of eminent domain may be exercised. The old concept was that the
the Regional Trial Court, Pili, Camarines Sur, presided by the Hon. condemned property must actually be used by the general public (e.g.
Benjamin V. Panga. roads, bridges, public plazas, etc.) before the taking thereof could
satisfy the constitutional requirement of "public use". Under the new
Forthwith, the Province of Camarines Sur filed a motion for the concept, "public use" means public advantage, convenience or
issuance of writ of possession. The San Joaquins failed to appear at benefit, which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the
the hearing of the motion. prosperity of the whole community, like a resort complex for tourists
or housing project (Heirs of Juancho Ardano v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220
The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of [1983]; Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SC.RA 461 [1987]).
inadequacy of the price offered for their property. In an order dated
December 6, 1989, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned
authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the resolution is for a public purpose. The establishment of a pilot
property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court of the amount of development center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage
P5,714.00, the amount provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once operational, the
for damages that private respondents may suffer in the event that the center would make available to the community invaluable
expropriation cases do not prosper. The trial court issued a writ of information and technology on agriculture, fishery and the cottage
possession in an order dated January18, 1990. industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of the farmers, fishermen and
craftsmen would be enhanced. The housing project also satisfies the
The San Joaquins filed a motion for relief from the order, authorizing public purpose requirement of the Constitution. As held in Sumulong
the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of their property v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461, "Housing is a basic human need. Shortage
and a motion to admit an amended motion to dismiss. Both motions in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly and
were denied in the order dated February 1990. significantly affects public health, safety, the environment and in sum
the general welfare."
In their petition before the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked:
(a) that Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988 of the Sangguniang It is the submission of the Province of Camarines Sur that its exercise
Panlalawigan be declared null and void; (b) that the complaints for of the power of eminent domain cannot be restricted by the
expropriation be dismissed; and (c) that the order dated December 6, provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No.
1989 (i) denying the motion to dismiss and (ii) allowing the Province 6657), particularly Section 65 thereof, which requires the approval of
of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property subject of the
the Department of Agrarian Reform before a parcel of land can be The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and
reclassified from an agricultural to a non-agricultural land. 5 (1) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987, cannot be the
source of the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to
The Court of Appeals, following the recommendation of the Solicitor determine the suitability of a parcel of agricultural land for the
General, held that the Province of Camarines Sur must comply with purpose to which it would be devoted by the expropriating authority.
the provision of Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform While those rules vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the
Law and must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversions of
Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of the San Joaquins. agricultural lands for residential, commercial or industrial uses, such
authority is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted
In Heirs of Juancho Ardana v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220, petitioners raised by the land owners or tenant beneficiaries.
the issue of whether the Philippine Tourism Authority can expropriate
lands covered by the "Operation Land Transfer" for use of a tourist Statutes conferring the power of eminent domain to political
resort complex. There was a finding that of the 282 hectares sought subdivisions cannot be broadened or constricted by implication
to be expropriated, only an area of 8,970 square meters or less than (Schulman v. People, 10 N.Y. 2d. 249, 176 N.E. 2d. 817, 219 NYS 2d.
one hectare was affected by the land reform program and covered by 241).
emancipation patents issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
While the Court said that there was "no need under the facts of this To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local
petition to rule on whether the public purpose is superior or inferior government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed
to another purpose or engage in a balancing of competing public for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc, without
interest," it upheld the expropriation after noting that petitioners had first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the
failed to overcome the showing that the taking of 8,970 square Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects would
meters formed part of the resort complex. A fair and reasonable naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be
reading of the decision is that this Court viewed the power of the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the
expropriation as superior to the power to distribute lands under the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use.
land reform program.
Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that
The Solicitor General denigrated the power to expropriate by the shall determine whether the use of the property sought to be
Province of Camarines Sur by stressing the fact that local government expropriated shall be public, the same being an expression of
units exercise such power only by delegation. (Comment, pp. 14- legislative policy. The courts defer to such legislative determination
15; Rollo, pp. 128-129) and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or
substantial relation to the public use (United States Ex Rel Tennessee
It is true that local government units have no inherent power of Valley Authority v. Welch, 327 US 546, 90 L. ed. 843, 66 S Ct 715; State
eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized ex rel Twin City Bldg. and Invest. Co. v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 1, 174
by the legislature (City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 28l US 439, 74 L.ed. 950, NW 885, 8 ALR 585).
50 SCt. 360). It is also true that in delegating the power to expropriate,
the legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints There is also an ancient rule that restrictive statutes, no matter how
on the exercise thereof by the local governments (Joslin Mfg. Co. v. broad their terms are, do not embrace the sovereign unless the
Providence, 262 US 668 67 L. ed. 1167, 43 S Ct. 684). While such sovereign is specially mentioned as subject thereto (Alliance of
delegated power may be a limited authority, it is complete within its Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 124 SCRA
limits. Moreover, the limitations on the exercise of the delegated 1 [1983]). The Republic of the Philippines, as sovereign, or its political
power must be clearly expressed, either in the law conferring the subdivisions, as holders of delegated sovereign powers, cannot be
power or in other legislations. bound by provisions of law couched in general term.
Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, was promulgated pursuant to The fears of private respondents that they will be paid on the basis of
Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, the Local Government Code, which the valuation declared in the tax declarations of their property, are
provides: unfounded. This Court has declared as unconstitutional the
A local government unit may, through its head and acting Presidential Decrees fixing the just compensation in expropriation
pursuant to a resolution of its sanggunian exercise the right of cases to be the value given to the condemned property either by the
eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings for owners or the assessor, whichever was lower ([Export Processing
public use or purpose. Zone Authority v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 [1987]). As held in Municipality
of Talisay v. Ramirez, 183 SCRA 528 [1990], the rules for determining
Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local just compensation are those laid down in Rule 67 of the Rules of
government, units must first secure the approval of the Department Court, which allow private respondents to submit evidence on what
of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from agricultural to non- they consider shall be the just compensation for their property.
agricultural use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation
proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the Comprehensive WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the questioned decision of
Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the expropriation of the Court of Appeals is set aside insofar as it (a) nullifies the trial
agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the court's order allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take
Department of Agrarian Reform. The closest provision of law that the possession of private respondents' property; (b) orders the trial court
Court of Appeals could cite to justify the intervention of the to suspend the expropriation proceedings; and (c) requires the
Department of Agrarian Reform in expropriation matters is Section 65 Province of Camarines Sur to obtain the approval of the Department
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, which reads: of Agrarian Reform to convert or reclassify private respondents'
Sec. 65. Conversion of Lands. After the lapse of five (5) years property from agricultural to non-agricultural use.
from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible
and sound for, agricultural purposes, or the locality has become The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED insofar as it sets
urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for aside the order of the trial court, denying the amended motion to
residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon dismiss of the private respondents.
application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice
to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may
authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its
disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid
his obligation.
resolution is an original special civil action for certiorari under Rule stated in Cuaresma:
65, as what the petitioners have correctly done. The pertinent portion x x x. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original
of Section 1 thereof provides: jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and the Courts time and attention which are better devoted to those
there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further
the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file over-crowding of the Courts docket.
a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or Pursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to take primary jurisdiction
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and over the present petition in the interest of speedy justice[55] and to
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an end to the present
x x x x x x x x x. controversy which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked
The office of a writ of certiorari is restricted to truly national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by
extraordinary cases cases in which the act of the lower court or the issuance of the assailed resolution. Moreover, as will be discussed
quasi-judicial body is wholly void.[45] later, we find the assailed resolution wholly void and requiring the
petitioners to file their petition first with the Court of Appeals would
The aforequoted Section 1 of Rule 65 mandates that the person only result in a waste of time and money.
aggrieved by the assailed illegal act may file a verified petition
(for certiorari) in the proper court. The proper court where the That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher
petition must be filed is stated in Section 4 of the same Rule 65 interests of justice is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence. We
which reads: reiterate what we said in Piczon vs. Court of Appeals:[56]
SEC. 4. Where petition filed.- The petition may be filed not
later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools
or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid
it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate
corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial rather than promote substantial justice, must always be
Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as avoided. Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules and
defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher
of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate interests of justice so require. In the instant petition, we forego a
jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its lengthy disquisition of the proper procedure that should have been
jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi- taken by the parties involved and proceed directly to the merits of the
judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or these case."
Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the
Court of Appeals. (4a) As to the second issue of whether the petitioners committed a fatal
procedural lapse when they failed to file a motion for reconsideration
Under the above-quoted Section 4, the Supreme Court, Court of of the assailed resolution before seeking judicial recourse, suffice it to
Appeals and Regional Trial Court have original concurrent jurisdiction state that the said motion is not necessary when the questioned
to issue a writ of certiorari,[46] prohibition[47] and mandamus.[48] But resolution is a patent nullity,[57] as will be taken up later.
the jurisdiction of these three (3) courts are also delineated in that, if
the challenged act relates to acts or omissions of a lower court or of With respect to the third issue, the respondents claim that the filing
a corporation, board, officer or person, the petition must be filed with by the petitioners of: (a) a petition for certiorari, prohibition with
the Regional Trial Court which exercises jurisdiction over the preliminary injunction (CA-G.R. SP No. 37614) with the Court of
territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. And if it involves the Appeals; (b) a complaint for annulment and cancellation of title,
act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, the petition shall be filed damages and injunction against DAR and 141 others (Civil Case No.
only with the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise provided by law or 2687-97) with the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay, Bukidnon; and
the Rules of Court. We have clearly discussed this matter of (c) the present petition, constitute forum shopping.
concurrence of jurisdiction in People vs. Cuaresma, et. al.,[49] through
now Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, thus: We disagree.
x x x. This Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as
well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and The rule is that:
injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse
Trial Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance), which may issue the opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other
than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not We rule in the negative.
only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in
connection with litigation commenced in the courts while an The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the
administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No.
defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an 18. Section 7 thereof provides:
unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court SEC. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the
ruling. This specially so, as in this case, where the court in which President shall, except as otherwise provided for by special
the second suit was brought, has no jurisdiction (citations laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from
omitted). receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, unless a motion for
reconsideration thereof is filed within such period.
