Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

23. FORTICH v.

CORONA (Mika)
Nov. 17, 1998 | J. Martinez | Conversion
Petitioner: HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF
BUKIDNON, HON. REY B. BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SUMILAO, BUKIDNON,
NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Respondents: HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
HON. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF DAR

SUMMARY:
A 144-hectare land in Sumilao owned by Quisumbing Development (NQSRMDC)
was leased to Del Monte in 1984 for a period of 10 years. In 1991, while the lease
was subsisting, DAR placed the entire property under compulsory acquisition.
NQSRMDC resisted and brought the case before DARAB, where the latter ruled in
the former’s favor, and ordered DAR and its authorities to desist from pursuing further
any activities concerning the land.
Subsequently, the PDC of Bukidnon, headed by Gov. Fortich, designated certain
areas along the highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones, where the
property was located.
Eventually, on March 29, 1996, the OP decided that converting the land from
agricultural to agro-industrial would reap greater benefits for Sumilao. This became
final and executory. To protest the OP’s decision, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries
began a hunger-strike in front of the QC DAR Compound. As a result, the OP resolved
the matter through a “win-win” Resolution, where only 44 hectares would be
converted, while the remaining 100 would be distributed to the farmers.
Elevated to the SC, because of procedural lapses, the “win-win” Resolution was
struck down because it substantially modified the March 29 Decision which had
already become final and executory. Furthermore, when DAR filed an MR for the said
Resolution, it was already beyond the 15-day reglamentary period.
Thus, the present case. DAR contends that it was not a void resolution as it sought
to correct an erroneuous ruling, their failure to file an MR on time was excusable since
by the time they received a copy of the Decision late, and it was a mere technicality
which should only be inferior to substantial rights.
The first issue is W/N the “win-win” Resolution is valid despite procedural
lapses. The SC said NO.
While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that
every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to
ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. DAR was not able to give a
justifiable reason for a relaxation of the rules when it comes to both the final and
executory character of the OP Decision and for their late filing of MR.
Furthermore, it wasn’t actually just a technicality since when the OP Decision
became final and executory, vested rights were acquired by the petitioners.
The second issue is W/N it is still necessary to go through the substantial
issues. The SC said NO also.
The SC said that there was no need to go into it further since it was already delved
into at length in the March 29 OP Decision. Among these substantial issues, the SC
3. Because of procedural lapses, the SC struck down the OP’s Resolution on
highlighted that the conversion of the land into agro-industrial was within the LGU’s April 24, 1998.
authority and it would truly benefit the people of Bukidnon for it would bring about ● They said that it substantially modified its March 29, 1996 Decision
greater economic development and employment, particularly in Sumilao. that had long become final and executory, being in gross disregard
Additionally, the Quisumbing family has already contributed substantially (over 400 of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to
hectares of land in total) to the land reform program of the government. administrative determinations.
● The March OP Decision was declared by OP as final and
executory in its Order dated June 23, 1997 after the respondent
DAR's MR of the said decision was denied in the same order for
FACTS: having been filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
1. The case involves 2 separate MRs seeking the reversal of the SC’s April 24, 4. Respondent DAR claims that:
1998 Decision, where the so-called “win-win” Resolution of November 7, ● It was not a void resolution as it seeks to correct an erroneous
1997 issued by the OP, was nullified. ruling.
2. BACKGROUND FACTS (not really mentioned in the case, but discussed in ● Its failure to file on time was excusable since by the time the copy
the April 28 Decision; good to know in case Gutierrez asks and to really of the Decision reached DAR’s litigation office, the time had already
understand) lapsed. It had to go through the Office of the Secretary and the
● A 144-hectare land in Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by Norberto Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance First.
Quisumbing Development Corp (NQSRMDC) was leased to Del ● It was a mere technicality and the MR should be resolved on the
Monte in 1984 for 10 years. merits in the interest of substantial justice.
● In 1991, while the lease was subsisting, DAR placed the entire ● Other substantial issues:
property under compulsory acquisition and assessed the land to be i. whether the subject land is considered a prime agricultural
worth P2.38M. NQSRMDC resisted this and brought the case to land with irrigation facility;
DARAB. DARAB order DAR and its authorities to desist from pursuing ii. whether the land has long been covered by a Notice of
any activity concerning the subject land until further orders. Compulsory Acquisition (NCA);
● The Provincial Development Council (PDC) of Bukidnon, headed by iii. whether the land is tenanted, and if not, whether the
Governor Fortich, designated certain areas along Bukidnon-Sayre applicants for intervention are qualified to become
Highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the beneficiaries thereof;
subject property is situated. OP decided against this and allowed for iv. whether the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao has the legal
