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. 146061 August 31, 2006
Facts:
On August 16, 1989, respondents filed with the Department of Agrarian
Reform voluntary offer to sell their property located in Brgy. Sumalo, Hermosa,
Bataan, consisting of consisting of three contiguous parcels of land, with an aggregate
area of 213.6189 hectares and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos.
80135, 80136, 80137. On August 26, 1991, the DAR Region III Office issued a
Notice of Acquisition, informing the respondents that the DAR will only acquire
42.4034 hectares of the property. Thereafter, on July 6, 1993, the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officer (PARO) informed the respondents that DAR would acquire 45.3789
hectares at P1.17 per square meter or a total purchase price of P529,414.68.
Respondents then withdrew the VOS and applied for the conversion of the
property from agricultural to industrial, commercial and residential uses. Their basis
was RA 7227 otherwise known as The Bases Conversion and Development Act of
1992, providing for the creation of a Special Economic and Free Port Zone in an area
consisting of Olongapo City, Subic in Zambales and parts of the municipalities of
Morong and Hermosa in the Province of Bataan, and the declaration by the
Sangguniang Bayan of Hermosa and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bataan that the
Hermosa Agro-Industrial Estate, a property contiguous to the land of the respondents,
is an industrial area. Like wise, the Department of Agriculture has determined the
property not economically suitable for agricultural production and there was no
tenurial relationship between the owners and the occupants of the property.
On May 14, 1996, DAR Secretary denied the application for the conversion of
the property as well as the motion for reconsideration. Hence, the respondents
appealed to the Office of the President. During the pendency of the case, the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan reclassified the area from agriculture to industrial zone.
On June 16, 1997, a resolution was issued in favour of the respondents, setting
aside the resolution of the secretary of the Agrarian Reform. The petitioners then filed
a motion for reconsideration and were granted, which reversed the prior resolution
favoring the conversion. The respondents filed and appeal by way of a petition for
review which was granted and reversed and set aside the decision in favor of the
petitioners.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners are real parties in this case.
Whether or not the decision in the Fortich v. Corona is applicable in this case.

Held:
In the case of Fortich v. Corona, the Office of the President issued a resolution
approving the conversion of a land from agricultural to agro-industrial/institutional
area. It was then opposed by some alleged farmer beneficiaries who culminated in a
dramatic and well publicized hunger strike that caught nationwide attention. This led
to the rendering of the so called Win-Win Resolution which divided the area; 44
hectares for agro-industrial and 100 hectares for the qualified farmer beneficiaries.
Aggrieved by this Win-Win Resolution, the petitioners filed a special civil action
for certiorari and prohibition. It was then decided that the said resolution is void.
As regards the standing of the purported farmer-beneficiaries who sought to
intervene in the said case the recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that a real party in
interest is a party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment or is the party
entitled to the avails of the suit. Interest within the meaning of the rule means material
interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from
mere interest in the question involved, or a more incidental interest. Real Interest
means a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a
future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.
In the instant case, the petitioners claim that they have been identified as
qualified beneficiaries of the respondents property under the CARP citing Sec. 22 of
R.A. No. 6657. They claim that they are considered as other farm workers,
collective or cooperative of the above beneficiaries, and others directly working on
the land. They also alleged that they have been working on the Litton property for a
long time.
The court ruled that this petition lacks merit. In an ocular inspection made by
DA Region III, it was reported that the only notable developments on the property are
residential houses, roads and recreational facilities. It did not mention any agricultural
developments to support the contention of the petitioners that they have been working
on the land. Moreover, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Hermosa, Bataan
stated that the subject properties are untenanted. The court also considered the
findings in the first resolution which stated that the petitioners are in reality, not
composed of tenants of the Littons but mere occupants of homelots without their
consent, who use the property primarily for residential purposes and commercial
activities and who have been subject for ejectment suits by the respondents.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CIRILO P.

January 31, 1955

Facts:
Nelson Sinclair, one of the lessees of Hacienda Lian or Lian Estate in the
municipality of Lian, Batangas, bought parcels of land from the said hacienda.
However, a group of people are claiming to be tenants and occupants of the said
parcels of land. They seek the help of the Rural Progress Administration to convince
Sinclair to sell the land he bought to them for their ancestors were the ones who
cleared and cultivated the land and they are having tenancy issue. A letter was sent to
Sinclair and in reply, he refused to sell the land and he requested the office to give
him time to submit facts regarding the land. It was later found out that Sinclair already
sold the area to Cirilo Babylosis and others. A case for expropriation against
Babylosis and Sinclair was filed. A motion to dismiss the case was filed.
Issue:
Whether or not tenants can seek the help of the government to file
expropriation case to acquire the land.
Held:
The Court ruled to dismiss the expropriation case filed against Babylosis. The
court hold that under section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution, the Government may
expropriate only landed estates with extensive areas, specially those embracing the
whole or a large part of a town or city; that once a landed estate is broken up and
divided into parcels of reasonable areas, either thru voluntary sales by the owner or
owners of said landed estate, or thru expropriation, the resulting parcels are no longer
subject to further expropriation under section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution; that
mere notice of the intention of the Government to expropriate a parcel of land does
not bind either the land or the owner so as to prevent subsequent disposition of the
property such as mortgaging or even selling it in whole or by subdivision; that
tenancy trouble alone whether due to the fault of the tenants or of the landowners does
not justify expropriation; that the Constitution protects a landowner against
indiscriminate and unwarranted expropriations; that to justify expropriation, it must
be for the public purpose and public benefit, and that just to enable the tenants of a
piece of land of reasonable area to own portions of it, even if they and their ancestors
had cleared the land and cultivated it for their landlord for many years, is no valid
reason or justification under the Constitution to deprive the owners or landlord of his
property by means of expropriation.