The test for determining whether a party violated the rule against
forum shopping has been laid down in the 1986 case of Buan vs. Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be
Lopez (145 SCRA 34), x x x and that is, forum shopping exists where allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally meritorious
the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final cases. (Emphasis ours)
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other, as
follows: It is further provided for in Section 9 that The Rules of Court shall
There thus exists between the action before this Court and RTC apply in a suppletory character whenever practicable.
Case No. 86-36563 identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions, as well as identity When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23,
of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded 1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as
on the same facts, and the identity on the two preceding no one has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, the
particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify
action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President has
to res adjudicata in the action under consideration: all the no more authority to entertain the second motion for
requisites, in fine, of auter action pendant.'[58] reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which second
motion became the basis of the assailed Win-Win Resolution. Section
It is clear from the above-quoted rule that the petitioners are not 7 of Administrative Order No. 18 and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised
guilty of forum shopping. The test for determining whether a party Rules of Court mandate that only one (1) motion for reconsideration
has violated the rule against forum shopping is where a final judgment is allowed to be taken from the Decision of March 29, 1996. And even
in one case will amount to res adjudicata in the action under if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to be filed in
consideration. A cursory examination of the cases filed by the exceptionally meritorious cases, as provided in the second paragraph
petitioners does not show that the said cases are similar with each of Section 7 of AO 18, still the said motion should not have been
other. The petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals sought the entertained considering that the first motion for reconsideration was
nullification of the DAR Secretarys order to proceed with the not seasonably filed, thereby allowing the Decision of March 29, 1996
compulsory acquisition and distribution of the subject property. On to lapse into finality. Thus, the act of the Office of the President in re-
the other hand, the civil case in RTC of Malaybalay, Bukidnon for the opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29,1996
annulment and cancellation of title issued in the name of the Republic Decision which had already become final and executory, was in gross
of the Philippines, with damages, was based on the following disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to
grounds: (1) the DAR, in applying for cancellation of petitioner administrative determinations.
NQSRMDCs title, used documents which were earlier declared null
and void by the DARAB; (2) the cancellation of NQSRMDCs title was In San Luis, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.[60] we held:
made without payment of just compensation; and (3) without notice Since the decisions of both the Civil Service Commission and the
to NQSRMDC for the surrender of its title. The present petition is Office of the President had long become final and executory, the
entirely different from the said two cases as it seeks the nullification same can no longer be reviewed by the courts. It is well-
of the assailed Win-Win Resolution of the Office of the President established in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders of
dated November 7, 1997, which resolution was issued long after the administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-
previous two cases were instituted. judicial authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding
effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine
The fourth and final preliminary issue to be resolved is the motion for of res judicata [Brillantes v. Castro, 99 Phil. 497 (1956), Ipekdijna
intervention filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries, which we have to Merchandizing Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-
deny for lack of merit. In their motion, movants contend that they are 15430, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 72.] The rule of res
the farmer-beneficiaries of the land in question, hence, are real judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially
parties in interest. To prove this, they attached as Annex I in their determined by competent authority applies as well to the
motion a Master List of Farmer-Beneficiaries. Apparently, the alleged judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive or
master list was made pursuant to the directive in the dispositive administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction
portion of the assailed Win-Win Resolution which directs the DAR to as to the judgments of courts having general judicial powers
carefully and meticulously determine who among the claimants are [Brillantes v. Castro, supra at 503].
qualified farmer-beneficiaries. However, a perusal of the said
document reveals that movants are those purportedly Found The orderly administration of justice requires that the
Qualified and Recommended for Approval. In other words, movants judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a
are merely recommendee farmer-beneficiaries. point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. The noble
purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all.[61] This is a
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a real party in interest is a party fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there
who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or is the party would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this
entitled to the avails of the suit. Real interestmeans principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power
a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere of adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must
expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential immediately be struck down.
interest.[59] Undoubtedly, movants interest over the land in question
is a mere expectancy. Ergo, they are not real parties in interest. Therefore, the assailed Win-Win Resolution which substantially
modified the Decision of March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality,
Furthermore, the challenged resolution upon which movants based is utterly void. Such void resolution, as aptly stressed by Justice
their motion is, as intimated earlier, null and void. Hence, their Thomas A. Street[62] in a 1918 case,[63] is a lawless thing, which can be
motion for intervention has no leg to stand on. treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and
whenever it exhibits its head.[64]
Now to the main issue of whether the final and executory Decision
dated March 29,1996 can still be substantially modified by the Win- WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The
Win Resolution. challenged Resolution dated November 7, 1997, issued by the Office
of the President in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, is hereby NULLIFIED and
SET ASIDE. The Motion For Leave To Intervene filed by alleged farmer-
beneficiaries is hereby DENIED.
No pronouncement as to costs.