Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
* SECOND DIVISION.
465
466
LEONEN, J.:
Lands classified as nonagricultural in zoning ordinances
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
or its predecessors prior to June 15, 1998 are outside the
coverage of the compulsory acquisition program of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. However, there has
to be substantial evidence to prove that lands sought to be
exempted fall within the nonagricultural classification.
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 seeking to set
aside the decision2 dated September 28, 2012 and
resolution3
_______________
467
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
_______________
468
_______________
469
_______________
16 Id., at p. 65.
17 Id., at pp. 70-71.
18 Id., at p. 70.
19 Id., at pp. 65-73.
20 Id., at pp. 74-75.
21 Id., at pp. 76-80.
22 Id., at p. 81.
23 222 Phil. 365; 138 SCRA 46 (1985) [Per J. Aquino, Second Division].
24 Rollo, pp. 81-82.
470
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
_______________
25 Id., at p. 31.
26 Id., at p. 33.
27 Id., at pp. 31 and 37.
28 Id., at pp. 38-39. Const., Art. VII, Sec. 13 provides:
Section 13. The President, Vice President, the Members of the
Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during
their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,
practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or -controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of
their office.
....
471
SO ORDERED.29
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
Their motion for reconsideration having been denied,30
petitioners, namely Remigio Espiritu and Noel Agustin,
now come before this court via a petition for review on
certiorari, seeking to set aside the ruling of the Court of
Appeals.
In particular, petitioners argue that respondent was not
denied due process as she was able to actively participate
in the proceedings before the Department of Agrarian
Reform and the Office of the President.31 They also argue
that respondent was not able to present proof that Deputy
Executive Secretary Gaite was not authorized to sign the
decision and, hence, his action is presumed to have been
done in the regular performance of duty.32
Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the Court of
Appeals did not commit any reversible error in its decision.
She argues that she was deprived of due process when
Secretary Pangandaman’s order was sent to the wrong
address. She also argues that the Deputy Executive
Secretary Gaite’s decision was void since he had already
been appointed to the Securities and Exchange
Commission two months prior.33
The issue, therefore, before this court is whether the
Court of Appeals correctly set aside the order of Secretary
Pangandaman and the decision of Deputy Secretary Gaite
and reinstated the order of Secretary Pagdanganan.
This petition should be granted.
_______________
472
Since she was not notified, [del Rosario] was not able to
participate in the proceedings leading to the issuance of the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
The Court of Appeals, however, did not take into
consideration that respondent was still able to file a motion
for reconsideration of Secretary Pangandaman’s order,
albeit beyond the allowable period to file. In Department of
Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 06,35 Series of
2000:
RULE III
Commencement, Investigation and Resolution of Cases
....
SECTION 21. Motion for Reconsideration.—In case any of the
parties disagrees with the decision or resolution, the affected
party may file a written motion for reconsideration within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of the order, furnishing a copy thereof to
the adverse party. The filing of the motion for reconsideration
shall suspend the running of the period to appeal.
_______________
34 Id., at p. 37.
35 Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) cases.
473
Despite being filed late, Secretary Pangandaman still
gave due course to the motion and resolved it on its merits.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
While it may be true that respondent was prevented
from filing a timely motion for reconsideration of Secretary
Pangandaman’s order, it would be erroneous to conclude
that she
_______________
36 Rollo, p. 70.
474
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
_______________
37 577 Phil. 370; 554 SCRA 500 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third
Division].
475
When respondent filed her motion for
reconsideration assailing Secretary Pangandaman’s
order, she was able to completely and exhaustively
present her arguments. The denial of her motion was on
the basis of the merits of her arguments and any other
evidence she was able to present. She was given a fair and
reasonable opportunity to present her side; hence, there
was no deprivation of due process.
It was also erroneous to conclude that respondent was
“denied her day in the administrative proceedings below.”39
Respondent was able to actively participate not only in the
proceedings before the Department of Agrarian Reform, but
also on appeal to the Office of the President and the Court
of Appeals.
Deputy Executive Secretary Gaite’s decision is
presumed valid, effective, and binding
Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution states:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
_______________
476
It is alleged that Gaite was appointed Commissioner to
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2009.40 It is also alleged that he has already lost his
authority as Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs
when he rendered the decision dated May 7, 2009 since he
is constitutionally prohibited from holding two offices
during his tenure. This, however, is not conclusive since no
evidence was presented as to when he accepted the
appointment, took his oath of office, or assumed the
position.
Assuming that Gaite’s appointment became effective on
March 16, 2009, he can be considered a de facto officer at
the time he rendered the decision dated May 7, 2009.
In Funa v. Agra,41 a petition was filed against Alberto
Agra for holding concurrent positions as the acting
Secretary of justice and as Solicitor General. This court,
while ruling that the appointment of Alberto Agra as acting
Secretary of Justice violated Article VII, Section 13 of the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
_______________
477
_______________
478
Respondent has not presented evidence showing that
the decision was rendered ultra vires, other than her
allegation that Gaite had already been appointed to
another office. Unless there is clear and convincing
evidence o the contrary, the decision dated May 7, 2009 is
conclusively presumed to lave been rendered in the regular
course of business.
