G.R. No. 169331 ; September 5, 2011
AGAPITO ROM, PASTORA P. ROSEL, VALENTINO R. ANILA, JUANITO P. ROSEL, VIRGILIO R. CASAL, LUIS H. BAUTISTA, CRESENCIANO M. ARGENTE, ANA M. ARGENTE, GIL B. CUENO, ENGRACIO B. BELTRAN, ANGELITO B. AURE, ESTEBAN C. BENDO, MARIA ALBAO, GILBERT H. DEL MUNDO, EUFRONIO H. DEL MUNDO, PASTOR H. DEL MUNDO, ANTONIO H. DEL MUNDO, ALBERTA H. DEL MUNDO, PEDRO H. DEL MUNDO, ROLANDO B. ATIE, Petitioners, vs. ROXAS & COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

On September 30, 1997, respondent Roxas & Company, Inc. filed an Application for Exemption from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage for 27 parcels of land (aggregate area of 21.1236 hectares) in Barangay Aga, Nasugbu, Batangas, pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994. Respondent claimed the lands were already re-classified as part of a Residential Cluster Area under Nasugbu Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission (HSRC, now HLURB) under HSRC Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983, prior to the effectivity of the CARL on June 15, 1988. In support, respondent submitted certifications from the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) and the HLURB Regional Director confirming the land’s classification under the 1982 zoning ordinance. The DAR, through its CLUPPI-II, directed respondent to submit proof of payment of disturbance compensation to the farmer-beneficiaries. As the parties failed to agree on the amount, respondent filed a Petition to fix disturbance compensation before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) of Batangas. On November 6, 2002, the DAR granted the application for exemption, subject to conditions including the final determination of disturbance compensation by the PARAD and the maintenance of petitioners’ possession until payment. Petitioners, who are farmer-beneficiaries holding a collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 6653 issued in 1991, filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the MPDC and HLURB certifications were superseded by Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 30, Series of 1993, which classified Barangay Aga as an agricultural zone; that the application was barred by laches due to the 1991 CLOA issuance; and that they were not notified of the proceedings. The DAR denied the motions on December 12, 2003. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, arguing the DAR acted without jurisdiction because respondent’s application lacked the required proof of disturbance compensation under DAR AO No. 6, and that the DAR gravely abused its discretion in granting the exemption without such payment. The CA dismissed the petition, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and in upholding the DAR Orders which granted respondent’s application for exemption from CARP coverage.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The Court held:
1. On the Propriety of Certiorari: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail the DAR Orders, as they were issued in the exercise of the DAR Secretary’s quasi-judicial functions. The proper remedy from an order of the DAR Secretary is an appeal via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court filed with the Court of Appeals. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Petitioners’ failure to timely appeal rendered the DAR Orders final and executory.
2. On Jurisdiction and Compliance with DAR AO No. 6: The DAR had jurisdiction over the application for exemption. The requirement under DAR AO No. 6 to submit proof of disturbance compensation is not a jurisdictional requirement but a condition for the grant of the application. The DAR validly acquired jurisdiction upon the filing of the application. The directive to submit proof was a subsequent order to complete the application, and respondent’s filing of a petition before the PARAD to fix the amount was a substantial compliance. The DAR’s grant of the exemption, subject to the outcome of the PARAD proceeding on disturbance compensation, was a valid exercise of its discretion.
3. On the Validity of the Exemption Grant: The exemption was properly based on the land’s classification as residential prior to June 15, 1988, as certified by the MPDC and the HLURB, pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. Petitioners’ claim that a subsequent 1993 Sangguniang Bayan Resolution reclassified the area as agricultural was not substantiated by evidence presented to the DAR during the application proceedings. The issuance of CLOAs does not automatically render the land agricultural if it was already validly classified for residential use before the CARL’s effectivity. The pendency of the PARAD proceeding on disturbance compensation did not invalidate the exemption order, as payment is a condition subsequent, not a prerequisite, for the grant of exemption.
4. On Due Process: Petitioners were not denied due process. As farmer-beneficiaries, they were not indispensable parties to the exemption application proceeding, which is primarily between the landowner and the DAR. Their rights were adequately protected by the condition in the DAR Order requiring the final determination and payment of disturbance compensation before any development on the land.