G.R. No. 169649 and G.R. No. 185594, January 16, 2023.
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE DOMINGO BARRAQUIO, NAMELY GLENN M. BARRAQUIO, MARIA M. BARRAQUIO, GREGORIO BARRAQUIO, DIVINA B. ONESA, URSULA B. REFORMADO, AND EDITHA BARRAQUIO, PETITIONERS, VS. ALMEDA INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 185594] THE HEIRS OF THE LATE DOMINGO BARRAQUIO REPRESENTED BY GLENN BARRAQUIO, PETITIONERS, VS. ALMEDA INCORPORATED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Almeda Incorporated is the registered owner of four parcels of land in Santa Rosa, Laguna. In 1994, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to nine farmer-beneficiaries, including Domingo Barraquio, covering the Almeda properties. A Notice of Coverage was sent to Almeda on June 30, 1994. In 1998, Almeda filed a complaint before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB) to cancel the CLOAs, arguing the land was classified as industrial prior to CARP coverage and that the beneficiaries had executed quitclaims. The PARAB initially dismissed the complaint but later reversed itself, ordering the nullification of the CLOAs based on a municipal zoning ordinance reclassifying the land as industrial in 1989. Barraquio appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The other eight beneficiaries withdrew and entered into a compromise with Almeda. Almeda filed an application for exemption from CARP coverage with the DAR Secretary. On May 16, 2003, the DAR Secretary issued an Exemption Order, finding the land was zoned for industrial use prior to June 15, 1988, and was thus outside CARP. A Certificate of Finality for this order was issued on July 3, 2003. The DARAB subsequently dismissed Barraquio’s appeal as moot due to the final Exemption Order. Barraquio’s heirs (petitioners) elevated the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DARAB’s cancellation of the CLOAs. A separate petition (G.R. No. 185594) for certiorari was filed by petitioners questioning Court of Appeals resolutions that found them guilty of forum shopping.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Exemption Order issued by the DAR Secretary, which became final and executory, validly serves as the basis for the cancellation of the CLOAs issued to the farmer-beneficiaries.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petitions. The Court ruled that an exemption order from the DAR Secretary must be final and executory before it can be used as a basis to revoke or cancel CLOAs issued to farmer-beneficiaries. The Court found that the DARAB and the Court of Appeals prematurely relied on the Exemption Order to dismiss the appeal and cancel the CLOAs. The records showed that petitioner Domingo Barraquio had filed a letter-communication seeking reconsideration of the Exemption Order on June 4, 2003. The subsequent Certificate of Finality issued on July 3, 2003, which stated no appeal was filed, was therefore incorrect, as a motion for reconsideration was pending. Consequently, the Exemption Order had not attained finality when the DARAB issued its Resolution dismissing the appeal. The DARAB’s dismissal based on a moot and academic premise was erroneous. The case was remanded to the DARAB for further proceedings to resolve the appeal on the merits, including the determination of the validity of the Exemption Order in light of the pending motion for reconsideration. The Court also set aside the finding of forum shopping in G.R. No. 185594.