SUMALO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF HERMOSA, BATAAN, Petitioner, vs. JAMES T. LITTON, EMMA L. LAPERAL, GLORIA L.

DEL RIO, GEORGE T. LITTON, JR., GRACE L. GALLEGO and the HEIRS OF EDWARD T. LITTON, Respondents. G.R. No. 1 !"!1 A#$#%t &1, '""! Fa(t%) On August 16, 1989, respondents filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform voluntary offer to sell their property lo ated in !rgy. "umalo, #ermosa, !ataan, onsisting of onsisting of three ontiguous par els of land, with an aggregate area of $1%.6189 he tares and overed &y 'ransfer (ertifi ate of 'itle )'('* +os. 8,1%-, 8,1%6, 8,1%.. On August $6, 1991, the DAR Region /// Offi e issued a +oti e of A 0uisition, informing the respondents that the DAR will only a 0uire 1$.1,%1 he tares of the property. 'hereafter, on 2uly 6, 199%, the Provin ial Agrarian Reform Offi er )PARO* informed the respondents that DAR would a 0uire 1-.%.89 he tares at P1.1. per s0uare meter or a total pur hase pri e of P-$9,111.68. Respondents then withdrew the 3O" and applied for the onversion of the property from agri ultural to industrial, ommer ial and residential uses. 'heir &asis was RA .$$. otherwise 4nown as The Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, providing for the reation of a "pe ial 5 onomi and 6ree Port 7one in an area onsisting of Olongapo (ity, "u&i in 7am&ales and parts of the muni ipalities of 8orong and #ermosa in the Provin e of !ataan, and the de laration &y the "angguniang !ayan of #ermosa and the "angguniang Panlalawigan of !ataan that the #ermosa Agro9/ndustrial 5state, a property ontiguous to the land of the respondents, is an industrial area. :i4e wise, the Department of Agri ulture has determined the property not e onomi ally suita&le for agri ultural produ tion and there was no tenurial relationship &etween the owners and the o upants of the property. On 8ay 11, 1996, DAR "e retary denied the appli ation for the onversion of the property as well as the motion for re onsideration. #en e, the respondents appealed to the Offi e of the President. During the penden y of the ase, the "angguniang Panlalawigan re lassified the area from agri ulture to industrial ;one. On 2une 16, 199., a resolution was issued in favour of the respondents, setting aside the resolution of the se retary of the Agrarian Reform. 'he petitioners then filed a motion for re onsideration and were granted, whi h reversed the prior resolution favoring the onversion. 'he respondents filed and appeal &y way of a petition for review whi h was granted and reversed and set aside the de ision in favor of the petitioners. Petitioners< motion for re onsideration was denied. I%%#e) =hether or not the petitioners are real parties in this ase. =hether or not the de ision in the 6orti h v. (orona is appli a&le in this ase.

He*d) /n the ase of 6orti h v. (orona, the Offi e of the President issued a resolution approving the onversion of a land from agri ultural to agro9industrial>institutional area. /t was then opposed &y some alleged farmer &enefi iaries who ulminated in a dramati and well pu&li i;ed hunger stri4e that aught nationwide attention. 'his led to the rendering of the so alled ?=in9=in@ Resolution whi h divided the areaA 11 he tares for agro9industrial and 1,, he tares for the 0ualified farmer &enefi iaries. Aggrieved &y this ?=in9=in@ Resolution, the petitioners filed a spe ial ivil a tion for ertiorari and prohi&ition. /t was then de ided that the said resolution is void. As regards the standing of the purported farmer9&enefi iaries who sought to intervene in the said ase the re ogni;ed rule in this Burisdi tion is that a real party in interest is a party who would &e &enefited or inBured &y the Budgment or is the party entitled to the avails of the suit. /nterest within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in issue and to &e affe ted &y the de ree, as distinguished from mere interest in the 0uestion involved, or a more in idental interest. Real Interest means a present su&stantial interest, as distinguished from a mere eCpe tan y or a future, ontingent, su&ordinate or onse0uential interest. /n the instant ase, the petitioners laim that they have &een identified as 0ualified &enefi iaries of the respondents< property under the (ARP iting "e . $$ of R.A. +o. 66-.. 'hey laim that they are onsidered as ?other farm wor4ers@, olle tive or ooperative of the a&ove &enefi iaries@, and ?others dire tly wor4ing on the land@. 'hey also alleged that they have &een wor4ing on the :itton property for a long time. 'he ourt ruled that this petition la 4s merit. /n an o ular inspe tion made &y DA Region ///, it was reported that the only nota&le developments on the property are residential houses, roads and re reational fa ilities. /t did not mention any agri ultural developments to support the ontention of the petitioners that they have &een wor4ing on the land. 8oreover, the 8uni ipal Agrarian Reform Offi e of #ermosa, !ataan stated that the su&Be t properties are untenanted. 'he ourt also onsidered the findings in the first resolution whi h stated that the petitioners are in reality, not omposed of tenants of the :ittons &ut mere o upants of homelots without their onsent, who use the property primarily for residential purposes and ommer ial a tivities and who have &een su&Be t for eBe tment suits &y the respondents.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff9appellee, vs. CIRILO P. BA+LOSIS, ET AL., defendants9appellants G.R. No. L,!1-1 Fa(t%) +elson "in lair, one of the lessees of #a ienda :ian or :ian 5state in the muni ipality of :ian, !atangas, &ought par els of land from the said ha ienda. #owever, a group of people are laiming to &e tenants and o upants of the said par els of land. 'hey see4 the help of the Rural Progress Administration to onvin e "in lair to sell the land he &ought to them for their an estors were the ones who leared and ultivated the land and they are having tenan y issue. A letter was sent to "in lair and in reply, he refused to sell the land and he re0uested the offi e to give him time to su&mit fa ts regarding the land. /t was later found out that "in lair already sold the area to (irilo !a&ylosis and others. A ase for eCpropriation against !a&ylosis and "in lair was filed. A motion to dismiss the ase was filed. I%%#e) =hether or not tenants an see4 the help of the government to file eCpropriation ase to a 0uire the land. He*d) 'he (ourt ruled to dismiss the eCpropriation ase filed against !a&ylosis. 'he ourt hold that under se tion 1, Arti le D/// of the (onstitution, the Eovernment may eCpropriate only landed estates with eCtensive areas, spe ially those em&ra ing the whole or a large part of a town or ityA that on e a landed estate is &ro4en up and divided into par els of reasona&le areas, either thru voluntary sales &y the owner or owners of said landed estate, or thru eCpropriation, the resulting par els are no longer su&Be t to further eCpropriation under se tion 1, Arti le D/// of the (onstitutionA that mere noti e of the intention of the Eovernment to eCpropriate a par el of land does not &ind either the land or the owner so as to prevent su&se0uent disposition of the property su h as mortgaging or even selling it in whole or &y su&divisionA that tenan y trou&le alone whether due to the fault of the tenants or of the landowners does not Bustify eCpropriationA that the (onstitution prote ts a landowner against indis riminate and unwarranted eCpropriationsA that to Bustify eCpropriation, it must &e for the pu&li purpose and pu&li &enefit, and that Bust to ena&le the tenants of a pie e of land of reasona&le area to own portions of it, even if they and their an estors had leared the land and ultivated it for their landlord for many years, is no valid reason or Bustifi ation under the (onstitution to deprive the owners or landlord of his property &y means of eCpropriation. Jan#a./ &1, 1-00