THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228429. December 13, 2017.]
RODOLFO A. BOMBASI, PROTACIO BOMBASI, FELIPE BOMBASI, ET AL., petitioners,vs. ERLINDA PEARL V. ARMADA, RODOLFO S. PANGILINAN, ANTONIO G. EVANGELISTA, PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK AND LYCEUM OF ALABANG, INC., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 13, 2017, which reads as follows: ETHIDa
"G.R. No. 228429 (Rodolfo A. Bombasi, Protacio Bombasi, Felipe Bombasi, et al. vs. Erlinda Pearl V. Armada, Rodolfo S. Pangilinan, Antonio G. Evangelista, Planters Development Bank and Lyceum of Alabang, Inc.). — The Court NOTES respondent Planters Development Bank's comment/opposition to the petition for review on certiorari.
Before Us is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the June 10, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138546. The assailed ruling affirmed the April 15, 2014 Order 2 of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Region IV, finding for the petitioners.
Factual Antecedents
The properties subject of this case are parcels of land located in Tunasan, Muntinlupa City, with an aggregate area of 6.1119 hectares. The subject lots used to be owned by the Los Baños Rural Bank (LBRB), but were subsequently acquired by Planters Development Bank (PDB) when the latter acquired LBRB's assets.
On November 8, 2002, the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board (DARAB) declared the petitioners de jure tenants of the properties that PDB acquired from LBRB. The said DARAB Decision attained finality on November 26, 2003.
Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition with the DAR-Region IV seeking to place the whole 6.1119 hectares of land under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and for the issuance of Emancipation Patents in their favor. The Regional Director of DAR-Region IV granted the petition in an Order dated May 18, 2005, but only with respect to 1.4028 hectares. Accordingly, the Regional Director issued a Notice of CARP Coverage (NOCC).
PDB opposed the NOCC and sought to have it lifted, arguing that the lands were not covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The DAR-Region IV, and subsequently, the DAR Secretary, denied the opposition and affirmed the DAR-Region IV Regional Director's May 18, 2005 Order.
PDB appealed to the Office of the President, arguing that lands had already been classified and identified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1998 and considered outside the coverage of the CARL. As such, the lands are no longer needed to be covered by a conversion clearance from the DAR. The OP issued a Decision on February 14, 2011 denying PDB's appeal. PDB moved for the reconsideration of the decision, but the OP denied the same in its Resolution dated December 21, 2011.
In the meantime, in December 2010 and during the pendency of PDB's appeal before the OP, respondent Lyceum of Alabang, Inc. (Lyceum) purchased three parcels of land with an area of .0817 hectares of the subject lands from PDB.
Undaunted, PDB appealed the OP Decision before the CA. The CA, however, affirmed the OP's finding that the subject property is covered by the CARP in its Decision dated January 21, 2013. The said decision attained finality on May 9, 2013.
When the case finally attained finality, the DAR-Region IV directed its Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) to conduct an ocular inspection of the property. Upon inspection, the MARO reported that: 1) the lands had already been developed into a three-storey school building since 2012; 2) the development and construction of the school building had been undertaken without the DAR conversion or exemption clearance; and 3) that the remaining areas had been developed into concrete roads, parking areas, and parts of national road. Based on her findings, the MARO noted that the subject property was no longer suitable for agricultural use, and thus, the January 21, 2013 Decision of the CA can no longer be implemented.
Consequently, on April 15, 2014, DAR-Region IV issued an Order declaring that the subject property could no longer be reverted to its original status as agricultural land, in view of the existing horizontal and vertical structures in the area. The CA, however, held that the petitioners are entitled to "disturbance compensation," and that PDB and Lyceum were to be charged with a criminal case of illegal conversion.
Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the April 15, 2014 Order, but the same was denied by DAR-Region IV in its October 14, 2014 Resolution.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the CA, assailing the April 15, 2014 DAR-Region IV Order and seeking to compel the DAR-Region IV to implement the DARAB Decision dated November 26, 2003, as affirmed by the CA Decision dated January 21, 2013.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In the adverted Decision, the CA denied the petition, holding that the DAR cannot be compelled by mandamus since the act of implementation is not a purely ministerial function. The DAR Secretary is imbued with authority and responsibility, such that the administrative authority must be allowed by the court to be exercised within his specialized area of competence. cSEDTC
Issue
Whether the CA erred in deciding the case tantamount to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied.
A party seeking the intervention of a court of law upon an administrative concern must first avail of all the remedies afforded by administrative processes. Otherwise stated, the issues which an administrative agency is authorized to decide should not be summarily taken away from it and submitted to a court of law without first giving the agency an opportunity to dispose of the issues upon due deliberation. 3
Available to the petitioners was the remedy to appeal the case from the DAR to the Office of the President after the former denied its Motion for Reconsideration. The petitioners, in lieu of available administrative remedies, resorted to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The ground upon which petitioners instituted the case is unfounded, considering that the DAR has the authority to resolve the case based on its judgment and not merely to execute the January 21, 2013 Decision of the CA.
It is likewise important to note that the effect of non-compliance or failure to exhaust administrative remedies is fatal, and may be a ground for the dismissal of a case. Notwithstanding that the CA gave due course to this petition, petitioners failed to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of the administrative agencies in failing to execute the Decision of the CA. In fact, being the specialized body that it is, DAR Region IV made certain that the inability or non-viability of the land to be used for agricultural purposes was verified in an ocular inspection directed and which yielded the result that it is no longer suitable for petitioners to use. Neither were they left hanging in the dry since the DAR provided them with the option to avail of a Disturbance Compensation. The public respondents cannot be faulted either for failure to execute, as they likewise ordered the filing of a case against private respondents PDB and Lyceum and further that lots viable for agricultural purpose and owned by PDB and Lyceum be located and given to petitioners to use. AIDSTE
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The June 10, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138546 is hereby AFFIRMED. (Bersamin, J., on leave)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Renato C. Francisco; rollo, pp. 36-52.
2.Id. at 87-90.
3.Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255.