G.R. No. 167952 . October 19, 2016.
GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RUBEN ALCALDE (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY GLORIA ALCALDE, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES, RESPONDENT.

DISSENTING OPINION, PERALTA, J.

FACTS

This case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents (farmer-beneficiaries) seeking to overturn this Court’s Decision dated February 1, 2012. That Decision had reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated an Order from the Office of the President (OP), which found flaws in the administrative process for placing petitioner Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc.’s landholdings under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The core dispute is whether the procedural requirements for land acquisition under CARP were properly followed, not the ultimate classification of the land as industrial or agricultural.
The procedural journey reveals a critical defect in service. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary issued an Order on June 8, 2001, but the DAR itself admitted, via a certification from its Records Management Division, that this Order was not served on petitioner’s counsel due to a change of address. Service was only effected belatedly through a letter dated September 4, 2001. Consequently, the OP entertained petitioner’s appeal, finding the DAR Order had not attained finality due to this lack of proper service.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the DAR’s acquisition proceedings despite the admitted failure to serve the June 8, 2001 Order on the landowner and the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory pre-ocular inspection requirements under DAR administrative orders.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues the Motion for Reconsideration should be denied, upholding the Court’s prior Decision. The legal logic rests on strict adherence to administrative due process as a prerequisite for the valid exercise of eminent domain under CARP. First, the DAR Secretary’s own November 5, 2001 Order explicitly confirmed petitioner was not furnished a copy of the June 8, 2001 Order. This failure of service meant the order did not become final and executory, rendering the subsequent Court of Appeals decision premised on its finality erroneous. The OP correctly assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Second, and fundamentally, the OP correctly found the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) failed to comply with mandatory procedure. DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2003, requires a preliminary ocular inspection and a completed report to determine if land is “coverable” before issuing a Notice of Coverage. The record contained only an undated, pre-formatted report with critical sections like “Land Condition/Suitability to Agriculture” left blank. This omission created no factual basis for the MARO’s conclusion that the land was agricultural, violating the steps designed to ensure administrative due process. Citing jurisprudence like Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the opinion emphasizes that the power of eminent domain demands due process in the taking of property. Therefore, the OP’s directive for the DAR to properly ascertain the land’s classification was just and proper, as the CARP law does not authorize taking property without observing these fundamental procedures.