Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio Naswe, Inc. vs. Tan

An association of farmers and fishermen lacks real-party-in-interest standing to challenge a DAR order lifting a CARP Notice of Coverage where its members have not been identified and registered as qualified beneficiaries, actually awarded portions of the land, or issued CLOAs; their interest is a mere expectancy. The DAR order also attained finality under Section 15 of E.O. No. 292 absent a timely appeal or motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner SAMMANA is an association of farmers and fishermen residing at Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan. The disputed property is part of a 129.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, previously owned by Anchor Estate Corporation, which the PCGG had sequestered after identifying it as a dummy corporation of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. The property was included in the PCGG’s Invitation to Bid for its assets and was also subject to a CARP Notice of Coverage issued on June 16, 1994. Respondent Tomas Tan is the party who acquired a 34-hectare portion of the property through the PCGG’s privatization process.

Petitioner Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio Naswe, Inc. (SAMMANA) is an association of farmers and fishermen residing at Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan. Its members claimed that they had resided in the area for several years doing farming activities and derived income for daily sustenance. The disputed property is part of a 129.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, Bataan, previously owned by Anchor Estate Corporation, whose properties the PCGG had sequestered after identifying the corporation as a dummy of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. On June 16, 1994, a Notice of Coverage was issued over the 129.4227-hectare land.

On April 4, 1995, the PCGG published an Invitation to Bid for the sale of its assets, including 34 hectares of the 129.4227-hectare land. Respondent Tomas Tan emerged as the highest bidder for the 34-hectare property. The PCGG Committee on Privatization approved the sale and issued a Notice of Award to respondent on May 2, 2000. The Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora, approved the sale on July 16, 2000. On August 1, 2000, the PCGG, representing the Republic of the Philippines, executed a Deed of Sale in respondent’s favor.

On July 25, 2000, PCGG Committee on Privatization Chairman Jorge V. Sarmiento wrote the DAR requesting that it stop the acquisition of the property under CARP. It appeared that the 34 hectares sold by the PCGG to respondent had already been identified for CARP coverage and targeted for acquisition in the year 2000. In an Order dated July 26, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. granted the request, lifted the Notice of Coverage over the 129.4227-hectare property, and directed the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Bataan and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Mariveles, Bataan, to stop acquisition proceedings for CARP coverage.

On October 29, 2004, petitioner filed with the DAR a Petition to Revoke Secretary Morales’s July 26, 2000 Order. The DAR denied the petition on February 3, 2006 and denied reconsideration on September 26, 2006, reasoning that the subject property, being government-owned, did not fall as private agricultural land subject to CARP. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President, which dismissed the appeal on April 10, 2007 and denied reconsideration on August 6, 2007. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals. The CA, in its July 27, 2010 decision, found the lifting of the Notice of Coverage irregular and erroneous but dismissed the petition because petitioner was not a real party in interest, noting that the records alleged only that petitioner’s members were in actual possession and conducted farming activities, with nothing stated as to their being beneficiaries or at least potential beneficiaries under CARP. The CA denied reconsideration on February 10, 2011.

• Representative Capacity: Petitioner maintained that it is a farmer association duly registered with the SEC, acting on behalf of its farmer and fisherman members, and that this registration and representative capacity gave it the right to question the DAR Secretary’s July 26, 2000 Order.
• Members’ Interest in the Land: Petitioner claimed that its members had resided in the area for several years, conducted farming activities, and derived income for daily sustenance, and it sought to revoke the lifting of the Notice of Coverage over the subject property.
• Revocation of the DAR Order: Petitioner filed a Petition to Revoke Secretary Morales’s July 26, 2000 Order, challenging the lifting of the Notice of Coverage over the subject land.

• Real Party-in-Interest: Whether petitioner SAMMANA is a real party in interest to question the DAR Secretary’s July 26, 2000 Order lifting the Notice of Coverage over the subject land.
• Regularity of the Lifting: Whether the DAR Secretary’s lifting of the Notice of Coverage one day after the PCGG Chairman’s request was irregular under the then existing DAR rules.
• Finality of the DAR Order: Whether the July 26, 2000 DAR Order had attained finality and is no longer reviewable by the Supreme Court.

• Real Party-in-Interest: No. Petitioner is not a real party in interest because its members were not identified and registered qualified beneficiaries, actual awardees, or CLOA holders; their interest was a mere expectancy. The constitutional right to form associations does not confer standing.
• Regularity of the Lifting: No. A.O. No. 9, series of 1994 did not prescribe a minimum period for deciding protests; the lifting one day after the PCGG request was not inconsistent with then existing rules and was not irregular.
• Finality of the DAR Order: Yes. Under Section 15 of E.O. No. 292, the order became final and executory 15 days after receipt absent appeal or motion for reconsideration; no such motion or appeal was filed, so it can no longer be reviewed.