Respondent’s landholdings
were agricultural, not industrial
Prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 6657, lands
were classified into agricultural, residential, or industrial
by law or by zoning ordinances enacted by local
government units. In Heirs of Luna v. Afable:44
It is undeniable that local governments have the power to
reclassify agricultural into nonagricultural lands. Section 3
of RA No. 2264 (The Local Autonomy Act of 1959)
specifically empowers municipal and/or city councils to
adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in
consultation with the National Planning Commission. By
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
_______________
43 Bustillo v. People, G.R. No. 160718, May 12, 2010, 620 SCRA 483,
492 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], citing People v. De Guzman,
G.R. No. 106025, February 9, 1994, 229 SCRA 795, 799 [Per J. Puno,
Second Division].
44 G.R. No. 188299, January 23, 2013, 689 SCRA 207 [Per J. Perez,
Second Division].
479
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
45 Id., at pp. 226-227, citing Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste v. Land Bank of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 352, 376 [Per J.
Velasco, Jr., First Division]; Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 64, 94; 429 SCRA 109, 135 (2004) [Per J.
Callejo, Sr., Second Division]; Buklod nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing
Ramos, Inc. v. E.M. Ramos and Sons, Inc., G.R. No. 131481, March 16,
2011, 645 SCRA 401, 432 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
46 Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), Sec. 4.
480
Sir:
This refers to your letter of the 13th instant stating your
“position that prior to the passage of R.A. 6657, the Department of
Agrarian Reform had the authority to classify and declare which
agricultural lands are suitable for nonagricultural purposes, and
to approve or disapprove applications for conversion from
agricultural to nonagricultural uses.”
In support of the foregoing view, you contend that under R.A.
No. 3844, as amended, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
is empowered to “determine and declare an agricultural land to be
suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban
purpose” and to “convert agricultural land from agricultural to
nonagricultural purposes”; that P.D. No. 583, as amended by P.D.
No. 815 “affirms that the conversion of agricultural lands shall be
allowed only upon previous authorization of the [DAR]; with
respect to tenanted rice and corn lands”; that a Memorandum of
Agreement dated May 13, 1977 between the DAR, the
Department of Local Government and Community Development
and the then Human Settlements Commission “further affirms
the authority of the [DAR] to allow or disallow conversion of
agricultural lands”; that E.O. No. 129-A expressly invests the
DAR with exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion
of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial and
other land uses; and that while in the final version of House Bill
400, Section 9 thereof provided that lands devoted to “residential,
housing, commercial and industrial sites classified as such by the
municipal and city development councils as already approved by
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, in their respective
zoning development plans” be exempted from the coverage of the
Agrarian Reform program, this clause was deleted from Section
10 of the final version of the consolidated bill stating the
exemptions from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
481
482
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
483
484
June 15, 1988. Surely, it is clear that the alleged deletion was
necessary to avoid a redundancy in the CARP law whose coverage
is expressly limited to “all public and private agricultural lands”
and “other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture”
(Sec. 4, R.A. No. 6657). Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657 defines
“agricultural land” as that “devoted to agricultural activity as
defined in the Act and not classified as mineral forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.”
Based on the foregoing premises, we reiterate the view that with
respect to conversions of agricultural lands covered by R.A. No.
6657 to nonagricultural uses, the authority of DAR to approve
such conversions may be exercised from the date of the law’s
effectivity on June 15, 1988. This conclusion is based on a liberal
interpretation of R.A. No. 6657 in the light of DAR’s mandate and
the extensive coverage of the agrarian reform program.47
(Emphasis supplied)
_______________
485
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
Accordingly, lands are considered exempt from the
coverage of Republic Act No. 6657 if the following
requisites are present:
_______________
48 503 Phil. 154; 465 SCRA 173 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third
Division].
49 Id., at p. 165; pp. 183-184.
486
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/24
11/18/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 738
Upon respondent’s motion for reconsideration, Secretary
Pangandaman also took into consideration the
recommendations of the Center for Land Use Policy,
Planning, and Implementation Committee, thus:
_______________
50 Rollo, p. 67.
487
_______________
51 Id., at p. 70.
488
The factual findings of administrative agencies are
generally given great respect and finality by the courts as it
is presumed that these agencies have the knowledge and
expertise over matters under their jurisdiction.54 Both the
Department of Agrarian Reform and the Office of the
President found respondent’s lands to be agricultural. We
see no reason to disturb these findings.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
decision dated September 28, 2012 and resolution dated
November 29, 2012 of the Court of Appeals are SET
ASIDE. The order dated June 15, 2006 of the Department
of Agrarian Reform and the decision dated May 7, 2009 of
the Office of the President are REINSTATED.
_______________
53 Id., at p. 79.
54 See Junio v. Garilao, 503 Phil. 154, 167; 465 SCRA 173, 186 (2005)
[Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
489
SO ORDERED.
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fcf6dcb5b4d20ae34003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/24