REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Court of Appeals
Twentieth Division
Pablo U. Abella St., Labangon,
Cebu City, 6000

SPS. JULITO & HORTENCIA BELLETE, CA-G.R. SP No.

12359
SPS. NOEL & GRACE CAAGOY, SPS. Members:
DONATO JR. & MADEL DELA CRUZ, MAXINO, J.
Chairperson
SPS. FELIX & LEONOR PASUNILAO, ACOSTA,
and
SPS. JEFFREY & AILEN PATOY, MONTEJO-
GONZAGA, J.J.
SPS. JERRY & JOSEPHINE PEREZ,
SPS. RENANTE & JUDY PEREZ, BARRY PEREZ,
DANILO PEREZ, MARIO PEREZ,
SPS. JOHN & LAURA GARSUELO,
SPS. NOEL & FERCY MEDINA,
SPS. ARNEL & MILAGROS TAYPIN, LUZ TAYPIN
and SPS. FERNANDO & CERILA PONTARON,

Petitioners.

-versus-

Francisco Sumagaysay; Spouses

Melchor and Lourdes Besonaya, Mary
Rose Besonaya; Jerry Perez; Mario
Perez; Barry John Perez; Renante
Perez; Julito Bellete; Donato Dela
Cruz Jr., Noel Caagoy and Norgien
Caagoy,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(OF THE DECISION PROMULGATED ON JANUARY 29, 2019)

The Petitioners, through the undersigned counsel and unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:
 The undersigned counsel received the said Decision on
February 14, 2019 at the Philippine Post Office in Aduana, Iloilo
City through a registered mail which reads-

" WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is

dismissed. Consequently, petitioners` application for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/ or writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction is denied for being moot
and academic."

Furthermore, there is also a Notice of Resolution attached with

the said Court of Appeals Division`s Decision which required the
Petitioners through the undersigned counsel to inform the Court within
FIVE (5) days from the receipt hereof, of the date the Counsel received
this Notice with copy of the Resolution.

The Petitioners, through the undersigned counsel, in this Motion

for Reconsideration respectfully informed the Honorable Court of
Appeals TWENTIETH (20th) Division that the undersigned counsel has
received this registered mail with the Notice and Decision of the
Honorable Court on February 14, 2019. The Petitioners, through the
undersigned counsel still have until five (5) working days for
complying that Notice and fifteen (15) days from the date of this
registered mail which is February 6, 2019 from PhilPost under Rule 52
of the Rules of Court.

Availing of this Right under Rule 52 of the Rules of Court,

petitioners, through the undersigned counsel, move for the
reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on January 29, 2019.

GROUNDS

I
FILING OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE RTC
LA CARLOTA HAS ALREADY LAPSED ITS PERIOD TO FILE UNDER
THE RULES OF COURT AND THE AVAILABLE REMEDY IS
CERTIORARI

II
FILING OF THE REMEDY UNDER RULE 42 OF THE RULES OF
COURT HAS ALSO BEEN LAPSED ITS PERIOD TO FILE

III

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY

MANDATORY INJUNCTION SHOULD BE ISSUED TO PROTECT
THE RIGHTS OF THE FARMERS PENDING THE FINAL EXECUTION
OF THE PETITIONS AT THE DAR REGION VI

IV
AGRARIAN JUSTICE WILL BE SUPERSEDED BY FORMS WHICH
CAN BE JUSTIFIED
 DISCUSSION

FILING OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE RTC

LA CARLOTA HAS ALREADY LAPSED ITS PERIOD TO FILE UNDER
THE RULES OF COURT AND THE AVAILABLE REMEDY IS
CERTIORARI

As stated in the said Honorable Court of Appeals Division

Decision, the RTC La Carlota Decision was October 8, 2018 which was
correct. The period under which the Petitioners, through their former
Counsel, the lawyer from Public Attorney`s Office, have not resorted
to file this Motion for Reconsideration (MR) within the period as stated
under the Rules of Court which is only fifteen (15) days from the
receipt of the Decision. That is the reason why the Petitioners went to
find a lawyer who can protect their interest until they have reached
the services of the undersigned counsel which was only on November
2018 which was way beyond the filing of the said remedy.

