3L\epubltc of tbe

~upreme

~bilippines

<tourt

3Jjaguio <titp
SECOND DTVISION
SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT
MANGINGISDA NG SITIO NASWE,
INC. [SAMMANA], REPRESENTED BY
ROGELIO A. COMMENDADOR,
PRESIDENT,
Petitioner,

- versus -

G.R. No. 196028

Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
MENDOZA, and
LEONEN,JJ.
Promulgated:

TOMAS TAN,

.APR 1 8 2016
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari 1 assailing
the July 27, 2010 decision2 and February 10, 2011 resolution3 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100926. The CA dismissed the
petitioner's appeal from the decision of the Office of the President (OP),
which affirmed the lifting of the Notice of Coverage from the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) issued over land
sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The petitioner Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio
Naswe, Inc. (petitioner) is an association of farmers and fishermen residing
at Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan. 4 The petitioner claimed

Rollo, pp. 9-20.

Penned by CA Associate Justice Fiorito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring; Id. at 25-32.
3
Id. at 33-34.
Id. at 10.

Decision

G.R. No. 196028

that its members have resided in the area for several years doing farming
activities from which they derive their income for their daily sustenance.5
On April 4, 1995, the PCGG published in the newspaper an Invitation
to Bid for the sale of its assets, which included 34 hectares of a 129.4227hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, previously owned by
Anchor Estate Corporation.6 The PCGG sequestered the properties of
Anchor Estate Corporation after it was identified to be a dummy corporation
of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Respondent Tomas Tan emerged as the highest bidder in the bidding
of the 34-hectare property.7 The PCGG Committee on Privatization
approved the sale and a Notice of Award was issued to the respondent on
May 2, 2000. The OP, through former Executive Secretary Ronaldo B.
Zamora, also approved the sale of the property to the respondent on July 16,
2000.8 On August 1, 2000, the PCGG, representing the Republic of the
Philippines, executed a Deed of Sale in the respondents favor.9
On July 25, 2000, then Chairman of the PCGG Committee on
Privatization Jorge V. Sarmiento wrote the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) requesting to stop the acquisition of the property under the CARP.10
It appeared that, on June 16, 1994, a Notice of Coverage had been issued
over the 129.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan,11
and that the 34 hectares sold by the PCGG to the respondent had been
already identified for CARP coverage and targeted for acquisition in
the year 2000.12
In an Order13 dated July 26, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R.
Morales, Jr. granted Chairman Sarmientos request and lifted the Notice of
Coverage on the 129.4227-hectare property. Secretary Morales also ordered
to stop the acquisition proceedings on the property.14
On October 29, 2004,15 the petitioner filed with the DAR a Petition to
Revoke Secretary Moraless July 26, 2000 Order.16 The DAR denied both
the petitioners petition in an Order dated February 3, 2006, and its
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15

Id. at 16-17.
Id. at 26.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 11.
Id. at 26.
Id. at 25
Id. at 26.
The dispositive portion of the order stated:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Notice of Coverage issued on 16 June
1994 by MARO Dominador M. Delda is hereby LIFTED. The Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officer (PARO) of Bataan and the MARO of Mariveles, Bataan, are hereby
directed to stop acquisition proceedings for CARP coverage of the subject property.
Rollo, p. 26.
The CA decision, however, stated that the petitioner filed their petition to revoke on November 11,

2004.
16

Rollo, p. 12.

Decision

G.R. No. 196028

subsequent motion for reconsideration in an order dated September 26,

2006.17 The DAR based its denial on the ground that the subject property,
being government-owned, does not fall as private agricultural land subject
to the CARP. The petitioner then appealed to the OP.
In a decision dated April 10, 2007, the OP dismissed the petitioners
appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the DAR Secretarys Order lifting the
subject Notice of Coverage.18 The petitioner moved to reconsider but the
OP denied its motion in a resolution dated August 6, 2007.19 The petitioner
then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 4320 with the CA.
In a decision21 dated July 27, 2010, the CA held that, while the lifting
of the subject Notice of Coverage was irregular and erroneous, the
petitioners petition for review must be dismissed on the ground that the
petitioner was not a real party in interest to the case. It held:
We, nonetheless, find that the Petitioner is not a real party in
interest in the case at bench. 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. All that has been alleged in the records
was that the members of the Petitioner are in actual possession of the
Subject Property and that farming activities were conducted thereon.
Nothing, however, is stated as to them being beneficiaries, or at least
potential beneficiaries, under CARP. This Court cannot be made to guess
how a judgment setting aside the Assailed Decision and Assailed
Resolution would positively affect the Petitioner simply because it is
composed of farmers and fishermen x x x.22 (Citations omitted)

