FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 152656. April 1, 2014.]
YALE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 1, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 152656 — YALE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, versus THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondent.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure wherein petitioner Yale Land Development Corporation (Yale) seeks to annul and set aside the Decision 1 dated October 9, 1998 as well as the Resolution dated March 13, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39189, entitled "Yale Land Development Corporation v. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform."
The aforementioned Decision dated October 9, 1998 dismissed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Yale which sought to set aside the Orders dated May 29, 1995 and November 15, 1995 of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for having been issued without jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion. On the other hand, the Resolution dated March 13, 2002 denied the motion for reconsideration subsequently filed by petitioner.
The factual backdrop of this case was narrated in the assailed October 9, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals as follows: ICHDca
The case stemmed from the Application for Exemption from the Coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program/Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARP/CARL) pursuant to Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, filed on February 18, 1994 by Milo Bejosana, Attorney-in-fact of Pedro S. Caragao involving a land located at Barangay Malinta, Dasmariñas, Cavite with a total area of 842,794 square meters, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-343170 and T-343171. Upon being informed of the filing of said application, petitioner, in a letter dated December 23, 1994, manifested its objection to the coverage of the subject properties under the CARP/CARL arguing that the said properties are agricultural and were classified as industrial-residential prior to the effectivity of CARP/CARL on June 15, 1988, and, in addition, asserted its right and ownership over the land claiming that these properties, were bought by it from Mr. Ricardo Silverio who in turn acquired the same from the heirs of Gregorio Bataclan. On May 29, 1995, respondent issued the assailed order denying the application for exemption from the coverage of the CARP/CARL filed on behalf of Pedro Caragao, registered owner of the subject properties, and directed the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Dasmariñas, Cavite to determine who among the proposed beneficiaries are the most qualified to become awardees of the subject properties. In a letter dated June 15, 1995, petitioner through counsel filed a reconsideration of respondent's Order dated May 29, 1995. No motion for reconsideration was filed by Pedro Caragao. In an Order dated November 15, 1995, public respondent denied the reconsideration sought by petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for exemption from CARP coverage is hereby DENIED and the questioned Order dated May 29, 1995 is AFFIRMEDin toto. The acquisition and distribution of the subject landholdings to qualified ARBs is now mandated. Accordingly, as far as this Office is concerned, this case is considered closed.
Let a copy of this Order be furnished the LBP in order to apprise them that the ownership of the property is presently under issue. 2
As earlier stated, the Court of Appeals dismissed Yale's petition for certiorari after finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent. It likewise denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, petitioner sought our review of the appellate court's issuances via the instant proceedings.
Before we can take into consideration petitioner Yale's objection to respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform's denial of the application for exemption of the subject properties from the coverage of the CARL, we must first resolve the issue of whether petitioner had legal standing to bring the present suit before the Court.
It is evident that the question of ownership over the subject properties was still under litigation at the time of the filing of the present petition. During the proceedings in the Court of Appeals, a certain Pedro Caragao, claiming to be the registered owner of the aforementioned properties, intervened in this case. The nature and basis for his intervention was described in the assailed October 9, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals, to wit: aTADCE
On December 1, 1997, Pedro Caragao, filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene together with his Comment in Intervention in his capacity as the registered owner of the two (2) parcels of land subject of the controversy who will be directly affected by any decision which this Court may render in regard to the issues raised by petitioner in the case at bar. In his comment, Pedro Caragao contends that petitioner has no right whatsoever to file the instant petition as it is not the owner of the subject properties sought to be exempted from the coverage of CARL and as such petitioner has no personality to institute the present petition. Ownership over the subject properties is not being raised as an issue in this petition since the same is already the subject of controversy in an action before this Court pending in another division. Intervenor Pedro Caragao is, however, adopting petitioner's arguments in praying for the exemption of the properties. 3
Indeed, a perusal of the petition itself would reveal that petitioner candidly disclosed that it was aware that Caragao's claim of ownership was affirmed, in a minute resolution dated October 21, 1998, by the Court's Third Division in G.R. No. 135244, entitled "Yale Land Development Corporation vs. Pedro Caragao, the Heirs of Gregorio Bataclan, Apolinario Bataclan, et al., and Ricardo Silverio, the Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite." Despite that judgment, petitioner still pursued the present course of action on the belief that, since the companion case of G.R. No. 135192 entitled "Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. vs. Pedro Caragao and the Heirs of Gregorio Bataclan" then remained unresolved by the Court, petitioner still possessed the legal capacity to file the present petition. In the said related case, Ricardo C. Silverio asserted his claim of ownership over the properties at issue arguing that the heirs of Gregorio Bataclan had sold the said lands to him. In turn, Silverio sold the same to petitioner. Thus, petitioner maintained that, unless and until G.R. No. 135192 was decided with finality against Silverio, it still possessed a contingent interest in the subject parcels of land and, therefore, remained a real party in interest which was legally capacitated to pursue this case. cDEICH
On February 16, 2005, while this petition was pending with this Division, the Third Division of this Court issued a Resolution 4 denying the petition for review on certiorari filed by Silverio in G.R. No. 135192. The dispositive portion of the February 16, 2005 Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The motions for substitution of parties are likewise DENIED, also for lack of merit.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration were likewise denied via Resolutions dated September 26, 2005 and December 12, 2005. Entry of Judgment was made on January 17, 2006. Thus, the Court has upheld with finality the title of Pedro Caragao to the subject properties over the claim of Ricardo Silverio, petitioner's predecessor-in-interest.
The pertinent rule in this case is Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which is reproduced here:
Sec. 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
In Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., 5 we elaborated upon the said rule of procedure in this wise:
Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest, unless otherwise authorized by law or the rules. A real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. The rule refers to a real or present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy; or from a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. One having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a party-plaintiff in an action.
To paraphrase the foregoing in a manner applicable to the case at bar, petitioner must of necessity continue to hold a real or present substantial interest that entitles it to the avails of the suit on appeal in order for this petition to prosper.
Considering that petitioner's interest as owner of the subject parcels of land was contingent upon the validity of Silverio's claim of ownership, petitioner has been finally adjudged as not a real party in interest due to the Court's pronouncement in the February 16, 2005 Resolution in G.R. No. 135192. As a result of which, the petitioner's appeal of the DAR Secretary's issuances over the subject properties must be denied in view of said petitioner's lack of personality to sue. Verily, a resolution on the merits would be an exercise in futility owing to this procedural flaw. TCcSDE
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 152656), pp. 29-34. Penned by Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria with Associate Justices Ramon A. Barcelona and Bernardo P. Abesamis, concurring.
2. Id. at 29-30.
3. Id. at 30-31.
4. Rollo (G.R. No. 135192), pp. 273-278.
5. G.R. No. 188471, April 20, 2010, 618 SCRA 619, 632-633.