Sta. Ana Agricultural and Industrial Development Corp. v. Department of Agrarian Reform

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252480. July 20, 2022.]

STA. ANA AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KIRSTEN MARIE JOY TUPAS, PAUL OLIVER CRUZ, MICHELLE ANTONETTE CORDOZA, SAMANTHA LAURA STA. ANA, TIMOTHY JAMES TUPAS, RAMON PAULO CRUZ, MATTHEW IVAN CORDOZA, MELEEZA MARIE STA. ANA, SABINNI STA. ANA [AS REPRESENTED BY RAUL STA. ANA], AND CARMELA ISABEL STA. ANA [AS REPRESENTED BY ROMEO VICENTE STA. ANA, JR.], petitioners, vs.DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM [DAR], REGIONAL OFFICE VI IN ILOILO CITY, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. SHEILA B. ENCISO AS ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DAR PROVINCIAL OFFICE, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, REPRESENTED BY TERESITA R. MABUNAY AS THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM OFFICER, MUNICIPAL REFORM OFFICE OF EB MAGALONA, REPRESENTED BY TESSIE R. PEDROSA, AS THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM OFFICER IN EB MAGALONA, MUNICIPAL REFORM OFFICE OF VICTORIAS, REPRESENTED BY ELSON RANER MABUNAY AS THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM OFFICER IN VICTORIAS, AND THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICE IN EB MAGALONA, REPRESENTED BY CARLOS PADILLA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER II IN EB MAGALONA, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 20, 2022, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252480 (Sta. Ana Agricultural and Industrial Development Corporation, Kirsten Marie Joy Tupas, Paul Oliver Cruz, Michelle Antonette Cordoza, Samantha Laura Sta. Ana, Timothy James Tupas, Ramon Paulo Cruz, Matthew Ivan Cordoza, Meleeza Marie Sta. Ana, Sabinni Sta. Ana [as represented by Raul Sta. Ana], and Carmela Isabel Sta. Ana [as represented by Romeo Vicente Sta. Ana, Jr.,] Petitioners, vs. Department of Agrarian Reform [DAR], Regional Office VI in Iloilo City, represented by Atty. Sheila B. Enciso as its Regional Director, DAR Provincial Office, Negros Occidental, represented by Teresita R. Mabunay as the Provincial Agrarian Reform Program Officer, Municipal Reform Office of EB Magalona, represented by Tessie R. Pedrosa, as the Municipal Agrarian Reform Program Officer in EB Magalona, Municipal Reform Office of Victorias, represented by Elson Raner Mabunay as the Municipal Agrarian Reform Program Officer in Victorias, and the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office in EB Magalona, represented by Carlos Padilla, in his capacity as the Officer-in-Charge Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer II in EB Magalona, Respondents). — Before the Court is a Petition for Mandamus1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO), a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI), and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (WPMI).

In the main, Sta. Ana Agricultural and Industrial Development Corporation (SAIDCOR) and the individual petitioners 2 pray, among others, that an order be issued upon the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office VI (DAR RO VI) to act on and immediately resolve petitioners' (a) Protest 3 dated April 24, 2017 and (b) Motion for Reconsideration 4 dated August 22, 2019 involving their real properties located in E.B. Magalona and Victorias, Negros Occidental, respectively.

The Antecedents

According to petitioners, they owned parcels of land located in Alacaygan, E.B. Magalona and in Victorias, Negros Occidental which are more particularly described as follows:

Owner	Title/Lot No.
Kirsten Marie Joy Tupas	TCT No. 091-2019006756
Paul Oliver Cruz	(previously, TCT No. T-091-2012004516)
Michelle Antoinette Cordoza	Lot No. 655-B-1
Samantha Laura Sta. Ana	TCT No. 091-2019006759
Sabinni Sta. Ana	(previously, TCT No. T-091-2012004515)
Carmela Isabel Sta. Ana	Lot No. 655-B-6
Timothy James Tupas	(previously, TCT No. T-091-2012004655)
Ramon Paulo Cruz	Lot No. 655-B-2
Matthew Ivan Cordoza	TCT No. 091-2019006758
Meleeza Marie Sta. Ana	(previously, TCT No. T-091-2012004654)
Sabinni Sta. Ana	Lot No. 655-B-8
Carmela Isabel Sta. Ana	(collectively, "E.B. Magalona Properties")
SAIDCOR	TCT No. 091-2019006760("Victorias Property")5