The petitioner moved to reconsider the ruling but the CA denied its motion
for reconsideration; hence, the petitioner filed the present petition for review
on certiorari before this Court.
OUR RULING
We DENY the present petition for review on certiorari as we find no
reversible error committed by the CA in issuing its assailed decision and
resolution.

17
18
19
20
21
22

Id. at 26.
Id. at 26-27.
Id.
Of the Rules of Court.
Supra note 2.
Rollo, p. 31.

Decision

G.R. No. 196028

A. The petitioner is not a real party-in-interest to

question the July 26, 2000 DAR Order; the
Constitutional right to form associations does
not make the petitioner a real party-in-interest
in this case.
Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court, every
action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-ininterest.23 The Rules of Court defines a real party in interest as 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.24 To be properly considered as such,
the party must have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest in the
subject matter of the action,25 NOT a mere expectancy or a future,
contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.26
Republic Act (RA) No. 665727 in relation with Section 3 of the Rules
of Court expressly allows farmers, farmworkers, tillers, cultivators, etc.,
organizations and associations, through their leaders, to represent their
members in any proceedings before the DAR. It must be pointed out,
however, that the law should be harmonized with the interest requirement in
bringing actions and suits. In other words, while organizations and
associations may represent their members before the DAR, these members
must have such real, actual, material, or substantial interest in the subject
matter of the action, NOT merely an expectancy, or a future contingent
interest.
Here, the petitioner alleged that it is duly registered with the SEC
acting on behalf of its farmers and fishermen members which allegation
gave it the right to represent its members. However, it failed to allege and
prove that these members are identified and registered qualified
beneficiaries of the subject land, or have already been actually awarded
portions of it, or have been issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award
(CLOAs) for which they could validly claim the status of the lands grantees
having a real, actual, material interest to question the July 26, 2000 Order
of the DAR Secretary lifting the Notice of Coverage. Not being identified
and duly registered qualified beneficiaries, these members interest over the
subject land were at most an expectancy that, unfortunately for them, did not
ripen to actual award and ownership.
In Fortich v. Corona,28 the Court did not consider as real parties in
interest the movants in the case who were merely recommendee farmerbeneficiaries. The movants in Fortich, who claimed to be farmerbeneficiaries of the disputed agricultural land in San Vicente, Sumilao,
23
24
25
26
27
28

RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Section 2.

Id.
Subido v. City of Manila, et al., 108 Phil. 462-468 (1960).
Garcia v. David, 67 Phil. 279, 285.
See Section 50 of RA No. 6657.
G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 624, 628.

