G.R. No. 125202 ; January 31, 2006
ERNESTO INGLES, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MANUEL CANTOS, DAR SECRETARY ERNESTO GARILAO, and DAR VII REGIONAL DIRECTOR ELMO BANARES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are farmers occupying portions of the Kang-Irag Sports Complex in Cebu City, which includes Lot No. 16306 owned by respondent Manuel Cantos. The area was declared a tourist zone under Proclamation No. 2052. Cantos filed a petition with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for exemption of his landholding from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The DAR Secretary initially ordered exclusion based on slope, but later amended the order, declaring approximately 808 hectares of the Complex as excluded for tourism purposes and directing the delineation of this area, payment of disturbance compensation to affected farmers, and their relocation.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing that the excluded area had not been precisely identified, that their houses were being demolished, and that the land was part of a watershed forest reserve. The DAR Secretary declared his amended order final and executory and issued a writ of execution. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ subsequent appeal, ruling that the DAR Secretary’s order was immediately executory and that petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ appeal and upholding the immediate execution of the DAR Secretary’s order excluding the land from CARP coverage.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic rests on the nature of the DAR Secretary’s order and the applicable rules of procedure. The August 30, 1994 Order of the DAR Secretary was an interlocutory order, as it did not dispose of the case completely but left substantial proceedings—like the precise delineation of the 808 hectares and the implementation of the relocation plan—to be carried out. Under the DAR’s own rules, specifically Section 14 of Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 1994, an interlocutory order is not appealable but is subject to the DAR Secretary’s discretionary power to order its execution even before the case’s final resolution.
The Court found that the DAR Secretary did not gravely abuse his discretion in ordering execution. The order was modified to ensure that compensation and relocation would proceed only for farmers definitively within the 808-hectare area pending final survey, balancing the landowner’s rights and the farmers’ interests. Petitioners’ proper recourse against an interlocutory order they perceived as unjust was not an appeal to the Court of Appeals but a special civil action for certiorari if there was grave abuse of discretion. Since they did not file such an action and the DAR Secretary acted within his quasi-judicial powers under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 , the execution order was valid. The Court emphasized that the DAR Secretary has primary jurisdiction over agrarian implementation, and his interlocutory orders, when issued within authority, are entitled to respect.