The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed due to procedural “infirmities” the petition of an agricultural firm to allow the exclusion of its 203.4 hectares of land in Guimaras from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Dismissed was the petition filed by Southern Orchards, Inc. challenging the Jan. 7, 2020 ruling of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) which denied the firm’s plea for CARP exclusion of its landholdings.
In a resolution released last Thursday and written by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr., the CA ruled that Southern Orchard’s petition did not conform to the requirements of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on the filing of appeal cases.
Among the procedural “infirmities” cited by the CA in the petition were: “the title of the case does not indicate the name of the party-respondent; there is no explanation why service of the petition upon adverse party was not made personally; the petition does not contain the respective addresses of the parties; and the verification merely states that the statements in the petition ‘are true to the best of my knowledge and on the basis of the records in my possession’ instead of ‘are true and correct based on personal knowledge, or based on authentic documents.’”
At the same time, the CA said the certified true copies of the material portions of the records referred to in the petition and other supporting documents were not included in the petition.
Southern Orchards, a company engaged in the cultivation of fruit-bearing trees and vines, moved for CARP’s exclusion of its landholdings in Jordan, Guimaras.
It claimed that its landholdings were no longer economically viable for agricultural cultivation since “they ceased to become feasible for agricultural use and that there was not enough water for the proper production of mangoes.”
But the DAR’s regional office denied the firm’s plea. When the ruling of the regional office was affirmed by DAR’s Office of the Secretary, the firm elevated the issue to the CA.
In dismissing the petition, the CA said that the right to appeal “is not a natural right or a part of due process.”
“A party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the requirements of the rules, failing which, the right to appeal is invariably lost,” the CA said.
“Verily, compliance with procedural rules is a must because they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the administration of justice,” it added.
“Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed outright pursuant to Section 7, Rule 43, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,” it ruled.
Section 7 states: “The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.”