Remigio D. Espiritu v. Lutgarda Torres Del Rosario | G.R. No. 204964 | October 15, 2014 | Leonen, J. | Art. 7, Sec. 13 |
FACTS:
- On 1978, the City
Council of Angeles City, enacted Zoning Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1978,
classifying areas in Barangay Margot and Barangay Sapang Bato, Angeles City, as
agricultural land.
- Pursuant to this ordinance,
Lutgarda Torres del Rosario allegedly requested the City Zoning Administrator
to exempt from the zoning classification Lot Nos. 854 and 855 located in
Barangay Margot and Barangay Sapang Bato The land is covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-11809 with an area of 164.7605 hectares.
- The request was allegedly
approved on March 7, 1980 by Engineer Roque L. Dungca, Angeles City Development
Coordinator/Zoning Administrator, and the lots were... allegedly reclassified
as non-agricultural or industrial lots.
- On 1988, the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (Republic Act No. 6657) was enacted.
- Citing Department of Justice
Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, Secretary Pagdanganan stated that lands
classified as... non-agricultural before the enactment of CARP are beyond its
coverage.
- On March 26, 2004, farmers in
del Rosario's landholdings, led by Remigio Espiritu (Espiritu), filed a motion
for reconsideration of the order. They argued that under Zoning Ordinance No.
13, Series of 1978, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
- Resolution No. 705, Series of
2001, and Angeles City Council Resolution No. 3300, Series of 2001, the
landholdings were classified as agricultural, not industrial
- Aggrieved, del Rosario filed
a petition for review before the Court of Appeals arguing (1) that she was
denied due process when the order of Secretary Pangandaman was
"erroneously sent to another address" and (2) that the decision
of.then Deputy
- Executive Secretary Gaite was
void since he had been appointed to the Securities and Exchange Commission two
months prior to the rendering of the decision.
- On September 28, 2012, the
Court of Appeals rendered a decision granting the petition. The Court of
Appeals stated that del Rosario was indeed prevented from participating in the
proceedings that led to the issuance of Secretary Pangandaman's order when the
notices were sent to... her other address on record.
- It also found that the
decision issued by then Deputy Executive Secretary Gaite was void since it
violated Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution. The dispositive portion
of the decision... states: WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the PETITION is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 07 May 2009,
and the Order dated 15 June 2006 are hereby SET ASIDE. Perforce, with the
nullity of the said Decision and Order, the Pagdanganan Order granting
exemption to petitioner's land is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.
ISSUE: W/N the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the order of Secretary Pangandaman and the decision of Deputy Secretary Gaite and reinstated the order of Secretary Pagdanganan?
HELD: Deputy Executive Secretary Gaite's decision is presumed valid, effective, and binding
- It is alleged that Gaite was appointed Commissioner to the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2009.[40] It is also alleged
that he has already lost his authority as Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal
Affairs when he rendered the decision... dated May 7, 2009 since he is
constitutionally prohibited from holding two offices during his tenure. This,
however, is not conclusive since no evidence was presented as to when he
accepted the appointment, took his oath of office, or assumed the position.
- Assuming that Gaite's appointment became effective on March
16, 2009, he can be considered a de facto officer at the time he rendered the
decision dated May 7, 2009.
- In Funa v. Agra, a petition was filed against Alberto Agra
for holding concurrent positions as the acting Secretary of justice and as
Solicitor General. This court, while ruling that the appointment of Alberto
Agra as acting Secretary of Justice... violated Article VII, Section 13 of the
Constitution, held that he was a de facto officer during his tenure in the
Department of Justice:
- Respondent has not presented evidence showing that the
decision was rendered ultra vires, other than her allegation that Gaite had
already been appointed to another office. Unless there is clear and convincing
evidence o the contrary, the decision dated May 7, 2009 is... conclusively
presumed to lave been rendered in the regular course of business.
Respondent's
landholdings were agricultural, not industrial
- Then Agrarian Reform Secretary Florencio B. Abad (Secretary
Abad) was of the opinion that laws prior to Republic Act No. 6657 authorized
the Department of Agrarian Reform,... together with the Department of Local
Government and Community Development and the Human Settlements Commission, to
allow or disallow conversions.
- It is conceded that under the laws in force prior to the
enactment and effective date of R.A. No. 6657, the DAR had likewise the
authority, to authorize conversions of agricultural lands to other uses, but always
in coordination with other concerned agencies. Under R.A. No. 3344, as amended by R.A. No.
6389, an agricultural lessee may, by order of the court, be dispossessed of his
landholding if after due hearing, it is shown that the "landholding is
declared by the [DAR] upon the recommendation of the National Planning
Commission to be suited for... residential, commercial, industrial or some
other urban purposes."
DISPOSITION: Petition is GRANTED. The
decision dated September 28, 2012 and resolution dated November 29, 2012 of the
Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. The order dated June 15, 2006 of the Department
of Agrarian Reform and the decision dated May 7, 2009 of the Office of the
President are REINSTATED.
Comments
Post a Comment