E.B. Magalona Properties

Petitioners alleged that after four years from the expiration of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), they received letters from the DAR RO VI anent the denial of access to the latter for the conduct of a survey on the E.B. Magalona properties; however, the DAR RO VI did not conduct any survey or issued any notice of coverage (NOC) on the properties; later on, upon perusal of the claim folder at the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office, the individual petitioners discovered a photocopy of a NOC dated July 2, 2002 involving the E.B. Magalona properties; and on April 24, 2017, they filed a protest, 6 but the DAR RO VI did not act on it even after more than three years from its filing. 7

Victorias Property

Meanwhile, petitioners averred that the placing of the Victorias property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) had no basis due to the expiration of the CARL. They added that there was also no NOC issued on the Victorias property, but they nonetheless admitted that SAIDCOR received a letter with an attached NOC issued on June 6, 1994 to Eduardo Lopingco (Lopingco), the previous owner of the Victorias property. 8

On March 21, 2017, SAIDCOR filed a protest on the assertion that it was protecting its property rights against any illegal and unconstitutional acquisition and distribution of the Victorias property. 9 The case was docketed as ADM Case Nos. A-1801-1310-2017; A-1801-0499-2019. 10

On May 28, 2019, the DAR RO VI denied the protest. 11

On August 22, 2019, SAIDCOR filed a Motion for Reconsideration 12 which, according to petitioners, was not acted upon by the DAR RO VI despite the lapse of more than ten months from its filing.

In fine, petitioners filed the instant petition for mandamus raising the following grounds:

a. The Petitioners have a clear right to speedy disposition of cases, to due process and to property.

b. The DAR, through its Regional Director, has the duty to resolve the Pending Incidents.

c. The DAR, through its Regional Director, has unlawfully neglected its duty to resolve the Pending Incidents, to the Prejudice of the Petitioners.

d. The duty to resolve the Pending Incidents is ministerial.

e. There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. 13

Petitioners' Arguments

Petitioners contend that: they have the right to demand the expeditious action on the part of the DAR RO VI on the pending incidents — (a) protest involving the E.B. Magalona properties and (b) motion for reconsideration as regards the Victorias property; the failure of the DAR RO VI to perform its ministerial duty to resolve the protest and motion for reconsideration for more than three years and ten months, respectively, constitute a reasonable delay which warrants immediate judicial intervention. 14

Respondents' Arguments

For its part, the DAR RO VI, through Regional Director Atty. Sheila B. Enciso, counters that it has no knowledge of the protest concerning the E.B. Magalona properties stressing that the purported protest was neither docketed, submitted, nor pending resolution under its jurisdiction. Meanwhile, it asserts that the issuance of a writ of mandamus with regard to its alleged inaction on the motion for reconsideration involving the Victorias property is rendered moot. 15 This is because the DAR RO VI already resolved the motion in the Resolution 16 dated September 1, 2020.

In addition, Teresita R. Mabunay (Mabunay), Officer-in-Charge Provincial Agrarian Reform Program Officer II (OIC-PARPO II) of the DAR Provincial Office, Negros Occidental 1, Bacolod City alleges that on April 24, 2017, petitioners filed a manifestation to file a protest against the CARP coverage in relation to the E.B. Magalona properties which she transmitted to the DAR Municipal Office, E.B. Magalona, Negros Occidental. This notwithstanding, she opines that a petition for mandamus is not a proper remedy to compel her and the other DAR officers to perform their official functions because they exercise not mere ministerial but discretionary functions as regards the implementation of the CARP. 17

Meanwhile, the DAR North Negros 1, Negros Occidental, represented by OIC-PARPO II Carlos T. Padilla (Padilla), similarly states 18 that in the Resolution 19 of September 1, 2020, the DAR RO VI already resolved the motion for reconsideration involving the Victorias property.

On July 13, 2020, the Court denied 20 petitioners' prayer for the issuance of a TRO, WPI, and WPMI.