Under Rules 65 of the Rules of Court, Certiorari is available if the

following are present: 1) the action is directed against a tribunal,
board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; 2) such
tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion, and 3) there is no appeal, or any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

In this case, the remedies of Motion for Reconsideration in the

RTC La Carlota City cannot anymore be availed for the fifteen (15) day
period to file that Motion has already been expired and the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Region VI has not yet
expediting the petitions filed by the petitioners with regards to their
inclusion as Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs)

Moreover, there are exceptions to the requirement of the filing of the

Motion for Reconsideration as stated in several jurisprudence namely: there are
well-defined exceptions established by jurisprudence, such as (a) where the
order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where
the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and
passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed
upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution
of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the
Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is
perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration
would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is
 extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of
arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due
process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had
no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or
where public interest is involved.1

First, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the ejectment

case for there is yet a prejudicial question as to the petition of
the Petitioners as to their inclusion of being an Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) and the land in question is still
under the coverage of the CARP.

Based in the case wherein Justice Peralta decided in the DAR vs

Robles Case, THE CASE IS AN AGRARIAN REFORM MATTER.

Second, the land in dispute is agriculture and in fact one of the

CARP-covered properties of the late Florentino G. Granada and the
PETITIONERS ARE TENANT-FARMERS.

The petitioners in this case filed for the Inclusion and Exclusion in the
Master List of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries in the case denominated as
ADMIN Case No. APO-1806-0138-2016-S to ADMIN CASE No. APO-
1806-0157-2016-S entitled as Julieto S. Bellete, et. al vs Evangeline M.
Bellete, et. al. A certification by DAR Regional Director Stephen M.
Leonidas, CESO V on June 16, 2016 to Atty. Gerlie M. Uy of the Public
Attorney`s Office in La Carlota City which stated that as of June 17, 2016,
the said petition is pending for resolution in this Office2. Until now, the
petitioners have not been informed of the latest resolution of the said Office.

Lastly, the issues are entangled with AGRARIAN REFORM

MATTERS. Although the law has already defined agrarian dispute is,
there is no clear meaning of the term "Agrarian Reform Matter other
than the case of DAR vs Robles, et al which the Court has set a
framework to include matters outside of the DARAB Rules and
Procedures STILL COGNIZABLE under DARAB and NOT OF
REGULAR COURTS.

In DAR vs Robles, et al3, aside from the issue of agrarian dispute, the
Honorable Supreme Court has decided to include issues within the
competence of the DARAB and not over regular courts. In this case, the
Court includes under the competence of the DARAB:

1
Republic v. Bayao, 710 Phil. 279, 287-288 (2013), citing Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution,
Inc., 653 Phil. 124, 136-137 (2010). Emphasis supplied.
2
Attached in the Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 12359) dated January 29, 2019
3
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY MS. FRITZI C. PANTOJA IN HER CAPACITY AS
PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF LAGUNA, Petitioner, v. IGMIDIO D. ROBLES, RANDY V.
ROBLES, MARY KRIST B. MALIMBAN, ANNE JAMAICA G. ROBLES, JOHN CARLO S. ROBLES AND CHRISTINE
ANN V. ROBLES, Respondents. (G.R. No. 190482, December 09, 2015)
WHETHER OR NOT THE DAR ADJUDICATION BOARD HAS JURISDICTION OVER
ANNULMENT OF DEEDS OF ABSOLUTE SALE AND THE SUBSEQUENT CANCELLATION OF
TITLES INVOLVING LANDS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION AND DISPOSITION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM.

