THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 186214. February 13, 2013.]
PHILTRUST BANK, petitioner, vs. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HON. NASSER PANGANDAMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE-SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGION III [SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA], THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICERS OF BALIUAG, BULACAN AND DINALUPIHAN, BATAAN, RESPECTIVELY, THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICERS OF MALOLOS, BULACAN AND LIMAY, BATAAN, RESPECTIVELY, REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF BATAAN, BARTOLOME E. EVANGELIO, ISAAC DE LEON, NICOLAS SAPITAN AND MARIO REYES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 13, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 186214 (Philtrust Bank v. Hon. Eduardo Ermita, in his capacity as Executive Secretary of the Office of the President, Hon. Nasser Pangandaman, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge-Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Regional Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Region III [San Fernando, Pampanga], the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officers of Baliuag, Bulacan and Dinalupihan, Bataan, respectively, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officers of Malolos, Bulacan and Limay, Bataan, respectively, Registry of Deeds of Bataan, Bartolome E. Evangelio, Isaac De Leon, Nicolas Sapitan and Mario Reyes.) — Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the July 23, 2008 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 101557.
Petitioner Philtrust Bank (Philtrust) was the registered owner of a one-hectare (ha.) parcel of land in Limay, Bataan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-97000 (Bataan property); and a 0.4092 hectare parcel of land in Malolos, Bulacan, covered by TCT No. RT-45964 [T-283153] (Bulacan property). Philtrust acquired both properties in an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding.
Sometime in 1988, Philtrust presented a voluntary offer to sell 2 (VOS) the Bataan and Bulacan property to the Republic of the Philippines (RP) pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). In 1992, acting on the VOS, respondent Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Director sent notices of acquisition for the Bulacan property and a portion of the Bataan property. Not satisfied with the valuation of the RP for the subject properties, Philtrust instead applied for retention of the subject properties pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657. 3 DcITHE
In its Order, 4 dated September 5, 1994, the DAR Regional Director denied Philtrust's application for retention of the Bataan property because Philtrust had a simultaneous application to retain 3 ha. in Antipolo, Rizal, which was not a contiguous property to Bataan. It directed Philtrust to maintain the tenant, Bartolome Evangelio (Bartolome), in peaceful possession of the Bataan property. Bartolome, thereafter, obtained the Certificate of Land Ownership (CLO) and had it registered with the Registry of Deeds (RD), Bataan. In another Order, 5 dated December 12, 1995, the DAR Regional Director granted Philtrust's application for retention of the Bulacan property. It further directed Philtrust to maintain the tenants, Isaac De Leon (Isaac) and Nicolas Sapitan (Nicolas), in peaceful possession of the Bulacan property.
Subsequently, Philtrust filed two separate motions for reconsideration 6 (treated as an appeal) of the DAR Regional Director's September 5, 1994 and December 12, 1995 Orders. In its Order, dated October 8, 1997, the DAR Secretary denied Philtrust's motions for reconsideration.
The DAR Secretary also denied Philtrust's application for retention of all its properties located in Limay, Bataan and Bulihan, Malolos, Bulacan, because "all foreclosed assets of private as well as public banks are subject to compulsory acquisition under R.A. 6657." 7 Philtrust moved for reconsideration of the DAR Secretary's Order but it was denied.
Philtrust then filed an appeal with the Office of the President (OP), which the latter dismissed in its October 31, 2007 Resolution. 8
Dissatisfied, Philtrust filed a petition for review with the CA. In its July 23, 2008 Decision, the CA affirmed with modification the October 31, 2007 Resolution issued by the OP, the dispositive portion of which reads: DCIEac
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Resolution dated October 31, 2007 rendered by the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 06-L-429 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION limiting the coverage of the Orders dated 08 October 1997 and 08 November 2006 to the subject Bataan and Bulacan properties.
SO ORDERED.
