This resolves petitioners' Motions to Refer to the Court En Banc these consolidated cases, which the Third Division decided on September 2, 1999. The motions for reconsideration seasonably filed by the petitioners, Republic of the Philippines and Firestone Ceramics, Inc., et al., are pending.

Under Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89, dated February 7, 1989, as amended by the Resolution of November 18, 1993:

xxx, the following are considered en banc cases:

1.	Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
2.	Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty;
3.	Cases raising novel questions of law;
4.	Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
5.	Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and Commission on Audit;
6.	Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.00 or both;
7.	Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed;
8.	Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the court en banc; and
9.	All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention.

The cases at bar involve a vast tract of land with an area of around ninety-nine (99) hectares presumptively belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, which land had been adjudicated to private individuals by a court alleged to be without jurisdiction. Since the validity of the said decision and the original certificate of title as well as transfer certificates of title issued pursuant thereto hinges on the classification of subject area at the time it was so adjudicated, determination of the validity of the disposition thereof is in order.

The assailed decision does not indicate the classification of the land in question, when the herein private respondents obtained their decree of registration thereover.

In Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the Court conceded that it is not infallible. Should any error of judgment be perceived, it does not blindly adhere to such error, and the parties adversely affected thereby are not precluded from seeking relief therefrom, by way of a motion for reconsideration. In this jurisdiction, rectification of an error, more than anything else, is of paramount importance.

Here, there was submitted to the Court en consulta, petitioners' Motions to Refer to the Court En Banc these consolidated cases for the consideration of the Court. A pleading, entitled "FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT EN BANC, EN CONSULTA," was presented but when the same was first brought to its attention on March 7, 2000, the Court opined that since the Third Division had not yet acted on subject motions to refer the cases to the Banc, it was then premature for the Court to resolve the consulta. However, the Court succinctly cautioned that the action of the Third Division on the matter would just be tentative.

On March 8, 2000, the Third Division voted 4-1 to deny petitioners' motion to transfer these cases to the Banc. Thus, on March 14, 2000, the Court deliberated on the consulta and thereafter, voted 9-5 to accept the cases for the Banc to pass upon in view of the finding that the cases above entitled are of sufficient importance to merit its attention. Evidently, the action of the Court under the premises is a legitimate and valid exercise of its RESIDUAL POWER within the contemplation of paragraph 9 of the Resolution En Banc of November 18, 1993, which reads: "All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention." (underscoring supplied)

Untenable is the contention of Justice Panganiban that the Chief Justice and the eight (8) Associate Justices who voted to treat these consolidated cases as En Banc cases, have not given any cogent or compelling reason for such action. Considering that paragraph 9 of the Resolution of this Court dated November 18, 1993, has been cited to support the majority opinion, it is decisively clear that these consolidated cases have been found to be of sufficient importance to merit the attention and disposition of the entire Court en banc and therefore, the prayer of the Republic of the Philippines and the private petitioners for the Court en banc to hear and resolve their pending motions for reconsideration, is meritorious. The aforesaid finding by the Court constitutes a reason cogent and compelling enough to warrant the majority ruling that the Court En Banc has to act upon and decide petitioners' motions for reconsideration.

It bears stressing that where, as in the present cases, the Court En Banc entertains a case for its resolution and disposition, it does so without implying that the Division of origin is incapable of rendering objective and fair justice. The action of the Court simply means that the nature of the cases calls for en banc attention and consideration. Neither can it be concluded that the Court has taken undue advantage of sheer voting strength. It was merely guided by the well-studied finding and sustainable opinion of the majority of its actual membership - that, indeed, subject cases are of sufficient importance meriting the action and decision of the whole Court. It is, of course, beyond cavil that all the members of this highest Court of the land are always embued with the noblest of intentions in interpreting and applying the germane provisions of law, jurisprudence, rules and Resolutions of the Court - to the end that public interest be duly safeguarded and rule of law be observed.

Reliance by Justice Panganiban on the ruling of the Court in the Sumilao case is misplaced. The said case is not on all fours with these cases. In the Sumilao case, before it was brought to the Banc en consulta, the motion for reconsideration of the decision therein rendered had been voted upon by the Second Division with a vote of 2-2. The Court ruled that the stalemate resulting from the said voting constituted a denial of the motion for reconsideration.