Admittedly, the Highest Court admitted that this issue is not

cognizable under the DARAB Rules of Procedure but nonetheless it is still
under the scope of the CARP Law. The Honorable Justice Peralta in his
ponencia stated that:
Although they are not deemed as "agrarian disputes" falling under the DARAB's jurisdiction,
"[s]uch other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns" referred to the Adjudicator by the
Secretary of the DAR pursuant to Section 1 (1.13), Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure,
are still considered as "agrarian reform matters." A case in point is the DAR's petition for annulment
of deeds of sale and annulment of titles executed in violation of the provision Section 6, par. 4 of RA
6657. Despite being an agrarian law implementation case, the Secretary of the DAR expressly
referred jurisdiction over such petition to the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB through
Memorandum Circular (M.C.) No. 02-0127 on the Guidelines on Annulment of Deeds of Conveyance
of Lands Covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Executed in Violation of
Section 6, Paragraph 4 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657. Section 4 of DAR M.C. No. 02-01 pertinently
provides:
b) The Chief, Legal Division, of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office, shall have the following
responsibilities:
1. Upon receipt of the MARO report, determine whether or not there was illegal transfer of
agricultural lands pursuant to Sec. 6, par. 4 of RA 6657;

2. If there was illegal transfer, file a petition for annulment of the deed of conveyance in behalf of
the PARO before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). The petition shall state the
material facts constituting the violation and pray for the issuance of an order from the PARAD
directing the ROD to cancel the deed of conveyance and the TCT generated as a result thereof. As
legal basis therefor, the petition shall cite Section 50 of RA 6657 and Rule II, Section 1(c) and (e) of
the [1994] DARAB New Rules of Procedure; nRoblesVirtua lawlibr ary

Concededly, the properties subject of the petition for annulment of deeds of sale and cancellation of
titles cannot be considered as lands under the administration of the DAR or LBP, i.e., those already
acquired for CARP purposes and distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. Hence, such petition is
outside the DARAB jurisdiction under Section 1 (1.9), Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure.

Nevertheless, it can be gathered from the allegations in the petition that the subject properties
Eduardo conveyed and transferred to respondents are agricultural lands in excess of the 5-hectare
(50,000 sq. m.) retention limit of the CARL, and that the corresponding TCTs were later issued and
registered in their names without the necessary clearance under DAR A.O. No. 1, series of 1989.

In Sarne v. Hon. Maquiling, the Court construed the phrase "agricultural lands under the coverage of
the CARP" under Section 1(e), in relation to Section 1 (c),33 Rule II of the 1994 DARAB Rules of
Procedure, which are similarly-worded as Sections 1 (1.3) and (1.5), Rule II of the 2003 DARAB
Rules of Procedure, thus:

It is clear that the jurisdiction of the DARAB in this case is anchored on Section 1, paragraph (e),
Rule II of the [1994] DARAB New Rules of Procedure covering agrarian disputes involving the sale,
alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, preemption and redemption of agricultural lands under the
coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws. There is nothing in the provision from which it can be
inferred that the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited only to agricultural lands under the
administration and disposition of DAR and LBP. We should not distinguish where the law does not
distinguish. The phrase "agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP" includes all private
lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture, as defined under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657. It is
worthy to note that in the enumeration defining the DARAB's jurisdiction, it is only in paragraph (c),
that is, cases involving the annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their
amendments involving lands, that the phrase "involving lands under the administration and
disposition of the DAR or LBP" is used. That the same proviso does not appear in paragraph (e),
which is the basis of respondents' cause of action, could only mean that it was never intended to be so
limited. xxx
Virtuala wlib rary

Contrary to the view of the CA and the respondents, therefore, a notice of coverage is not necessary in
order for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case that involves the sale or alienation of
agricultural lands "under the coverage of the CARP" pursuant to Section 1 (1.5), Rule II of the 2003
DARAB Rules of Procedure, as such phrase includes all private lands devoted to or suitable for
agriculture, as defined under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657:

CHAPTER II
Coverage.

Section 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1989 shall cover, regardless of
tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands, as provided
in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain
suitable for agriculture.

More specifically the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No
reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval
of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations,
shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain.

(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the
preceding paragraph;

(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and

(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products
raised or that can be raised thereon.

In light of the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature of the petition
is conferred by law and determined by the material allegations therein, and is not affected by the
defenses or theories set up in the respondent's answer or motion to dismiss, the Court finds that the
DAR's petition for annulment of deeds of sale and cancellation of titles falls under the jurisdiction
of the PARAD under Section 1 (1.5), Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, as it contains
sufficient allegations to the effect it involves sales of agricultural lands under the coverage of the
CARL.

