Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC., G.R. No. 167952

Petitioner,
Present:

VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,

- versus - PERALTA,
MENDOZA,
REYES,* and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
RUBEN ALCAIDE (deceased),substituted by GLORIA
ALCAIDE, representative of the Farmer-Beneficiaries, Promulgated:
Respondent.
February 1, 2012
x-------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[1] dated February 1, 2005 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 86069, and the Resolution[2] dated April 25, 2005 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.

The procedural and factual antecedents are as follows:

Petitioner Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, Inc. is the registered owner of 14 parcels of land with an aggregate area of 43.7225 hectares located at
Barangays Langkiwa and Timbao, Bian, Laguna, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-19884, T-19855, T-19856, T-19857, T-19858, T-
19859, T-201524, T-202285, T-207476, T-207477, T-207478, T-207479, T-207481, T-208151.[3]

On April 14, 1998, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage over the subject landholding informing
petitioner that the subject properties were being considered for distribution under the governments agrarian reform program. [4] Thereafter,
on November 15, 1998, the corresponding Notice of Valuation and Acquisition [5] was issued informing petitioner that a 37.7353-hectare portion of
its property is subject to immediate acquisition and distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries and that the government is
offering P7,071,988.80 as compensation for the said property.

Petitioner then filed a Petition[6] before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), wherein it argued that the properties were bought from
their previous owners in good faith; that the same remains uncultivated, unoccupied, and untenanted up to the present; and, that the subject
landholdings were classified as industrial, thus, exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Petitioner
prayed, among other things, that the Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition be lifted and that the properties be declared exempt from the
coverage of CARP.[7]

Respondents[8] on their part countered, among other things, that the classification of the land as industrial did not exempt it from the
coverage of the CARP considering that it was made only in 1997; the HLURB[9] certification that the Municipality of Bian, Laguna does not have any
approved plan/zoning ordinance to date; that they are not among those farmer-beneficiaries who executed the waivers or voluntary surrender; and,
that the subject landholdings were planted with palay.[10]

On June 8, 2001, then DAR Secretary Hernani A. Braganza, issued an Order[11] in favor of the respondent declaring that the subject
properties are agricultural land; thus, falling within the coverage of the CARP, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued dismissing the petition. The MARO/PARO concerned is
directed to immediately proceed with the acquisition of subject landholdings under CARP, identify the farmer-beneficiaries and
generate/issue the corresponding Certificates of Land Ownership Awards pursuant to Section 16 of RA 6657.

SO ORDERED.[12]

On July 24, 2001, respondents filed a Motion for the Issuance of an Order of Finality of Judgment [13] praying that an Order of Finality be
issued for petitioners failure to interpose a motion for reconsideration or an appeal from the order of the DAR Secretary.

On August 3, 2001, the DAR issued an Order[14] granting the motion and directing that an Order of Finality be issued. Consequently,
on August 6, 2001, an Order of Finality[15] quoting the dispositive portion of the June 8, 2001 Order of the DAR Secretary was issued.
 On August 17, 2001, petitioner received a copy of the Orders dated August 3 and 6, 2001. Thereafter, on August 20, 2001, petitioner filed a
Motion to Lift Order of Finality.[16]

On August 28, 2001, petitioners counsel filed a Manifestation with Urgent Ex Parte Motion for Early Resolution[17] informing the DAR of his
new office address and praying that the petition be resolved at the earliest convenient time and that he be furnished copies of dispositions and
notices at his new and present address.

In a Letter[18] sent to the new address of petitioners counsel, dated September 4, 2001, Director Delfin B. Samson of the DAR informed
petitioners counsel that the case has been decided and an order of finality has already been issued, copies of which were forwarded to his last
known address. Nevertheless, Director Samson attached copies of the Order dated June 8, 2001 and the Order of Finality dated August 6, 2001 for
his reference.

On September 14, 2001, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation,[19] questioning the Orders dated June 8,
2001 and August 6, 2001 and praying that the said Orders be set aside and a new one issued granting the petition.

On September 21, 2001, the DAR issued an Order[20] directing the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

On November 5, 2001, the DAR issued an Order[21] denying the motion for reconsideration, which was received by petitioners counsel
on November 15, 2001.[22]

Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the Office of the President which was received by the latter on November 21, 2001.[23] The case
was docketed as O.P. Case No. 01-K-184.

On August 8, 2003, the Office of the President rendered a Decision [24] in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Orders dated 08 June 2001 and 05 November 2001 of the DAR Secretary are
hereby SET ASIDE and the Notice of Coverage dated April 14, 1998 and Notice of Acquisition dated November 15, 1998 issued
over the subject land LIFTED, without prejudice to the conduct of an ocular inspection to determine the classification of the land.

