G.R. NO. 164147 - AGUSTIN VITALISTA, ORLANDO VITALISTA, LEONARDO VITALISTA, AURELIO VITALISTA, LAZARO VITALISTA, PEDRO MEMPIN, AND ENRIQUE DELA CRUZ, VS. FLORENTINO BANTIGUE PEREZ, JOSE BANTIGUE PEREZ, JACINTO BANTIGUE PEREZ, ERNESTO BANTIGUE PEREZ, FELICISIMA BANTIGUE PEREZ, BELEN BANTIGUE PEREZ, A

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued DECLARING the heirs of Ester Bantigue no better right to acquire Lot No. 2195, Psd-52045 of the Buenavista Estate, San Ildefonso, Bulacan; DECLARING Lot 2195, Psd-52045 vacant and open for disposition to actual occupants/cultivator and who are qualified to purchase thereof; FORFEITING all payments made by Ester Bantigue over the aforecited lot in favor of the government. [14] On appeal, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform reversed and set aside the Order issued by the Regional Director, pronouncing that the provisions of LTA Administrative Order No. 2, issued in 1956, and the DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1990, have no retroactive effect on the implied contract between Ester Bantigue and the government in 1944, in accordance with the constitutional prohibition against the impairment of contracts [15] . However, the implied contract is subject to limitations imposed by the Kasunduan she later executed. [16] The dispositive portion of the said Order dated 13 September 1994 states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued giving due course to the instant appeal filed by the petitioner, thus setting aside the Order dated December 09, 1992 of the Regional Director. Lot No. 2195, Psd-52045 containing an area of 22.2147 hectares shall be divided equally between the heirs of Ester Bantigue and Agustin Vitalista, et al. They shall be allowed to file their separate applications or if filed already, it should be processed, and the previous payments made by Ester Bantique shall be credited as part of the appraised value of the land. [17] A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners, but the same was denied by the DAR for lack of merit in an Order dated 12 December 1995. [18] The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Office of the President, but on 4 March 1998, the appeal was again dismissed for lack of merit and the Order appealed from was affirmed. In addition, the Office of the President called attention to the evidence presented by the private respondents indicating that their successor-in-interest had occupied and cultivated the land as early as 1929, while the petitioners were unable to prove that they occupied the land earlier than 1960; thus, the private respondents had the better right to the land. [19] The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was subsequently denied on 20 January 2000. [20] The petitioners filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court. In a Decision dated 12 January 2004, the Court of Appeals denied their Petition. [21] In affirming the factual findings of the DAR Secretary and the Office of the President, the Court of Appeals disregarded the petitioners' allegation that they were the original possessors and occupants of the disputed land. [22] The Court of Appeals declared that since the provisions of LTA Administrative Order No. 2 requiring personal occupation and cultivation came into effect af