In the two consolidated cases under consideration, however, the Motions for Reconsideration of the petitioners, Republic of the Philippines and Firestone Ceramics, Inc., et al., are pending and unresolved.

Taking into account the importance of these cases and the issues raised, let alone the enormous value of the area in litigation, which is claimed as government property, there is merit in the prayer of petitioners that their pending motions for reconsideration should be resolved by the Court En Banc.

WHEREFORE, these consolidated cases are considered and treated as en banc cases; and petitioners' motions for reconsideration are hereby set for oral argument on July 18, 2000, at 11:00 a.m. Let corresponding notices issue.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Bellosillo, Kapunan, Mendoza, Buena, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr. JJ., concur.

Melo, J., joined the dissents and in lieu of the close vote, urge that this action be not repeated and that it be reviewed again.

Puno, J., see separate opinion.

Vitug, J., joined the dissenting justices.

Panganiban, J., see dissenting opinion.

Quisumbing, and Pardo, JJ., joined the dissent of J. Reyes.

Gonzaga-Reyes, J., see dissenting opinion.

---

SEPARATE OPINION

PUNO, J.:

In the session last March 21, 2000, information was given that a majority of the members of the Third Division intends to hear the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Republic and then report its result to the Court en banc. I sincerely believe that the result of the said oral arguments will be a vital factor to consider before the court en banc should finally decide to assume jurisdiction over the case at bar. The issue for resolution in the said Motion for Reconsideration concerns res judicata. This is an issue that does not strictly involve a question of law for beyond doubt its resolution will rest on some amorphous questions of fact. Until and unless these questions of fact are sharpened and given shape in the intended oral arguments, I am of the opinion and so vote that the Court en banc should defer its action to assume jurisdiction over the case at bar.

---

DISSENTING OPINION
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

With due respect, I am constrained to dissent from the acceptance by the Court en banc of the referral of the motions for reconsideration in the cases at bar. The justification for the referral is stated thus:

"These cases involve a vast tract of land around ninety-nine (99) hectares presumptively belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, which land had been adjudicated to private individuals under a decision allegedly rendered by a court without jurisdiction. Since the validity of the said decision and of the original certificate of title as well as transfer certificates of title issued pursuant thereto is contingent on the character or classification of subject area at the time it was so adjudicated to private persons, the determination of the same is essential. The decision sought to be reconsidered does not clearly reflect or indicate the correct character of the land involved at the time the private respondents obtained a degree of registration thereover. Thus, should it be established that indeed the land in question was still within the forest zone and inalienable at the time of its disposition to private parties, reversal of this Court's decision is in order.

In Lemketkai Sons Milling, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,^[1] this Court has acknowledged that it is not infallible and that, if upon examination an error in judgment is perceived, the Court is not obliged to blindly adhere to such decision and the parties are not precluded from seeking relief by way of a motion for reconsideration. In this jurisdiction, rectification of an error, more than anything else, is paramount."

The fact alone that the property involved covers an area of 99 hectares does not provide a cogent reason to elevate the cases to the Court en banc. Nowhere in the extent guidelines for referral to the Court en banc is the value of the property subject of the case relevant to determine whether the division should refer a matter to the Court en banc. Moreover, the validity of OCT No. 4216, which petitioner Republic raised as a principal issue in the instant petition, had already been long settled by final judgments of this Court in three (3) cases.^[2]

It was also submitted that the cases are of sufficient importance to be "reexamined and reviewed" by the Court en banc pursuant to S. C. Circular No. 2-89 dated February 7, 1989 as amended by the Resolution of November 18, 1993, which considers the following, among others, as en banc cases:

xxx          xxx          xxx
"9. All other cases as the Court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention."

It is believed that the acceptance by the court en banc of the referral on the proposal of one member of the division is not called for on the following grounds:

(1) The motion for reconsideration from the decision unanimously adopted by the 3rd Division on September 2, 1999 is still pending. If there is any error to be rectified in the said decision, the matter should be left to the sound judgment of the members of the division which promulgated the decision unless there is a demonstrated incapacity or disqualification on the part of its members to render a fair and just resolution of the motion for reconsideration.