• Real Party-in-Interest: Rule 3, Section 2 defines a real party in interest as the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit; the party must have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest, not a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. RA No. 6657, Section 50 allows farmer leaders to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their organizations in DAR proceedings, but this is harmonized with the real-party-in-interest requirement. Petitioner alleged SEC registration and representative capacity, but failed to allege and prove that its members are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of the subject land, have actually been awarded portions of it, or have been issued CLOAs. Their interest was at most an expectancy that did not ripen into actual award and ownership. Fortich vs. Corona held that recommendee farmer-beneficiaries are not real parties in interest. Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan vs. Litton rejected a claim of real-party-in-interest where, aside from self-serving assertions, the records lacked proof that the claimants were identified and registered as qualified CARP beneficiaries. Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya vs. Mosquera held that being mere qualified beneficiaries of CARP is not enough; farmer-beneficiaries who are not approved awardees, actually awarded lands, or granted CLOAs are not real parties in interest. Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Department of Education Culture and Sports held that identification and selection of actual and potential CARP beneficiaries is vested in the DAR Secretary, and courts should exercise great caution in substituting their own determination absent grave abuse of discretion. Here, petitioner’s members were not identified and registered by the BARC, and the Notice of Coverage was lifted by the DAR Secretary and affirmed by the OP. The CA’s finding that the subject land is covered by RA No. 6657, not being reflected in its decision’s fallo, cannot be validly relied upon and is at most a non-binding obiter dictum. Social justice in agrarian reform does not entail an automatic grant of lands to every farmer and farmworker and also applies to landowners. For land and farmers to be covered under CARP, two requisites must concur: the land must be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage, and the beneficiaries must be qualified and registered by the DAR in coordination with the BARC, with the BARC list or registry posted per PARC guidelines. Section 15 of the CARL requires registration of beneficiaries. A claimant may fall under one of the categories of qualified beneficiaries under Section 22 of RA No. 6657 but does not automatically become a grantee; the claimant must be identified and registered. Justice Leonen’s view that social justice principles guarantee automatic standing is misplaced.

• Regularity of the Lifting: DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994, the rules governing the hearing of protests involving coverage under RA No. 6657 at the time the PCGG Chairman filed the letter request with the DAR Secretary, did not provide any minimum period within which the protest or letter-request must be decided. Under those rules, the MARO or PARO shall comment on the protest and submit the same to the Regional Director who shall rule on it. The DAR’s lifting of the Notice of Coverage one day after the PCGG letter-request was filed was not inconsistent with then existing rules and was therefore not irregular.

• Finality of the DAR Order: Section 15 of E.O. No. 292 provides that the decision of the agency shall become final and executory 15 days after receipt of a copy by the party adversely affected unless within that period an administrative appeal or judicial review has been perfected, and one motion for reconsideration may be filed, which suspends the running of the period. Petitioner filed its petition to revoke only on October 29, 2004, more than four years after the July 26, 2000 Order. Without any motion for reconsideration or appeal filed from the assailed order, it lapsed to finality and can no longer be reviewed. Administrative decisions must end sometime, as fully as public policy demands that finality be written on judicial controversies. 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 the Supreme Court, has the power to revive, review, change, or alter a final and executory judgment or decision, as held in Camarines None Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Torres.

• Real party in interest — Under Rule 3, Section 2, the real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit; the party must have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest, not a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. The Court applied this to deny standing to SAMMANA because its members were not identified and registered CARP beneficiaries, actual awardees, or CLOA holders.
• Representative standing of farmer organizations — RA No. 6657, Section 50 allows responsible farmer leaders to represent themselves, fellow farmers, or their organizations in DAR proceedings, but this is harmonized with the Rules of Court’s real-party-in-interest requirement; the members represented must themselves have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest. SAMMANA’s SEC registration and representative capacity did not cure its members’ lack of beneficiary status.
• CARP beneficiary identification and registration — For land and farmers to be covered under CARP, two requisites must concur: (1) the land must be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage; and (2) the beneficiaries must be qualified and registered by the DAR, in coordination with the BARC, with the BARC list or registry posted per PARC guidelines. Under RA No. 6657, Section 15, mere qualification under Section 22 does not automatically make one a grantee; one must be identified and registered. The Court applied this to hold that petitioner’s members had only an expectancy.
• Finality of administrative decisions — Under Section 15 of E.O. No. 292, an agency decision becomes final and executory 15 days after receipt by the party adversely affected unless an administrative appeal or judicial review is perfected; one motion for reconsideration suspends the period. The July 26, 2000 DAR Order became final because no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed, and absent jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, no court may revive, review, change, or alter it.
• Social justice in agrarian reform — Constitutional provisions governing agrarian reform do not entail an automatic grant of lands to every farmer and farmworker; social justice also applies to landowners. The law and rules provide procedures to determine proper beneficiaries and awardees, ensuring only qualified, identified, and registered farmers or farmworkers acquire covered lands and preventing usurpers or illegal settlers from taking advantage of CARP.
• Non-binding obiter dictum — The CA’s finding that the subject land is covered by RA No. 6657, not being reflected in its decision’s fallo, cannot be validly relied upon by petitioner; at most it is a non-binding obiter dictum.