Parties are to INFORM this Office, within five (5) days from notice, of the dates of their receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.[25]

On March 24, 2004, there being no appeal or motion for reconsideration interposed despite clear showing that both parties had received
their copies of the August 8, 2003 Decision, the Office of the President issued an Order [26] declaring that the decision has become final and executory.

Subsequently, respondents[27] filed a Petition for Relief[28] seeking that the above Decision and Order of the Office of the President be set
aside and the Orders of the DAR Secretary reinstated.

On July 2, 2004, the Office of the President, treating the Petition for Relief as a motion for reconsideration, issued an Order dismissing the
same, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Relief dated 3 May 2004, which is treated herein as a motion for
reconsideration, filed by Ruben Alcaide is hereby DISMISSED. No further motions for reconsideration or other pleadings of
similar import shall be entertained.

SO ORDERED.[29]

Respondents then sought recourse before the CA assailing the Decision dated August 8, 2003 and Order dated July 2, 2004 of the Office of
the President.[30] In support of the petition, respondents raised the following errors:

I. THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT REVERSED AND/OR SET
ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED JUNE 8, AND NOVEMBER 5, 2001 OF THE DAR SECRETARY DESPITE THE FINALITY OF THE
SAID ORDERS;

II. THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT
AGRICULTURAL.[31]

On February 1, 2005, the CA rendered a Decision[32] granting the petition in favor of the respondents, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for review is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated August 8,
2003 and the order dated July 2, 2004 of the Office of the President in O.P. CASE No. 01-K-184 are SET ASIDE for being null and
void. The orders dated June 8 2001 and August 6, 2001 of the DAR Secretary are hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.[33]
 Ruling in favor of the respondents, the CA opined that the Order of the DAR Secretary dated June 8, 2001 has become final and executory
by petitioners failure to timely interpose his motion for reconsideration. Consequently, when petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration
on September 14, 2001, the order sought to be reconsidered has attained finality. Thus, the Office of the President had no jurisdiction to re-evaluate,
more so, reverse the findings of the DAR Secretary in its Order dated June 8, 2001.

Hence, the petition assigning the following errors:

I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION AS IT IS BASIC IN LAW THAT NO APPEAL MAY BE
TAKEN FROM THE DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR RELIEF.

II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER DATED 8 JUNE 2001 ISSUED BY THE DAR SECRETARY IN ADM
CASE NO. A-9999-04-E-01 IS ALREADY FINAL AND EXECUTORY.

Petitioner argues that respondents availed of the wrong mode of recourse to the CA. Petitioner maintains that under Section 1 (b), Rule 41
of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, no appeal may be taken from an order denying a petition for relief. The only remedy available to a party
aggrieved by the denial of a petition for relief is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. Thus, when respondents appealed the
denial by way of a petition for review to the appellate court, the CA should have dismissed the petition outright.

More importantly, petitioner contends that the CA erred when it reversed the findings of the Office of the President and concluded that the
Order dated June 8, 2001 has become final and executory thereby rendering the Office of the President without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal
filed by the petitioner.Petitioner insists that based on the sequence of events, the Order dated June 8, 2001 never attained finality, since it was only
on September 7, 2001 that its counsel received a copy of the said order. Thus, when it filed its motion for reconsideration on September 14, 2001, it
was well within the reglementary period to file the same. Hence, petitioners consequent appeal to the Office of the President upon denial of its
motion for reconsideration was also timely filed.

Moreover, petitioner posits that it is the Decision of the Office of the President that has become final and executory by reason of
respondents failure to file any motion for reconsideration or to perfect an appeal after receiving a copy of the Decision.

On their part, respondents maintain that the Order dated June 8, 2001 has become final and executory thereby binding the petitioner, and
that the CA did not err in reversing the Decision of the Office of the President.

The petition is meritorious.

At the outset, appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be brought to the CA, under the
requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43. Under the rule, appeals from their judgments and final orders are now brought to the CA on a
verified petition for review. This Rule was adopted precisely to provide a uniform rule of appellate procedure from quasi-judicial agencies.[34]

In the case at bar, the petition for relief filed by the respondents was treated by the Office of the President as a motion for
reconsideration. However, the Office of the President dismissed the petition based on the premise that respondents failed to file a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal within the 15-day reglementary period, thereby rendering the August 8, 2003 Decision final and executory. Thus,
respondents availed of the proper remedy when it sought recourse to the CA via a petition for review.

Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege and
may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with
the requirements of the rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost.[35]

Anent, the main controversy. Simply put, the resolution of the issues advanced by the parties hinges on whether or not the Order
dated June 8, 2001 of the DAR Secretary has become final and executory. A perusal of the pertinent pleadings and documents would reveal that
indeed, petitioner was not properly served with a copy of the Order dated June 8, 2001.