On October 6, 2020, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration 21 of the Resolution dated July 13, 2020. They argue that respondents violated and continue to violate their rights to the speedy disposition of the cases, to property, and to due process by respondents' inaction or unlawful neglect of their ministerial duty to act on the pending incidents; and that there is an urgent need for the issuance of injunctive relief to prevent irreparable injury to petitioners.

Our Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

Time and again, the Court has ruled that an issue becomes moot when it no longer presents any justiciable controversy such that the resolution of the issue would be without practical value. 22 Consequently, the petitioner will not be entitled to an actual and substantive relief and which relief will be negated by the dismissal of the case. Under the circumstances, the Court will no longer express its opinion because the legal relief sought is neither needed nor called for. 23

Notably, one of the reasons for the filing of the instant petition for mandamus is for the issuance of an order directing the DAR RO VI to act on petitioners' motion for reconsideration in ADM Case Nos. A-1801-1310-2017 and A-1801-0499-2019. In view however of the issuance by the DAR RO VI of the Resolution dated September 1, 2020 which resolved and accordingly denied the subject motion for reconsideration, the issue with regard to the Victorias property is already rendered moot.

Meanwhile, as regards the alleged protest pertaining to the E.B. Magalona properties, the petition fails to provide sufficient justification for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

First, it is a basic principle that while the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals (CA), and the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, among other extraordinary writs, it does not give petitioners unrestricted freedom to choose which court to file the petition. The competence of the Court to issue a writ of mandamus does not mean that petitioners can ignore the concurrent jurisdiction of the inferior courts equally equipped to resolve the petition and simply opt to come directly with the Court. Verily, where the issuance of an extraordinary writ, such as mandamus, is also within the competent and concurrent jurisdiction of the CA or the RTC, it is in these courts that the petition must be lodged. 24

Second, as pointed out by OIC-PARPO II Mabunay, a petition for mandamus is not the proper recourse to direct respondents to act on the supposed protest pertaining to the E.B. Magalona properties.

To underscore, Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides for the circumstances under which a writ of mandamus may issue, viz.:

Section 3. Petition for Mandamus. — When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.

xxx xxx xxx.

As an extraordinary remedy, mandamus is an available remedy to compel the performance of pure ministerial duty. As above stated, it may be issued under two specific situations: one, when the concerned tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which is legally imposed as a duty resulting from one's office, trust, or station; or two, when the concerned entity or person unlawfully excludes another from the enjoyment and use of an office or right which the latter is entitled. 25

More particularly, in order for mandamus to lie, the following requisites must be established: "(a) the plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded; (b) it must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act, because it is mandated by law; (c) the defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (d) the act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (e) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." 26

The foregoing requisites are not established in the present case.

One, petitioners failed to show that they have a clear legal right to demand the DAR RO VI to act on their purported protest involving the E.B. Magalona properties.

It bears stressing that although rendered moot, the motion for reconsideration involving the Victorias property was docketed as ADM Case Nos. A-1801-1310-2017 and A-1801-0499-2019. On the contrary, and as pointed out by the DAR RO VI, petitioners' supposed protest dated April 24, 2017 was neither docketed, submitted nor pending resolution under its jurisdiction. Too, OIC-PARPO II Mabunay asserts that what petitioners filed was a mere manifestation to file a protest. Petitioners did not fully refute these assertions made by the DAR RO VI and OIC-PARPO II Mabunay.

At the same time, petitioners' letter dated April 24, 2017 addressed to OIC-PARPO II Mabunay was not shown to be made under oath and was not accompanied by relevant documentary evidence. Thus, it fell short of the requirements of a protest under the pertinent rules for agrarian law implementation cases. 27

Further, even if the subject letter-protest be deemed as properly filed, such filing does not still reflect petitioners' clear right sufficient for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

To stress, in their letter dated April 24, 2017, petitioners stated that while an alleged NOC dated July 2, 2002 was addressed to Lopingco, the previous owner of the E.B. Magalona properties, no NOC was served on the latter. However, the allegation remains as a bare assertion, there being no confirmation on the part of Lopingco that no NOC was indeed served upon him. That Lopingco was still the owner when the NOC in dispute was issued was attested to by OIC-PARPO II Padilla:

As to the protest dated 24 April 2017 (EB Magalona Properties), the claim folder (CF) for that property reveals that the DAR issued and sent notice of coverage dated July 2, 2002 to Eduardo Lopingco — the registered owner of the property.