• "To be properly considered as such, the party must have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action, NOT a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest." — This states the real-party-in-interest standard applied to deny petitioner standing.
• "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." — This is the ratio for rejecting petitioner’s representative standing.
• "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; 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 posted in accordance with the guidelines established by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)." — This defines the two requisites for CARP coverage.
• "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 states the finality ground for denying the petition.

• Fortich vs. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 624, 628 — Cited to hold that recommendee farmer-beneficiaries are not real parties in interest; their interest over the land is a mere expectancy.
• Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa, Bataan vs. Litton, G.R. No. 146061, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 385 — Cited to reject a claim of real-party-in-interest where, aside from self-serving assertions, the records lacked proof that the claimants were identified and registered as qualified CARP beneficiaries.
• Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya vs. Mosquera, G.R. No. 152430, March 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 668 — Cited to hold that being mere qualified beneficiaries of CARP is not enough; farmer-beneficiaries who are not approved awardees, actually awarded lands, or granted CLOAs are not real parties in interest.
• Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Department of Education Culture and Sports, 469 Phil. 1083, 1094-1095 (2004) — Cited for the rule that identification and selection of actual and potential CARP beneficiaries is vested in the DAR Secretary, and courts should exercise great caution in substituting their own determination absent grave abuse of discretion.
• Camarines None Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Torres, 350 Phil. 315, 330-331 (1998) — Cited for the principle that administrative decisions must end sometime and that a final and executory order cannot be revived, reviewed, changed, or altered absent jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

• Rule 3, Section 2, Rules of Court — Defines a real party in interest as the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails; unless otherwise authorized, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. The Court applied this to deny petitioner standing.
• Section 50, Republic Act No. 6657 — Allows responsible farmer leaders to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR. The Court harmonized this with the real-party-in-interest requirement, holding that the represented members must still have a real, actual, material, or substantial interest.
• Section 15, Republic Act No. 6657 — Requires the DAR, in coordination with the BARC, to register all agricultural lessees, tenants, and farmworkers qualified to be beneficiaries, and to post the registry or list of potential CARP beneficiaries. The Court used this to hold that petitioner’s members, not being registered, had no real interest.
• Section 22, Republic Act No. 6657 — Enumerates qualified beneficiaries and their order of priority. The Court noted that falling under one of these categories does not automatically make one a grantee; one must still be identified and registered under the law and applicable rules.
• Section 15, Executive Order No. 292 — Provides that an agency decision becomes final and executory 15 days after receipt by the party adversely affected unless an administrative appeal or judicial review has been perfected, and one motion for reconsideration suspends the period. The Court applied this to hold that the July 26, 2000 DAR Order had attained finality.
• DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1994 — Governed hearings of protests involving coverage under RA No. 6657 at the time of the PCGG letter-request; it did not provide a minimum period for deciding the protest, and the MARO or PARO was to comment and submit the protest to the Regional Director who shall rule. The Court used this to hold that the lifting one day after the request was not irregular.

The decision’s signature line states: “Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.” The text also contains a separate Dissenting Opinion by Leonen, J.

• Leonen, J. — Dissented and voted to grant the petition. He argued that associations have legal personality to represent their members when the outcome affects members’ vital interests, citing Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Health Secretary Duque III and Executive Secretary vs. Court of Appeals; the modern view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. He invoked the constitutional right to form unions and associations and Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights, including the State’s duty to respect the role of independent people’s organizations and the agrarian reform provisions. He maintained that farmers should not be dissuaded from availing themselves of constitutional and agrarian reform rights and may organize associations to represent their interests before executive bodies and courts. He noted that petitioner alleged SEC registration and representation of actual tillers and cultivators, which respondent did not contest, and the OSG did not question the registration but argued members were not qualified beneficiaries. Applying CARL in the context of social justice, he emphasized that a Notice of Coverage was issued in 1994 before the PCGG bidding, the CA found the property covered under RA No. 6657 and the lifting irregular, and Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Department of Education Culture and Sports vested identification of beneficiaries in the DAR Secretary. He concluded that the petition should be granted.