Aninao v. Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns approximately 507 hectares of land in Calatagan, Batangas, formerly owned by Ceferino Ascue. Emancipation Patents (EPs) were issued to 323 agrarian reform beneficiaries in 1989 and 1990 under Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228. The heirs of Ascue later sold the entire 807 hectares to Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc. (Asturias) in 1995. Asturias later asserted that the land was no longer suitable for agrarian reform coverage, citing its declaration as mineral land and the issuance of a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) and an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for a cement plant. Procedural History: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) initially issued a certificate of exemption for a portion of the land in 1999, based on findings that much of it was unsuitable for agriculture. However, after protests from Asturias and investigations by DAR task forces, the DAR, through Undersecretary Conrado S. Navarro, granted Asturias' protest and nullified the land's coverage under Operation Land Transfer (OLT) on August 4, 2000. Motions for reconsideration by farmer-beneficiaries were denied by the DAR on January 3, 2001. The Office of the President (OP) affirmed the DAR's decision and resolution on January 4, 2001, and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration on July 2, 2002. Petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43. The Petition: The petitioners, represented by Daniel Aninao, et al., seek review of the CA's resolutions dated December 11, 2002, and October 15, 2003. The CA had dismissed their petition for review for failing to comply with the requirements of a sworn certification against forum shopping, specifically noting that not all petitioners had signed the certification or provided adequate Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) authorizing one petitioner to sign on their behalf. The petitioners argue that the CA erred in dismissing their case on procedural grounds, asserting substantial compliance. They also raise substantive issues regarding the propriety of the DAR's nullification of the OLT coverage and the validity of the sale of the property to Asturias, contending that the land was agricultural and covered by agrarian reform laws.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on the ground of non-compliance with the rules on certification against forum shopping. Whether the nullification of the OLT coverage of the property in question by the DAR was proper. Whether the DAR has the competence to nullify OLT coverage even after the issuance of Emancipation Patents (EPs). Whether the sale of the property by the heirs of Ceferino Ascue to respondent Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc. is valid.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for review. The DAR's nullification of the OLT coverage was proper, and the sale to Asturias is valid as the land is mineral land and thus outside CARP coverage. The DAR has jurisdiction to nullify OLT coverage.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal for non-compliance with forum shopping rules: The Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' dismissal. The rules on certification against forum shopping require strict compliance. A petition with multiple petitioners must be accompanied by a certification signed by all or by an authorized representative. Substantial compliance is not sufficient when there is an utter disregard of the rules, and reasonable cause for failure to personally sign must be shown. In this case, nearly half of the petitioners failed to sign the certification or the SPA, and the petitioners failed to present reasonable cause for this failure, despite the appellate court giving them an opportunity to rectify the flaw. The explanation regarding distance and terrain was contradicted by their own motion for reconsideration. On the propriety of the DAR's nullification of OLT coverage: The Court affirmed the DAR's determination that the OLT coverage was erroneous. Agrarian reform programs cover only agricultural lands, primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of share-crop or lease tenancy for PD 27. Investigations by DAR offices established that the land was not primarily devoted to rice and corn, and tenancy was not clearly established. Factual findings of administrative agencies like the DAR, supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded respect and finality. The Court found no palpable error in the DAR's determination regarding the use of the property and the status of petitioners as tenants. On the DAR's competence to nullify OLT coverage and cancel EPs: The Court found the challenge to the DAR's jurisdiction tenuous. The DAR has exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program, including protests against coverage and nullification of such coverage. While the cancellation of EPs is a separate proceeding before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) once registered, the DAR Secretary's ruling merely gave due course to the protest and nullified the OLT coverage, explicitly stating that EP cancellation would be subject to separate proceedings. This is within the DAR Secretary's competence. On the validity of the sale to Asturias: The Court found the sale valid. Section 6 of RA 6657 prohibits the sale or disposition of private agricultural lands covered by CARP. However, mineral lands are exempt from agrarian reform coverage. The evidence, including a Bureau of Mines study, a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) with the government, and an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) for a cement plant, established that the property had long ceased to be agricultural and was converted to mineral land. Therefore, the sale of mineral land is not prohibited by Section 6 of RA 6657. Furthermore, the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the sale approved by the Regional Trial Court.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for review due to non-compliance with the rules on certification against forum shopping, as substantial compliance was not sufficiently shown. Furthermore, lands classified as mineral are exempt from agrarian reform coverage, and the DAR has jurisdiction to nullify OLT coverage even after the issuance of Emancipation Patents, with cancellation of EPs to be determined in separate proceedings.