Upon inference, agrarian reform matters also include matters which are connected to
agrarian reform such as but not limited to the issue in the said DAR vs Robles Case. It can also
refer to issues which have these following elements:
1) The land is an agricultural land as defined in Sarne v. Hon. Maquiling, espoused under
the Section 4, R.A. 6657, as amended 4; and

4431 Phil. 675 (2002). he Court construed the phrase "agricultural lands under the
coverage of the CARP" under Section 1(e), in relation to Section 1 (c), Rule II of the
1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure, which are similarly-worded as Sections 1 (1.3) and
(1.5), Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, thus:

It is clear that the jurisdiction of the DARAB in this case is anchored on Section 1, paragraph
(e), Rule II of the [1994] DARAB New Rules of Procedure covering agrarian disputes involving
the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, preemption and redemption of agricultural lands
under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws. There is nothing in the provision from
which it can be inferred that the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited only to agricultural lands
under the administration and disposition of DAR and LBP. We should not distinguish where the
law does not distinguish. The phrase "agricultural lands under the coverage of the
CARP" includes all private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture, as defined
under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657. It is worthy to note that in the enumeration defining the
DARAB's jurisdiction, it is only in paragraph (c), that is, cases involving the annulment or
cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands, that the
phrase "involving lands under the administration and disposition of the DAR or LBP" is used.
That the same proviso does not appear in paragraph (e), which is the basis of respondents'
cause of action, could only mean that it was never intended to be so limited. xxx
 2) Issues which are not only limited to tenancy relationship between parties but also
matters which do not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Environment
and Natural Resources, Agriculture, DAR as well as Special Agrarian Courts.

The issues in this petition involve the private agricultural land owned
by the late Florentino Granada and the petitioner-tenants and these
petitioner-tenants are subject to the ejectment case (RTC Civil Case No.
1488 under the RTC La Carlota City Branch 63) as well as the archiving of
the Mandamus Case still with the same RTC La Carlota City Branch 635 for
the identifying of the List of ARB with the existing petition for such
inclusion of the said petitioner-tenants as ARBs.

The ejectment is in itself outside of the jurisdiction of the Secretaries

of DAR, DENR or Agriculture but it is essentially an AGRARIAN
REFORM MATTER. Pending finality of the decision of the petition of the
inclusion of these petitioners-tenants as ARBs and the archiving of the
Mandamus Case pending the petition for inclusion of the petitioners-tenants
as ARBs, this HONORABLE COURT cannot deny the fact that this petition
is an AGRARIAN REFORM MATTER. It is not ONLY AN ORDINARY
CIVIL CASE BUT IS ESSENTIALLY AN AGRARIAN REFORM
MATTER.

Moreover, the ejectment with all the surrounding circumstances are

cognizable under DARAB Rules of Procedure.

In 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure. Under Section 2, Rule II of the said Rules of Procedure, the
DARAB has jurisdiction over the following issues:

xxx

1.1 The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management,
cultivation, and use of all agricultural lands covered by Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), and other related agrarian laws;xxx

1.4 Those cases involving the ejectment and dispossession of tenants and/or leaseholders;xxx

1.11 Those cases involving the determination of title to agricultural lands where this issue is raised in an
agrarian dispute by any of the parties or a third person in connection with the possession thereof for the
purpose of preserving the tenure of the agricultural lessee or actual tenant-farmer or farmer-beneficiaries
and effecting the ouster of the interloper or intruder in one and the same proceeding;

In emphasis, this ejectment case is essentially an AGRARIAN

DISPUTE AND/ OR AN AGRARIAN REFORM MATTER which needs
the competence and jurisdiction of the DAR and NOT A REGULAR
COURT. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LA
CARLOTA CITY BRANCH 63 HAS ERRED IN TAKING
JURISDICTION OF THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS AN AGRARIAN
DISPUTE AND/OR AGRARIAN REFORM MATTER.

