Puyat & Sons v. Alcaide
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the coverage of certain landholdings under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The core dispute revolves around whether the land in question is agricultural and thus subject to CARP, or if it has been validly reclassified as industrial. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) initially issued an order declaring the properties as agricultural land, which petitioner Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. contested. Procedural History: The DAR issued an order on June 8, 2001, declaring the subject properties as agricultural land. Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. (GPSI) failed to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period, leading to an order of finality. GPSI subsequently filed a motion to lift the order of finality, which was denied, and then a motion for reconsideration, also denied. GPSI appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which initially took cognizance of the appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) later ruled that the DAR order had attained finality. This Court, in a Resolution dated October 19, 2016, affirmed the CA's decision, denying GPSI's motion for reconsideration. The present Omnibus Motion seeks reconsideration of this Court's Resolution. The Petition: The petitioner, Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc., filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to set aside this Court's Resolution dated October 19, 2016, and to reinstate the Court of Appeals' Decision dated February 1, 2005, or alternatively, to refer its motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc. The grounds raised are that the DAR's Order dated June 8, 2001, did not attain finality due to improper service, and that the DAR failed to comply with pre-ocular inspection requirements, violating GPSI's right to due process. The petitioner argues that the DAR's procedural lapses prevented the order from becoming final and that the land's classification as agricultural was not properly determined.
Issue(s)
Whether the DAR Order dated June 8, 2001, had attained finality. Whether the DAR failed to comply with the pre-ocular inspection requirements of DAR Administrative Order No. 1 of 1998, thereby violating GPSI's constitutional right to due process.
Ruling
The Omnibus Motion is DENIED. The Resolution of the Supreme Court dated October 19, 2016, is AFFIRMED IN TOTO. No further pleadings will be entertained. Let Entry of Judgment be ISSUED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of finality of the DAR Order dated June 8, 2001: The Court reiterated that the DAR Order had attained finality. Firstly, GPSI's motion for reconsideration was filed on September 14, 2001, which was beyond the 15-day reglementary period from its counsel's admission of receiving the order on August 17, 2001. This meant the deadline was September 1, 2001. Secondly, even if the admission of receipt were overlooked, the order was deemed served upon GPSI due to its counsel's failure to notify the DAR of a change of address, as stated in the DAR's August 3, 2001 Order. This failure constituted inexcusable neglect binding on the client. Thirdly, the principle of 'actual knowledge' being equivalent to 'notice' applied, as evidenced by GPSI's filing of a Motion to Lift Order of Finality on August 20, 2001, which quoted the dispositive portion of the June 8, 2001 Order. This indicated prior actual knowledge, making the latest deadline for a motion for reconsideration September 4, 2001, rendering the September 14, 2001 filing untimely. The Court emphasized that once a decision becomes final and executory, it can no longer be disturbed. On the issue of compliance with pre-ocular inspection requirements and due process: The Court found no violation of GPSI's right to due process. The existence of a Preliminary Ocular Inspection Report (CARP Form No. 3.a), signed by the MARO and attested by Flordeliza DP Del Rosario, created a presumption of regularity in the performance of the MARO's duty. The failure to mark specific checkboxes under "Land Condition/Suitability to Agriculture" and "Land Use" did not negate the finding that the landholding was agricultural, nor did it constitute evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity; it was merely inadvertent. The report's sub-categories did not contradict the determination that the land was agricultural. Furthermore, a Memorandum dated March 3, 2005, from the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) confirmed that an ocular inspection had been conducted and the landholding was agricultural. The Court also noted that GPSI failed to present evidence that the land was validly reclassified from agricultural to industrial. While the Sangguniang Bayan of Biñan reclassified the land under Kapasiyahan Blg. 03-(89) dated January 7, 1989, this reclassification was not approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) as of October 16, 1997, nor was it authorized by the DAR as required by Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657. The tax declaration stating "proposed industrial" did not equate to a reclassification. Therefore, the DAR sufficiently complied with the prescribed procedures, affording GPSI its right to due process.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration filed beyond the reglementary period, even if based on actual knowledge of the order, is considered filed out of time. Failure to notify the DAR of a change of address constitutes inexcusable neglect binding upon the client. The issuance of a preliminary ocular inspection report, even with some un-checked boxes, creates a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, which can only be overcome by contrary evidence. Reclassification of agricultural land to industrial land requires approval from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and authorization from the DAR.