Similar to that of [the] Victorias property, on May 22, 2008, [the] EB Magalona property which was also owned by Eduardo Lopingco conveyed the ownership of that property to Greenworld Agricultural and Development Corporation (Greenworld). Subsequently, on June 13, 2008, Greenworld conveyed it to SAIDCOR. On June 27, 2011, SAIDCOR caused to subdivide the property into two parcels of lots and registered it anew — still in its name. Came finally, August 28, 2012 and on September 4, 2012, the property was further subdivided and registered to herein individual petitioners. 28

It is clear from the foregoing that at the time the NOC dated July 2, 2002 was issued, it was Lopingco who still had the clear legal right over the E.B. properties and it was he who could attest to the fact of issuance (or non-issuance) of the NOC. Hence, for their failure to show that Lopingco did not receive the NOC, then petitioners' supposed right to demand the DAR RO VI to act on their purported protest — which relied upon the supposed lack of valid NOC issued to Lopingco — has no leg to stand on.

Two, an order compelling the DAR RO VI to act on petitioners' alleged protest is not within the ambit of a petition for mandamus. This is because the act prayed to be performed by DAR RO VI involves not mere ministerial duty, but that which requires the exercise of its discretion.

The determination of whether the protest has any merit requires a review of evidentiary matters necessitating an exercise of independent judgment on the part of the DAR RO VI. The resolution of the protest also requires the application of pertinent laws, including the CARL, which definitely requires the exercise of discretion and therefore, is not within the scope of a petition for mandamus. 29

To recapitulate, the petition necessarily fails: (1) because of non-observance of the rule that a petition for mandamus must be filed, not with the Court, but with the inferior court which has concurrent and competent jurisdiction over the petition; (2) for lack of showing that petitioners have a clear legal right to the act demanded; and (3) because the act to be performed involves the discretionary functions of the DAR RO VI. The absence of these requisites also supports the denial of petitioners' motion for reconsideration on the Resolution dated July 13, 2020 which, in turn, denied the prayer for the issuance of a TRO, WPI, and WPMI.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

For lack of basis in fact and in law, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated July 13, 2020 is DENIED with FINALITY.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-56.

2. Kirsten Marie Joy Tupas, Paul Oliver Cruz, Michelle Antonette Cordoza, Samantha Laura Sta. Ana, Timothy James Tupas, Ramon Paulo Cruz, Matthew Ivan Cordoza, Meleeza Marie Sta. Ana, Sabinni Sta. Ana (as represented by Raul Sta. Ana) and Carmela Isabel Sta. Ana (as represented by Romeo Vicente Sta. Ana, Jr.).

3.Rollo, pp. 57-58-A.

4.Id. at 59-75.

5.Id. at 6, 8.

6.Id. at 57-58-A.

7.Id. at 8-10.

8.Id. at 10-11.

9.Id. at 11.

10.Id. at 306.

11.Id. at 11, 306.

12.Id. at 59-75.

13.Id. at 12-13.

14.Id. at 13-21.

15.Id. at 301-302.

16.Id. at 306-315, penned by Regional Director Atty. Sheila B. Enciso.

17.Id. at 334, 338.

18.Id. at 322.

19.Id. at 306-315.

20.Id. at 239.

21.Id. at 280-291.

22.Ilusorio v. Baguio Country Club Corp., 738 Phil. 135, 140 (2014).

23.Id.

24.Lihaylihay v. Tan, 836 Phil. 400, 429 (2018).

25.Del Rosario v. Shaikh, G.R. No. 206249, December 10, 2019.

26.Id.

27. See Nicanor T. Santos Development Corp. v. Sec. Dept. of Agrarian Reform, 518 Phil. 706 (2006).

28.Rollo, p. 323.

29. See Lihaylihay v. Tan, supra note 24, at 422-423.