The CA held that while Philtrust's motion for reconsideration of the December 12, 1995 Order of the DAR Regional Director pertained only to the directive to maintain the tenants therein in peaceful possession, both the Bataan and Bulacan property's applications for retention were consolidated and jointly resolved by the DAR Secretary within his power of control over the decisions of subordinate officials. The CA declared that, pursuant to Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657 9 and DAR Memorandum Circular No 5-96, 10 banks are required to compulsory transfer its foreclosed assets under the CARL. Moreover, the CA noted that the applicable law then, Section 25 of R.A. No. 337, 11 or the General Banking Act, mandated banks to release realty purchased to secure any debt due to the bank within five years from the time the bank acquired said realty. The CA observed that Philtrust was issued certificates of title to the Bataan and Bulacan properties in 1983 and 1984, respectively. Philtrust applied for retention of the Bataan and Bulacan properties in 1993 and 1995, respectively. Therefore more than five years had elapsed and no right to retain the said properties could be had. The CA, however, limited the DAR Secretary's October 8, 1997 Order to the Bataan and Bulacan properties subject matter of this case and not to all of Philtrust's foreclosed assets in Bataan and Bulacan.
Philtrust moved for a reconsideration but the motion was denied in the CA Resolution, 12 dated January 27, 2009.
Hence, the present petition. DHaECI
Philtrust argues that its right to due process was violated when the DAR Secretary consolidated the two motions for reconsideration without notifying it and passed on matters not raised in the said motions. Further, it contends that a violation of banking laws is not for the DAR Secretary to determine, stressing that it is a victim of a discriminatory application of the CARL.
The Court, however, finds no reversible error warranting the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
In the case of The Heritage Hotel Manila v. National Union of Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila Supervisors Chapter, 13 the Court held that "the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of."
In the case of Department of Agrarian Reform v. Samson, 14 the Court ruled that "where a party has the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, defects in procedural due process may be deemed cured."
In this case, the alleged procedural lapses in the proceedings before the DAR were cured when Philtrust interposed an appeal before the OP which effectively gave it an opportunity to be heard on the said matter. As aptly observed by the CA, at the time Philtrust applied for retention of its Bataan and Bulacan properties in 1993 and 1995, respectively, more than five years had passed. Hence, it had no right to hold the titles of the subject properties pursuant to Section 25 of R.A. No. 337 which prohibits banks from holding title and possession of any real estate purchased to secure any debt due to it for a period longer than five years. Additionally, Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657 expressly subjects the foreclosed assets of banks to compulsory transfer under the CARL. Simply put, Philtrust has not shown any provision of law that allows it to retain its Bataan and Bulacan properties. TCSEcI
It bears to stress that the factual findings of the Secretary of DAR who, by reason of his official position, has acquired expertise in specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed. 15
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 56-62. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now member of this Court) with Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now member of this Court) and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring.
2.Id. at 74.
3.SECTION 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. . . . .
4.Rollo, pp. 79-81.
5.Id. at 115-116.
6.Id. at 82-84, MR of DAR's September 5, 1994 Order; id. at 106-108, MR of DAR's December 12, 1995 Order.
7.Rollo, pp. 57-58.
8.Id. at 129-132.
9.Section 71. Bank Mortgages. — Banks and other financial institutions allowed by law to hold mortgage rights or security interests in agricultural lands to secure loans and other obligations of borrowers, may acquire title to these mortgaged properties, regardless of area, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 13 of this Act.
10.Guidelines Clarifying Sections 3 and 6 of R.A. 7881 Relative to Applications for Commercial Farms Deferment and the Turn-Over to DAR of Foreclosed Assets of Government Financial Institutions, Respectively —
xxx xxx xxx
As regards private banks, Section 71 of RA 6657 provides that said foreclosed assets are subject to existing laws on their compulsory transfer (that is, under the General Banking Act) and acquisition under Section 16 of said Act. This means that private banks may sell to third parties their foreclosed assets but still subject to acquisition under Section 16 of RA 6657.
11.SECTION 25. Any commercial bank may purchase, hold, and convey real estate for the following purposes:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Such as it shall purchase at sales under judgments decrees, mortgages, or trust deeds held by it and such as it shall purchase to secure debts due to it.
But no such bank shall hold the possession of any real estate under mortgage or trust deed, or the title and possession of any real estate purchased to secure any debt due to it, for a longer period than five years. [Underscoring supplied]
12.Rollo, pp. 64-65.
13.G.R. No. 178296, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 420, 433.
14.G.R. No. 161910, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 500, 510.
15.Id. at 511.