Respondents buttressed their claim that petitioner belatedly filed its motion for reconsideration within the period allowed by the Rules on
the strength of petitioners declaration in its Motion to Lift Order of Finality,[36] particularly on the following admission:

5. That the undersigned only received said Orders on 17 August 2001.[37]

However, analyzing the subject of the said motion, it is clear that petitioner was referring only to the receipt of the Order of Finality dated August 6,
2001[38]and not the Order dated June 8, 2001. Although petitioner cited the dispositive portion of the June 8, 2001 Order, it is apparent that
petitioner merely quoted the same from the body of the Order of Finality. Petitioner even erroneously dated the Order to June 2, 2001 instead
of June 8, 2001.[39]

Moreover, confirming petitioners allegation that it did not receive a copy of the June 8, 2001 Order, the DAR Secretary in his Order denying
petitioners motion for reconsideration dated November 5, 2001, categorically stated that petitioner was not furnished a copy of the June 8, 2001
Order, the pertinent part of which reads:
 This Office notes of the Certification of B. De Paz, Officer-in-Charge of this Departments Records Management Division
stating that petitioner-movants counsel was not served a copy of the disputed 8 June 2001 Order due to change in address. In any
case, this matter has been addressed with the service of said Order upon petitioner-movants counsel at his new address.[40]

Based on the foregoing, it was clearly admitted that petitioner was not properly served a copy of the disputed Order and this oversight by
the DAR was rectified by subsequently serving a copy of the Order upon petitioners counsel at his new address. This belated service to petitioners
counsel was coursed through a Letter[41] dated September 4, 2001, from Director Delfin B. Samson of the DAR informing him that the case has
already been decided and an order of finality issued. Worthy of note is the statement, [a]ttached, for reference, are copies thereof being transmitted
at your new given address, which, taken together with the statements made by the DAR Secretary in his November 5, 2001 Order, was a manifest
indication that petitioner was being served a copy of the June 8, 2001 Order for the first time.

Contrary to petitioners contention, however, that it received a copy of the June 8, 2001 Order only on September 7, 2001 when it received
the letter of Director Delfin B. Samson, it appears that the date stamped on the face of the said letter indicates that it was received on September 10,
2001 and not September 7, 2001. Thus, when petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration on September 14, 2001, it was well within the
reglementary period to file the motion.

Hence, contrary to the conclusion of the CA, the June 8, 2001 Order of the DAR Secretary has not attained finality. The Office of the
President, therefore, validly entertained petitioners appeal when the DAR Secretary denied its motion for reconsideration. With the foregoing
disquisition, the CA erred in setting aside the decision of the Office of the President on the mistaken conclusion that the DAR Secretarys Orders had
attained finality.

Consequently, the determination of whether or not petitioners landholdings are agricultural land is yet to be determined. As found by the
Office of the President in its August 8, 2003 Decision, before the DAR could place a piece of land under CARP coverage, there must first be a showing
that it is an agricultural land, i.e., devoted or suitable for agricultural purposes.

DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2003, or the 2003 Rules Governing Issuance of Notice of Coverage and Acquisition of
Agricultural Lands Under RA 6657,[42] provides:
1. Commencement

1.1 Commencement by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) After determining that a landholding is coverable under
the CARP, and upon accomplishment of the Pre-Ocular Inspection Report, the MARO shall prepare the NOC[43] (CARP Form
No. 5-1).[44]

Corolarilly, Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1998,[45] which outlines the steps in the acquisition of lands, details that in the 3 rd step,
the Department of Agrarian Reform Municipal Office (DARMO) should conduct a preliminary ocular inspection to determine initially whether or not
the property maybe covered under the CARP, which findings will be contained in CARP Form No. 3.a, or the Preliminary Ocular Inspection Report.

From the foregoing, a preliminary ocular inspection is necessary to determine whether or not a subject landholding may be considered
under the coverage of the CARP even before a Notice of Coverage is prepared by the MARO.

However, a perusal of the undated CARP Form No. 3.a[46] covering the subject properties would reveal that the appropriate check boxes for
Land Condition/Suitability to Agriculture on whether the subject properties are presently being cultivated/suitable to agriculture or are presently
idle/vacant were not marked. Also, the MARO failed to mark any of the check boxes for Land Use to indicate whether the subject properties were
sugarland, cornland, un-irrigated riceland, irrigated riceland, or any other classification of agricultural land.