DAR to proceed with compulsory acquisition, despite Fortich saying that authority to reclassify the land into industrial/institutional
the conversion of lands from agricultural to agro-industrial would be use, to our mind, the March 29, 1996 OP Decision has
more beneficial to the people. thoroughly and properly disposed of the aforementioned
● Eventually, on March 29, 1996, the OP decided that converting the land issues.
from agricultural to agro-industrial would open great opportunities for
employment and bring about real development in the area towards a ISSUE/S:
sustained economic growth of the municipality. On the other hand,
1. W/N the “win-win” Resolution was valid despite procedural lapses - NO
distributing the land to would-be beneficiaries (who are not even
2. W/N it’s necessary to go through the substantial issues - NO
tenants, as there are none) does not guarantee such benefits. They also
said that Quisumbing family has already contributed substantially to the
land reform program. RATIO:
● On whether or not the “win-win” Resolution was valid despite procedural lapses
In October 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries began their hunger
- NO
strike in front of the DAR Compound to protest, asking that the OP
1. The final and executory character of the said OP Decision can no longer be
Decision allowing the conversion of the entire 144-hectare property be
set aside. disturbed, much less substantially modified. The “win-win” Resolution was
● As a “win-win” Resolution, the OP decided that only 44 hectares void and not binding.
would be converted, and the 100 hectares traversed by the ● While it is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is
irrigation canal be distributed to the farmers. equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with
the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy ● LGUs, by virtue of their autonomy, have the power to
administration of justice. convert portions of their agricultural lands and provide for
● Respondents have not shown a justifiable reason for a relaxation of the manner of their utilization and disposition to enable
the rules. DAR’s late filing of its MR of the March 29, 1996 OP them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant
Decision was not justified. communities.
2. It’s not actually a mere technicality because when the March 29, 1996 OP 2. While “those who have less in life should have more in law.” (Pres.
Decision was declared final and executory, vested rights were acquired by Magsaysay), for the SC, the March 29 OP Decision is precisely pro-poor,
the herein petitioners, the province of Bukidnon, the municipality of Sumilao, considering that more of the impoverished of society will be benefited by the
and the NQSRMDC, and all others who should be benefited by the said agro-economical development in Bukidnon to be brought by the conversion.
decision. It’’s for the eventual benefit of the many, not just the few.
On whether or not it’s necessary to go through the substantial issues - NO ● This was proven by development plans by petitioners,
1. No, it is no longer needed. The March 29 OP Decision was able to delve which includes:
into these substantial issues properly and thoroughly already. 1. The Development Academy of Mindanao
a. Application for conversion is impressed with merit. 2. Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Park
● Converting the land from agricultural to agro-industrial 3. Forest Development w/ open spaces and parks for
recreation, horse-back riding, memorial, and mini zoo
would open great opportunities for employment and bring
4. Support facilities with hotel, restaurants, dorms, and
real development in the area towards a sustained housing
economic growth of the municipality. Distributing the land ● Provides an opportunity to attract investors who can inject
to would-be beneficiaries (who are not even tenants, as new economic vitality and provide more jobs and raise the
there are none) does not guarantee such benefits. income of the people
b. On the issue that the land is considered prime agricultural land with ● The proposed plan was adopted by DTI.
irrigation facility, the said facility merely passes thry the property as ● The National Irrigation Administration did not complain.
a right of way to provide water to the ricelands located on the lower ● During public consultation, people affected rallied behind
portion of the land. their respective officials, endorsing the project. The
● The land itself, the subject of the case, has been planted provincial officials promised them that they can provide
with pineapples for several years by Del Monte. food, shelter, and lifetime security to the people of Sumilao.
c. On the issue that the land has long been covered by a Notice of
Compulsory Acquisition (NCA) and that the existing policy on DISPOSITION:
withdrawal or lifting on areas covered by NCA is not applicable, the WHEREFORE, the separate motions for reconsideration of the April 24, 1998 Decision
NCA was declared null and void by DARAB already in 1991. of this Court, filed by the respondents and the applicants for intervention, are
● Under Sec. 8 of RA 6657, the property could not validly be hereby DENIED with FINALITY.
subject of compulsory acquisition until after the expiration
of the lease contract with Del Monte.
● The Quisumbing family has already contributed
substantially to the land reform program:
1. 300 hectares of rice land in Nueva Ecija
2. 100 hectares in Impasugong, Bukidnon
d. No basis for claiming that there is no clear and tangible
compensation package arrangements for the beneficiaries because
there were no beneficiaries to speak about. The land is tenanted.
e. Procedural lapses in the manner of identifying/reclasifying the
property for agro-industrial purposes cannot defeat the very purpose
of the law granting autonomy to LGUs in the maangement of their
local affairs.

S-ar putea să vă placă și