5
Facts under the MCTC Civil Case No. 1488 and as adopted by RTC La Carlota City Branch 63.
 In SUMMARY, the RTC La Carlota City has no jurisdiction for there
is the DAR Petition for Inclusion as ARBs and the Issues are Agrarian
Dispute and/or Agrarian Reform Matter.

Lastly, there is an urgent necessity to do away the filing of the Motion

for Reconsideration. The Petitioners are on constant alert for their ouster in
their houses. The filing of Certiorari with prayer for T.R.O. Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction is an urgent necessity for the Petitioners to heard in
this Honorable Appellate Court to hear their Case and to issue an injunction
for the protection of their rights pending the final resolution of the DAR on
their petitions.

II
FILING OF THE REMEDY UNDER RULE 42 OF THE RULES OF
COURT HAS ALSO BEEN LAPSED ITS PERIOD TO FILE

Rule 42 of the Rules of Court refers to Petition for Review

on the RTC Decision. Sadly, the Petitioners cannot anymore file
this Remedy for such should be filed within fifteen (15) days
from the decision of the RTC La Carlota City.

The lack of intention of the Public Attorney's Office there

in La Carlota City leads the Petitioners to file a Certiorari Case
in this Honorable Appellate Court.

In the interest of substantial justice, the Petitioners can

only file a Certiorari Case for they cannot anymore file a
remedy under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

III

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY

MANDATORY INJUNCTION SHOULD BE ISSUED TO PROTECT
THE RIGHTS OF THE FARMERS PENDING THE FINAL EXECUTION
OF THE PETITIONS AT THE DAR REGION VI

There is in fact an existence of a prejudicial question as to the

pending decision and execution of the DAR Region VI with regards to
the Petitions for the Inclusion of the said Petitioners as ARBs and the
final execution of the DAR with regards to the agrarian covered land
under the ownership of the Private Respondent before this Ejectment
Case be executed.

Prejudicial question has been defined and explained as follows:

". . . that which arises in a case, the resolution of which (question) is a logical
antecedent of the issue involve in said case and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal (Cuestion prejudicial, es la que surge en un pleito o
causa cuya resolucion es antecedente logico de la cuestion objecto del pleito o
causa y cuyo conocimiento corresponda a los tribunales de otro order o
jurisdiction.—X Enciclopedia Juridica Española, p. 228). The prejudicial question
 must be determinative of the case before the court; this is its first element.
Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal; this is the
second element. (People vs. Aragon, 94 Phil., 357; 50 Off. Gaz.[10], 4863)."

The pending Petition for Inclusion as ARBs are still pending at

the DAR Regional Office VI and the finality of the coverage of the CARP
in the Granada-Nisperos Land as still unresolved as to the issues of the
Petitioners.

Hence, there is an urgent necessity of staying the RTC La Carlota

Decision for the Petition for Inclusion as ARBs if granted by DAR and
the farmers (Petitioners) are now being ejected. Can they still return?

The issuance of the T.R.O. and/ preliminary mandatory

injunction is of an urgent necessity to secure the rights of the
Petitioners pending the finality of the DAR Agrarian Reform Program in
the disputed land.

IV

FOR THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE

NOTICE
Honorable Division Clerk of Court
Court of Appeals,
Cebu City

Greetings!
Please submit the foregoing Petition for Review upon receipt
for the kind consideration of the Honorable Court. Thank you.

Atty. Maria Cecilia S. Maquirang

Explanation
Due geographical distance, lack of messengerial services and
material time, copies of the Petition for Review was filed and
served before this Honorable Court of Appeals and served to
the plaintiff-appellees’ counsel through registered mail rather
than by the preferred mode of personal service accordance
with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Atty. Maria Cecilia S. Maquirang

Copy furnished:
Atty. Archie S. Baribar Registry receipt no.
Counsel for the plaintiffs ____________________
Baribar Jalando-on Placido & Associates Date: __________
RMS 211 & 214 2nd floor JL Bldg. ____________________
Burgos-Lacson Sts. Bacolod City ____________________

Hon. Clerk of Court Registry Receipt no.

______
Branch 63 _________________________
Regional Trial Court Date: ___________________
La Carlota City, Negros Occidental ___________________