As aptly found by the Office of the President, the importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot be understated, since it is one of the
steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The Office of the President stressed this in its Decision, to wit:

In other words, before the MARO sends a Notice of Coverage to the landowner concerned, he must first conduct a
preliminary ocular inspection to determine whether or not the property may be covered under CARP. The foregoing undertaking
is reiterated in the latest DAR AO No. 01, s. of 2003, entitled 2003 Rules Governing Issuance of Notice of Coverage and Acquisition
of Agricultural Lands Under RA 6657. Section 1 [1.1] thereof provides that:
1.1 Commencement by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) After determining that a
landholding is coverable under the CARP, and upon accomplishment of the Pre-Ocular Inspection Report, the
MARO shall prepare the NOC (CARP Form No. 5-1). (NOC stands for Notice of Coverage)

Found on the records of this case is a ready-made form Preliminary Ocular Inspection Report (undated) signed by the
concerned MARO. Interestingly, however, the check box allotted for the all-important items Land Condition/Suitability to
Agriculture and Land Use was not filled up. There is no separate report on the record detailing the result of the ocular inspection
conducted. These circumstances cast serious doubts on whether the MARO actually conducted an on-site ocular inspection of the
subject land.Without an ocular inspection, there is no factual basis for the MARO to declare that the subject land is devoted to or
suitable for agricultural purposes, more so, issue Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition.

The importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot be understated. In the event that a piece of land sought to be
placed from CARP coverage is later found unsuitable for agricultural purposes, the landowner concerned is entitled to, and the
DAR is duty bound to issue, a certificate of exemption pursuant to DAR Memorandum Circular No. 34, s. of 1997, entitled Issuance
of Certificate of Exemption for Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) Found Unsuitable
for Agricultural Purposes.
 More importantly, the need to conduct ocular inspection to determine initially whether or not the property may be
covered under the CARP is one of the steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The CARP
was not intended to take away property without due process of law (Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,
262 SCRA 245. [1996]). The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the taking of
private property. In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106 [1999], the Supreme Court nullified the CARP acquisition
proceedings because of the DARs failure to comply with administrative due process of sending Notice of Coverage and Notice of
Acquisition of the landowner concerned.

Considering the claim of appellant that the subject land is not agricultural because it is unoccupied and uncultivated,
and no agricultural activity is being undertaken thereon, there is a need for the DAR to ascertain whether or not the same may be
placed under CARP coverage.[47]

Thus, the question of whether or not petitioners properties could be covered by the CARP has not yet been resolved. Until such
determination, it follows that petitioners landholdings cannot be the proper subject of acquisition and eventual distribution to qualified farmer-
beneficiaries. However, these involve factual controversies, which are clearly beyond the ambit of this Court. Verily, the review of factual matters is
not the province of this Court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and is not the proper forum for the ventilation and substantiation of factual
issues.[48]

Under the circumstances, the directive of the Office of the President for the DAR to ascertain whether or not petitioners landholdings may
be placed under CARP was proper. To be sure, it is the DAR that is procedurally prepared to handle such controversies and is better suited to
resolve such factual issues in the exercise of its mandate to implement the CARP and its vested quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters.[49]

Consequently, the other issues raised by the parties need not be discussed further.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
86069 areREVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated August 8, 2003 and the Order dated July 2, 2004 of the Office of the President
are REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

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
Courts Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Third Division, Chairperson
 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

* Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, per Special Order No. 1178 dated January 26, 2012.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa,
concurring; rollo, pp. 30-42.
[2] Id. at 44-45.
[3] Rollo, p. 31.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 66.
[6] Id. at 63-65.
[7] Id. at 65.
[8] Then represented by a certain Rogelio Mahilum.
[9] Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
[10] Rollo, pp. 32-33.
[11] Id. at 70-72.
[12] Id. at 72.
[13] Id. at 73-75.
[14] Id. at 76-77.
[15] Id. at 87.
[16] Id. at 81.
[17] Id. at 85.
[18] Id. at 86.
[19] CA rollo, pp. 50-52.
[20] Rollo, pp. 92-93.
[21] CA rollo, pp. 53-56.
[22] Rollo, p. 103.
[23] Id.
[24] Id. at 117-121.
[25] Id. at 121.
[26] Id. at 122.
[27] Now represented by Ruben Alcaide.
[28] Rollo, pp. 123-135.
[29] Id. at 137.
[30] Id. at 138-158.
[31] Id. at 145.
[32] Id. at 30-42.
[33] Id. at 12.
[34] Carpio v. Sulu Resources Development Corporation, G.R. No. 148267, August 8, 2002, 387 SCRA 128, 139.
[35] Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 147623, December 13, 2005.
[36] Rollo, p. 81.
[37] Id. at 81.
[38] Id. at 87.
[39] Id. at 81.
[40] CA rollo, pp. 54-55.
[41] Rollo, p. 86.
[42] Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
[43] Notice of Coverage.
[44] Emphasis supplied.
[45] Amendments to Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1996, Entitled, Revised Rules and Procedures Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural

Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657
[46] Folder, Office of the President, p. 145.
[47] Rollo, pp. 120-121.
[48] Titan Construction Corporation v. David, Sr., G.R. No. 169548, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 362, 363.
[49] Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.