Aninao vs Asturias

FACTS:

• Subject of this case are several parcels of land situated in Brgys. Baha and Talibayog, Calatagan, Batangas, and formerly owned by Ceferino Ascue (Ascue).
• Emancipation patents (EPs) covering the disputed lands were issued to 323 agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27 and/or Executive Order (EO) No. 228
• MARO sent a ‘Final Notification’  letter to the heirs of Ascue relative to the payment of their land transfer claim
• DAR Region IV Office requested the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to open a trust account in favor of Ascue in an amount corresponding to the valuation of his agricultural property.
• The heirs of Ascue, with the approval of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Balayan, Batangas handling the settlement his estate (sic), sold to Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc. (“Asturias”) the 807 hectares of land referred to at the outset.
• Years later, Asturias was disturbed by the initial activities undertaken by the DAR to place its remaining landholding under CARP
• Asturias made it known that its Calatagan landholding could no longer be considered for CARP coverage, it having “already been declared as mineral land pursuant to a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (‘MPSA’) between the government and Asturias” and that “an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) [has already been] issued …for the establishment of a cement plant within the area”
• DAR Regional Director issued a certificate of exemption over the remaining 284.9323 hectares of land of Ascue, now owned by Asturias. The exemption order was based on the findings that “only fifteen (15) hectares, more or less, are planted with crops such as upland rice, bananas, corn and coconut while the rest, with an area of 284.9323 hectares, are undeveloped, slopes of more than 18%, rocky, swampy, and/ or mangrove areas and therefore not suitable for agricultural purposes.”
• The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) issued Res. No. 02 urging the Registry of Deeds – Nasugbu, Batangas to cancel/consider null and void the land transaction between Ascue and Asturias if proven that it was concluded in violation of existing laws.
• PARO of Batangas formed the Task Force o ascertain if the standard operating procedures were followed in accordance with the policies and guidelines of PD 27 and CARL; to determine whether the property was planted to rice /corn as of 1972 and to verify the existence of tenancy relationship.
• Asturias formally protested the OLT coverage of portions of its Calatagan property and the threatened cancellation of its titles . . . . The grounds cited for the protest fall under these headings: (1) “The Asturias Landholding is NOT AND NEVER WAS a RICE and CORN farm”; and (2) The issuance of the alleged 818 EPs and the coverage of the Asturias property under PD # 27 is ERRONEOUSAND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.”
• DAR sustained the protest of Asturias and recalled/nullified the coverage of the property in question under OLT. The ruling was predicated on the following premises: (a) the landholding is not primarily devoted to rice/corn production; (b) the existence of tenancy relations has not been clearly established; and (c) the property had long ceased to be agricultural: it has become mineral land.
• Subsequently, two (2) groups, each claiming to be farmer-beneficiaries, separately moved for reconsideration. These were denied
• The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners’ petition for review for “being insufficient in form for failing to comply with the requirements under Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.”

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are farmer-beneficiaries of the subject property

HELD:

• No.
• As may be noted, EPs were issued to petitioners as agrarian reform beneficiaries or successors-in–interests pursuant to the OLT program under P.D. No. 27. To come within the coverage of the OLT, there must be showing that the land is devoted to rice or corn crops, and there must be a system of share-crop or lease tenancy obtaining therein when P.D. No. 27 took effect on October 21, 1972.[18] If either requisite is absent, exclusion from the OLT coverage lies and EPs, if issued, may be recalled.
• In the case at bench, it has been peremptorily determined by OP and, before it, by the DAR, acting on investigations reports of its provincial (Batangas) office, as reviewed and validated by its regional office, that the OLT coverage of the disputed landholdings was erroneous, it being established that the lands covered are not primarily devoted to rice and corn and that the tenancy relationship has not been clearly established. Absent palpable error by both agencies, of which this Court finds none, their determination as to the use of the property and/or to the dubious status of petitioners as de jure tenants is  controlling.
• In the matter of petitioners’ non-compliance with the procedural requirement on forum shopping, we find no reversible error in the appealed dismissal action of the appellate court.  We agree with the Court of Appeals that the requirements on the filing of a certification against forum shopping should be strictly complied with.  It bears stressing that a petition involving two or more petitioners must be accompanied by a certification of non-forum shopping accomplished by all petitioners, or by one who is authorized to represent them; otherwise, the petition shall be considered as defective and, under the terms of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, may be dismissed.