SUMILAO CASE

Fortich v. Corona

Facts:

The land involved in this case is a 144 hectare land located at Sumilao Bukidnon owned by Norberto
Quisimbing Sr. Management and Development Corporation.

In October 1991 it was placed under the compulsory acquisition by DAR.

In February 1992, the owners were granted a writ of preliminary injunction by DARAB through PARAD to
restrain the implementation of the same.

May 21, 1992, PARAB ordered for the determination of the just compensation of the subject property.
Petitioners resisted. Pending the proceeding on the said issue, on Januray 3, 1993 the Provincial
Development Council of Bukidnon headed by Governor Fortich, passed a resolution designating certain
areas along Bukidnon- Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro- Industrila Zones where the subject
property is situated.

Otober 12, 1993, Provincial Land Use Committee approved the said ordinance.

December 1, 1993 Guadencio Beduya in behalf of Quisimbing’s applied for conversion.

November 14, 1994 DAR Secretary Secretary Garilao invoking its powers to approve conversion of land
under Section 65 of RA 6657, denied the application and placed the same under compulsory coverage
and directed the distribution thereof.

Motion for reconsideration was denied- June 7, 1995

Governor Fortich appealed the order of denial to the Office of the President and prayed for the
conversion of the subject land.

June 29, 1995- the Quisimbings filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction

Memorandum sent to the Office of the President:

Honorable Paul G. Dominguez, then Presidential Assistant for Mindanao ent a memorandum to the
President favorably endorsing the project with a recommendation that the DAR Secretary reconsider his
decision in denying the application of the province for the conversion of the land.

Honorable Rafael Alunan III, then Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG), recommended the conversion of the subject land to industrial/institutional use with a request
that the President "hold the implementation of the DAR order to distribute the land in question."
October 23, 1995 on the injunction and writ of preliminary injunction- observe status quo pending
resolution.

March 29, 1996- On the appeal to the president by Governor Fortich- SET ASIDE the decision of DAR.
Conversion application is approved. (Torres Resolution)

With this, May 20, 1996, DAR filed a motion for reconsideration.

September 11, 1996 NQSRMDC in compliance with the Office of the President’s decision, proceeded to
donate to DECS. There it was found out that pending the resolutions, DAR continued and was able to
issue CLOA and registered the same under the farmer- beneficiaries.

April 10, 1997 they filed a case for annulment and cancellation of title and injunction against DAR.

June 23, 1997 the motion for reconsideration (DAR) on Office of President’s decision was denied for
having been filed beyond reglamentary period of 15 days. The March 29, 1996 decision had already
become final and executory.

July 11, 1997 DAR filed a second motion for reconsideration.

On October 9, 1997 farmer- beneficiaries staged a hunger strike in front of DAR Compound in Quezon
City to protest the March 29, 1996 decision.

On November 7, 1997 the Office of the President resolved the strikers protest by issuing the so- called
Win/Win Resolution penned by the Deputy Executive Secretary Corona approving the conversion of 44
hectare portion and the remaining 100 hectares be distributed to qualified beneficiaries.

Petitioner availed of remedy Petition for Certiorari, because there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Not motion for reconsideration because the resolution
is patently illegal or contrary to law and it will be a futile exercise to seek reconsideration.

The procedural issue discussed in this case is on the propriety of petitioner’s remedy, Petition for
Certiorari to question the issued Win- Win Resolution. YES

the crucial issue raised here involves an error of jurisdiction, not an error of judgment which is
reviewable by an appeal under Rule 43.

the present petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is "patently illegal" and was
issued with "grave abuse of discretion" and "beyond his (respondent Secretary Renato C. Corona's)
jurisdiction" when said resolution substantially modified the earlier OP Decision of March 29, 1996
which had long become final and executory.

Rule 65, Sec. 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require.

This jurisdiction is not exclusive and therefore shared. However not to be construed as according to
parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court. There is after
all a hierarchy of courts. In this case, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the same considering that,

The present petition in the interest of speedy justice  and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly
put an end to the present controversy which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked
national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the assailed
resolution.

Second Issue: Did the Win/Win (Corona) resolution modify the Torres Resolution? No.

The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the President of the Philippines are
embodied in Administrative Order No. 18. Section 7

Sec. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall, except as otherwise provided for
by special laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the
parties, unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed within such period.

Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be allowed and entertained, save in
exceptionally meritorious cases.

May 20, 1996, DAR filed a motion for reconsideration the resolution was decided on March 29, 1996.
Also the Win/win Resolution was decided on November 7, 1997, long time after the Torres Resolution
has become final and executory.