Decision

G.R. No. 196028

Bukidnon, attached to their motion for intervention a Master List of

Farmer-Beneficiaries to show that they are real parties in interest in the
case. The document merely showed that the movants were those Found
Qualified and Recommended for Approval as farmer-beneficiaries; thus,
the Court held that they were not real parties in interest as their interest over
the land in question was a mere expectancy.
The Court was later confronted with the same issue in Sumalo
Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton29 and Samahang
Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosquera.30
In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan, the Court
rejected the petitioners claim as real parties in interest in the case because,
aside from their self-serving assertions, the records were devoid of proof that
they have been identified and registered as qualified CARP beneficiaries.
Subsequently, in Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya, the Court
ruled that being mere qualified beneficiaries of the CARP was not enough
to be considered a party in interest. The Court, applying Fortich, held that
farmer-beneficiaries, who are not approved awardees of CARP, are not real
parties in interest;31 that the fact that there was x x x certification that
CLOAs were already generated in their names, but were not issued because
of the present dispute, does not vest any right to the farmers since the fact
remains that they have not yet been approved as awardees, actually awarded
lands, or granted CLOAs x x x.32
As earlier pointed out, the petitioner in this case merely alleged that
its members, composed of farmers and fishermen, were long-time residents
of Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, and were conducting
farming activities in the area. No evidence was presented to show that the
petitioners members were approved as awardees, or were granted CLOAs
over their respective portions of the disputed property. The petitioner even
admits that the case folders of its members were not processed because of
the DAR Secretarys July 26, 2000 Order.33
Thus, notwithstanding its representative capacity, the petitioner and its
members are not real parties-in-interest to question the DARs July 26, 2000
Order.
In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education
Culture and Sports, the BARC certified the farmers-individuals who claimed
to be permanent and regular farmworkers of the disputed land as potential
CARP beneficiaries. Also, the Notice of Coverage issued by the MARO
over the disputed land was approved by the DAR Regional Director, and
29
30
31
32
33

G.R. No. 146061, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 385.

G.R. No. 152430, March 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 668.
Id. at 679.
Id.
Rollo, p. 17.

Decision

G.R. No. 196028

finally by the DAR Secretary. On the DECSs appeal, the CA set aside the
DAR Secretarys decision approving the Notice of Coverage.
The Court reversed the CA decision, declaring (on the issue of
whether the farmers are qualified beneficiaries of CARP) that the
identification of actual and potential beneficiaries under CARP is vested in
the DAR Secretary pursuant to Section 15 of RA No. 6657. Since the
identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving
strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, it behooves the
courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of the
issue, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the
administrative agency. In this case, there was none.34
In contrast with the petitioners case, its members were not identified
and registered by the BARC as the subject lands beneficiaries; and the
Notice of Coverage was in fact lifted by the DAR Secretary via the July 26,
2000 Order which Order the OP subsequently affirmed.
As the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters
involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP which the
Court generally respects, the CAs finding that the subject land is covered by
RA No. 6657 (which is not even reflected in its decisions fallo) cannot be
validly relied upon by the petitioner. At most, it is a non-binding obiter
dictum.
DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994,35 the rules
governing the hearing of protests involving the coverage of lands under RA
No. 6657 at the time the PCGG Chairman filed the letter request with the
DAR Secretary, did not provide any minimum period of time within which
the protest or, in this case, the PCGG letter-request must be decided. As
A.O. No. 9, series of 1994 provided, the MARO or PARO shall, once the
protest is filed, comment on said protest and submit the same to the
Regional Director who shall rule on the same.36
In short, the DARs lifting of the Notice of Coverage issued by the
MARO over the subject land one day after the PCGG letter-request was filed
was not inconsistent with then existing rules and was, therefore, not
irregular.

34

469 Phil. 1083, 1094-1095 (2004).

Entitled AUTHORIZING ALL REGIONAL DIRECTORS (RDS) TO HEAR AND DECIDE
ALL PROTESTS INVOLVING COVERAGE UNDER R.A. NO. 6657 OR P.D. NO. 27 AND DEFINING
THE APPEAL PROCESS FROM THE RDS TO THE SECRETARY, issued on August 30, 1994.
36
See Subsection A, Part III of A.O. No. 9, series of 1994.
35

Decision

G.R. No. 196028

B. The constitutional considerations: provisions

governing agrarian reform program do not
entail automatic grant of lands to every farmer
and farmworker.
Social justice in the land reform program also applies to landowners,
not merely to farmers and farmworkers. This is precisely why the law RA
No. 6657 and the applicable rules provide for the procedure for
determining the proper beneficiaries and grantees or awardees of the lands
covered or to be covered under the CARP.
These procedures ensure that only the qualified, identified, and
registered farmers and/or farmworkers-beneficiaries acquire the covered
lands which they themselves actually till (subject to the landowners retention
rights as protected by the law). Conversely, these procedures likewise
ensure that landowners do not lose their lands to usurpers and other illegal
settlers who wish to take advantage of the agrarian reform program to
acquire lands to which they are not entitled.
In this light, for a particular land and its farmers, farmworkers, tillers,
etc. to be covered under the CARP, two requisites must concur: first, the
land should be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage;37 and
second, the beneficiaries must be qualified and registered by the DAR, in
coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC); copy
of the BARC list or registry must be posted38 in accordance with the
guidelines established by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
(PARC).39
In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan v. Litton, et
al., the Court pointed out that the CARL is specific in its requirements for
registering qualified beneficiaries. Those who have not been identified and
registered as qualified beneficiaries are not real parties-in-interest.
40

