The Supreme Court affirmed that orders from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) become final and executory when parties fail to file motions for reconsideration within the prescribed period. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in agrarian reform cases, ensuring timely resolution and protecting the rights of both landowners and farmer-beneficiaries. Failure to comply with these rules can result in the loss of legal remedies and the enforcement of the DAR’s decisions.

Land Reclassification and Due Process: When Does Agricultural Land Lose its Status?

In Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. Ruben Alcaide, the central issue revolved around whether the DAR’s order declaring certain properties as agricultural land had attained finality, thus making them subject to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. (GPSI) argued that the DAR’s order was not final and that the DAR failed to comply with pre-ocular inspection requirements, violating their constitutional right to due process. The case highlights the tension between the government’s agrarian reform objectives and the constitutional rights of landowners to due process and property.

The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed its earlier resolution, emphasizing that the DAR Order dated June 8, 2001, had indeed attained finality. The Court reiterated that GPSI’s motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. The SC noted that GPSI’s counsel admitted receiving the order on August 17, 2001, but filed the motion only on September 14, 2001. Even if the actual receipt date was disregarded, the DAR had deemed the order served due to GPSI’s failure to notify the agency of its counsel’s change of address. The SC also invoked the principle that actual knowledge is equivalent to notice, further solidifying the finality of the DAR Order.

Building on this principle, the SC addressed GPSI’s argument regarding the lack of a proper pre-ocular inspection. The Court found that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) had issued CARP Form No. 3.a, entitled “Preliminary Ocular Inspection Report,” which indicated that an inspection had been conducted. The report’s details were mostly filled up, and it was signed by the inspectors, creating a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The failure to mark certain checkboxes related to land condition and land use did not negate the finding that the land was agricultural.

Moreover, the SC highlighted that GPSI failed to present sufficient evidence that the land had been validly reclassified from agricultural to industrial. While the Sangguniang Bayan of Biñan had reclassified the land, this reclassification was not approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Additionally, there was no authorization from the DAR, as required under Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The tax declaration presented by GPSI indicated only a “proposed industrial” use, further undermining their claim of valid reclassification. This section of the ruling underscores the strict requirements for land reclassification and the need for proper authorization from relevant government bodies.

The SC also cited the case of Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, to emphasize that the Supreme Court sitting En Banc is not an appellate court vis-a-vis its Divisions. Each division of the Court is considered not a body inferior to the Court en banc, and sits veritably as the Court en banc itself. It bears to stress further that a resolution of the Division denying a party’s motion for referral to the Court en banc of any Division case, shall be final and not appealable to the Court en banc. Since, at this point, the Third Division already twice denied the motion of LBP to refer the present Petition to the Supreme Court en banc, the same must already be deemed final for no more appeal of its denial thereof is available to LBP. The Court underscored the finality and non-appealability of the Division’s decision to deny the referral to the En Banc, reinforcing the procedural integrity of the judicial process.

The dissenting opinion argued that the June 8, 2001 Order of the DAR Secretary had not become final because GPSI was not properly served a copy of the said Order. The dissent noted that GPSI’s counsel only received a copy of the Order dated June 8, 2001, and the Order of Finality dated August 6, 2001, when he received the letter of Director Delfin B. Samson on September 10, 2001. Based on the chronological order of events that transpired leading to the filing of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on September 14, 2001, it was apparent that petitioner was not properly served a copy of the disputed Order and that the DAR rectified such failure by subsequently serving a copy of the Order upon petitioner’s counsel at his new address. This argument highlights the importance of proper service and notification in administrative proceedings to ensure due process.

The dissenting opinion also argued that a proper preliminary ocular inspection was not conducted as required by DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2003. The dissent emphasized the ready-made form Preliminary Ocular Inspection Report (undated) signed by the concerned MARO. Interestingly, however, the check box allotted for the all-important items “Land Condition/Suitability to Agriculture” and “Land Use” was not filled up. There is no separate report on the record detailing the result of the ocular inspection conducted. These circumstances cast serious doubts on whether the MARO actually conducted an on-site ocular inspection of the subject land. Without an ocular inspection, there is no factual basis for the MARO to declare that the subject land is devoted to or suitable for agricultural purposes, more so, issue Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the DAR’s order declaring the properties as agricultural land had attained finality, making them subject to CARP.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court affirmed that the DAR’s order had attained finality because the motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period.
What is the significance of the ocular inspection?	The ocular inspection is crucial for determining whether the land is suitable for agriculture and falls under CARP coverage.
What is required for land reclassification?	Land reclassification requires approval from both the HLURB and authorization from the DAR, as per Section 65 of RA 6657.
What happens if a party fails to notify DAR of a change of address?	Failure to notify DAR of a change of address can result in orders being deemed served at the last known address, affecting the finality of decisions.
Can the Supreme Court En Banc review decisions of its Divisions?	No, the Supreme Court sitting En Banc is not an appellate court vis-a-vis its Divisions, and decisions denying referral to the En Banc are final.
What is the implication of “actual knowledge” in this case?	The Court considered “actual knowledge” as equivalent to notice, meaning that if a party had knowledge of the order, it is deemed served.
What was the dissenting opinion’s main argument?	The dissenting opinion argued that the DAR order had not become final because the petitioner was not properly served a copy of the order.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and ensuring due process in agrarian reform cases. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the finality of DAR orders when proper procedures are followed, while the dissenting opinion highlights the necessity of proper notification and inspection. The balance between agrarian reform and the rights of landowners remains a critical consideration in Philippine jurisprudence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. VS. RUBEN ALCAIDE, G.R. No. 167952, July 05, 2017