SPOUSES BERTO VILLORENTE & LERMA T. VILLORENTE, AND SPOUSES CATALINO BAJETA & PASCUALA A. BAJETA, PETITIONERS, VS. APLAYA LAIYA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

Villorente versus Aplaya Laiya Corporation

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Spouses Berto and Lerma Villorente and the Spouses Catalino and Pascuala Bajeta against Aplaya Laiya Corporation. The petitioners are tenants and occupants of agricultural land in San Juan, Batangas, which the corporation caused to be converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use through a Conversion Order issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals, which had dismissed their petition for review of that Conversion Order as filed out of time. The case matters because it teaches when a conversion order becomes final and executory, how publication operates as constructive notice to farmers and occupants, and why a party who negotiates for disturbance compensation under an order cannot later turn around and attack it.

Procedural History

Aplaya Laiya Corporation applied with the Regional Development Council of Region Four for conversion of its landholding. The application was endorsed to the Regional Land Use Council, then to the National Land Use Council, which recommended approval to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. On November 6, 1996, Secretary Ernesto Garilao approved the application and issued the Conversion Order, without prejudice to the payment of disturbance compensation to displaced farmers.

The order was posted in the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of San Juan, Batangas, from November 23, 1996 to January 28, 1997, and a Certification of Publication was issued on January 29, 1997. On January 26, 1998, Rodolfo Javier and tenants who were members of the Kooperatibang Sandigan ng Magsasakang Pilipino, Incorporated, including the petitioners, filed a motion for reconsideration of the Conversion Order. Secretary Garilao denied the motion on May 25, 1998. The cooperative then sought to appeal to the Court of Appeals but its motion for extension of time was denied on July 17, 1998, and that denial became final.

On December 18, 1998, the corporation filed ejectment cases against the petitioners before the Municipal Trial Court of San Juan, Batangas. On March 31, 1999, the petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals, assailing the Conversion Order and claiming they learned of it only on March 1, 1999 upon receipt of the summons and complaints. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on September 15, 2000 for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Aplaya Laiya Corporation owned twenty-two parcels of agricultural land covering 151.38 hectares in Barangay Laiya, Aplaya, San Juan, Batangas. Portions were tenanted, and some tenants had built their houses there. The corporation decided to develop the property into a tourist spot under the Aplaya Laiya Tourism Development Project and applied for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use.

After the application passed through the Regional Development Council, the Regional Land Use Council, and the National Land Use Council, Secretary Garilao approved it on November 6, 1996 and issued the Conversion Order, expressly without prejudice to disturbance compensation for displaced farmers. The order was conspicuously posted in the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office from November 23, 1996 to January 28, 1997, and the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator certified the publication on January 29, 1997. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Office certified that no objection was received during the posting period.

Negotiations for disturbance compensation then began between the corporation and the tenants and occupants, including the petitioners, but disagreements arose over the amounts. On January 26, 1998, more than a year after the Conversion Order, the cooperative and its members, including the petitioners, moved for reconsideration, which was denied. When ejectment suits were later filed against them, the petitioners belatedly assailed the Conversion Order before the Court of Appeals.

Issues

• Whether or not the Conversion Order of November 6, 1996 had already become final and executory, such that the petition for review filed by the petitioners before the Court of Appeals was filed out of time.
• Whether or not the petitioners may feign ignorance of the Conversion Order despite its publication and their participation in negotiations for disturbance compensation.
• Whether or not the petitioners are estopped from assailing the Conversion Order after having negotiated for disturbance compensation under it.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.

This provision is the basis for appealing the final order of the Department of Agrarian Reform to the Court of Appeals by petition for review.

Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Period of appeal. The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo.

This fixes the fifteen-day period that the petitioners allowed to lapse, counting from the last publication of the Conversion Order.

Section XII of DAR Administrative Order Number 12, Series of 1994 provides:

XII. Posting of DAR Conversion Order. Immediately upon approval of a conversion order, the developer/applicant shall post in a conspicuous place of the project area, a public notice stating the following: "the conversion of this landholding has been approved by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (or Undersecretary for Policy and Planning or Regional Director depending on the authority provided in this A.O.) under Conversion Order No. ______ dated _____________." It will include the name of the project and area, name of the developer/landowner, and date when the development permit was granted. Failure to post such notice shall be a ground for the suspension of the development of the area and for possible cancellation of the conversion order, pursuant to section XIV hereof.

Compliance with this posting requirement is what made the Conversion Order a matter of public notice to all concerned farmers and occupants.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was indeed filed out of time. The Conversion Order was a final order because it resolved the question of whether the property may be converted to non-agricultural use, and its finality did not depend on the later determination of disturbance compensation. Under Section 4 of Rule 43, the petition had to be filed within fifteen days from notice of the final order or from the date of its last publication. The petitioners allowed more than a year to pass before filing their motion for reconsideration, and their petition for review came even later.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim of ignorance. The order had been published as required, and the Court of Appeals found that this publication was notice to all concerned farmers and beneficiaries in the municipality. The petitioners had, in fact, been negotiating for disturbance compensation shortly after the order was issued, making it impossible that they learned of it only in March 1999.

On the third issue, the Court applied the doctrine of estoppel. Having agreed to negotiate for disturbance compensation conformably with the Conversion Order, the petitioners could not later assail that same order. As the Court put it, the petitioners cannot approbate and disapprobate at the same time. Their petition was a mere afterthought, filed when negotiations failed.

Doctrine

A conversion order of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform is a final order that resolves the question of conversion, and its finality does not await the determination of disturbance compensation. It may be appealed to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 43, which must be filed within fifteen days from notice of the order or from the date of its last publication where publication is required by law for its effectivity.

Publication of a conversion order under DAR Administrative Order Number 12, Series of 1994 operates as constructive notice to all concerned farmers and occupants. A party who negotiates for disturbance compensation under a conversion order is estopped from later attacking that order; one cannot approbate and disapprobate at the same time.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the dismissal by the Court of Appeals, without costs. Aplaya Laiya Corporation prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a conversion order is final upon issuance, and its finality does not wait for the fixing of disturbance compensation. Examiners use this case on the fifteen-day period under Rule 43 counted from last publication, on publication as constructive notice to farmers, and on estoppel by approbating and reprobating.