Thus, Section 15 of the CARL explicitly provides:

SEC. 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. The DAR in coordination with
the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this
Act, shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farm workers who
are qualified to be beneficiaries with the assistance of the BARC and the
DAR shall provide the following data:
a) Names and members of their immediate farm household;
b) Location and area of the land they work;
c) Crops planted; and
d) Their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages received.

37
38
39
40

See Chapter V of RA No. 6657.

See Sections 15 and 47 RA No. 6657.
See Section 7 of RA No. 6657.
532 Phil. 86 (2006).

Decision

G.R. No. 196028

A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the

barangay shall be posted in the barangay hall, school or other public
buildings in the barangay where it shall be open to inspection by the
public at all reasonable hours.

In other words, a claimant may fall under one of the categories of

qualified beneficiaries as enumerated under Section 22 of RA No. 6657, but
he or she does not automatically become a grantee of the covered land. RA
No. 6657 specifically requires that not only must he or she be a qualified
beneficiary, he or she must, above everything else, be identified and
registered as such in accordance with the procedures and guidelines laid out
in the law and applicable rules.
In these lights, the views of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
(Justice Leonen) that the social justice principles of the Constitution
guarantees the petitioner automatic standing to question the DARs July 26,
2000 Order is misplaced. So also, Justice Leonen cannot rely on
Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education Culture and
Sports that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest because the land has
already been subjected to the coverage of the CARP. To emphasize and
reiterate, the land must be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage
and the beneficiaries must be both qualified and registered by the DAR for
the subject land and the petitioners farmers and fishermen members to be
covered by the CARP. There is thus nothing irregular in the procedure
undertaken by the DAR Secretary in the lifting of the Notice of Coverage a
day after the request was filed by the PCGG Chairman.
C. The July 26, 2000 DAR Order has already
attained finality is no longer reviewable
by this Court.
Even assuming that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest, which we
reiterate it is not, the present petition for review on certiorari still fails
because the July 26, 2000 Order of the DAR, which the petitioner
ultimately seeks this Court to review, has already attained finality.
The petitioner alleged that they filed with the DAR their petition to
revoke the lifting of the Notice of Coverage on the subject 129.4227-hectare
property only on October 29, 2004, or more than four (4) years after the
Order was issued by Secretary Morales on July 26, 2000. Section 15 of
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292,41 the applicable general law at the time the
assailed order was issued, provides that:
SECTION 15. Finality of Order. The decision of the agency shall
become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of a copy
thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that period an
administrative appeal or judicial review, if proper, has been perfected.

41

Entitled Instituting the Administrative Code of 1987, signed into law July 25, 1987.

Decisi~'1

G.R. No. 196028

One motion for reconsideration may be filed, which shall suspend the
running of the said period.

Without any motion for reconsideration or appeal filed from the assailed
July 26, 2000 order, the order lapsed to finality and can no longer be
reviewed.
This Court has held that administrative decisions must end sometime,
as fully as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial
controversies. 42 In the absence of any showing that the subject final order
was rendered without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, no court,
not even this Court, has the power to revive, review, change, or alter a final
and executory judgment or decision.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petitioner's petition for review on
certiorari. The decision dated July 27, 2010 and resolution dated February
10, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100926 are hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

CA~~
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

...
~~

0 C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

42

JOSE CA

~ENDOZA

Ass~~ f~~tice

Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres, 350 Phil. 315, 330-331 (1998).

Decision

G.R. No. 196028

10

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice