G.R. No. 169649 & 185594, September 30, 2024
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE DOMINGO BARRAQUIO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. ALMEDA INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT. / THE HEIRS OF THE LATE DOMINGO BARRAQUIO REPRESENTED BY GLENN BARRAQUIO, PETITIONERS, VS. ALMEDA INCORPORATED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This is a resolution on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Almeda Incorporated. In a January 16, 2023 Decision, the Supreme Court had granted the petitions and maintained the validity of the Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) issued to Domingo Barraquio. Respondent sought reconsideration, arguing that a certification from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) presented by petitioners as newly discovered evidence was hearsay and without probative value, as the signatory was not presented as a witness and his authority was not established. Respondent also contended the evidence was suppressed, not newly discovered, as it existed for six years before presentation, and that petitioners failed to exercise reasonable diligence. Respondent further argued the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing a petition for procedural lapses and that petitioners were guilty of forum shopping. Petitioners opposed, stating the motion was a rehash of arguments.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioners’ Motion to Admit Newly Discovered Evidence (the 2013 HLURB and Zoning Certifications) should be granted.
2. Whether the subject properties are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

RULING

1. The Motion to Admit Newly Discovered Evidence was improperly granted and should have been denied. The Supreme Court, upon re-examination, found petitioners failed to comply with the requisites for newly discovered evidence under Rules 37 and 53 of the Rules of Court. The motion was filed improperly and out of time, as it was raised only after filing a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court, not within the period for taking an appeal or before the Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction. Substantively, petitioners did not prove that the 2013 Certifications could not have been discovered and produced at trial with reasonable diligence. The evidence was available as early as 2007, and petitioners offered no explanation for the six-year delay in obtaining it. Furthermore, the evidence was not material enough to alter the result, as it was based on a 1981 zoning ordinance, while respondent’s evidence showed the land was reclassified to industrial in 1995, prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARP Law) for the area in 1998.
2. The subject properties are NOT covered by CARP. The Court ruled in favor of respondent, finding the properties exempt from CARP coverage. Evidence, including Municipal Ordinance No. 95-17 (Series of 1995) of Santa Rosa, Laguna, approved on May 17, 1995, established that the land was reclassified from agricultural to industrial use prior to June 15, 1988 (the effectivity date of CARP). This reclassification was affirmed by the HLURB. Since the land was no longer agricultural at the time of CARP’s effectivity for the municipality in 1998, it was outside the program’s scope.
DISPOSITIVE:
Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration was GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’ decisions and resolutions which had canceled/nullified the CLOAs issued to Domingo Barraquio were AFFIRMED. The properties covered by CLO-1409 and 1375 are declared not covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.