(2) The court en banc is not an appellate court to which a decision or resolution may be appealed:

Article VIII, Section 4, of the 1987 Constitution provides:

"(1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or, in its discretion, in divisions of three, five or seven members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc; Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc."

It is implicit in the paragraph immediately preceding that decisions or resolutions of a division of the court, when concurred in by a majority of its members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in a case and voted thereon is a decision or resolution of the Supreme Court itself. The Supreme Court sitting en banc is not an appellate court vis a vis its Divisions, and it exercises no appellate jurisdiction over the latter. Each division of the Court is considered not a body inferior to the Court en banc, and sits veritably as the Court en banc itself. The only constraint is that any doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court, either rendered en banc or in division, may be overturned or reversed only by the Court sitting en banc.

(3) Circular No. 2-89 of the Court en banc laid down the following Guidelines and Rules on the referral to the Court en banc of cases assigned to a Division:

"1.	The Supreme Court sits either en banc or in Divisions of three, five or seven Members (Sec. 4[1]. Article VIII, 1987 Constitution). At present the Court has three Divisions of five Members each.
2.	A decision or resolution of a Division of the Court, when concurred in by a majority of its Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in a case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members, is a decision or resolution of the Supreme Court (Section 4[3]. Article VIII, 1987 Constitution).
3.	The Court en banc is not an Appellate Court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed.
4.	At any time after a Division takes cognizance of a case and before a judgment or resolution therein rendered becomes final and executory, the Division may refer the case en consulta to the Court en banc which, after consideration of the reasons of the Division for such referral, may return the case to the Division or accept the case for decision or resolution.
	4a.	Paragraph [f] of the Resolution of this Court of 23 February 1984 in Bar Matter No. 205 (formerly item 6, en banc Resolution dated 29 September 1977), enumerating the cases considered as en banc cases, states:
	"f.	Cases assigned to a division including motions for reconsideration which in the opinion of at least three (3) members merit the attention of the Court en banc and are acceptable by a majority vote of the actual members of the Court en banc."
5.	A resolution of the Division denying a party's motion for referral to the Court en banc of any Division case, shall be final and not appealable to the Court en banc.
6.	When a decision or resolution is referred by a Division to the Court en banc, the latter may, in the absence of sufficiently important reasons, decline to take cognizance of the same, in which case, the decision or resolution shall be returned to the referring Division.
7.	No motion for reconsideration of the action of the Court en banc declining to take cognizance of a referral by a Division, shall be entertained.
8.	This Circular shall take effect on March 1, 1989."

In the Resolution of the Court en banc dated November 18, 1993, the following were enumerated as the cases to be considered as "en banc cases":

"1.	Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
2.	Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty;
3.	Cases raising novel questions of law;
4.	Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
5.	Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and Commission on Audit;
6.	Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P10,000.000 or both;
7.	Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed.
8.	Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the court en banc; and
9.	All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention."

Notably, the rule that "cases assigned to a division which is the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the Court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the Court en banc" has been reiterated.

However, a new paragraph was added in the 1993 Resolution, as follows:

"9. All other cases as the Court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention."

The immediately foregoing paragraph may lend itself to an interpretation that any case which the Court en banc by majority vote of its members "may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention" is an en banc case.

This interpretation is of doubtful validity and soundness.

To begin with, Resolution dated November 18, 1993 is essentially an amendment to Sections 15 and 16, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court which deals with the form ("unglazed paper," margins, number of copies, etc.) of unprinted and printed papers to be filed with this Court. This Resolution was clearly not intended to lay down new guidelines or rules for referral to the court en banc of cases assigned to a Division. Thus, the principle that the court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed could not have been intended to be abrogated. Article VIII, Section 4 of the Constitution, earlier quoted, expressly provides that "when the required number (the concurrence of at least three members of the division) is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc." The obvious contemplation is that when the required vote of at least three members is obtained, the banc's participation is not called for.

(4) It is true that the Constitution itself recognizes the power of the Supreme Court to require other cases to be heard en banc (Article VIII, Sec. 4 (2) ). As pointed out, the November 18, 1993 Resolution quoted earlier, could not, by reading the issuance in proper context, have been intended to expand the enumeration of en banc cases. A reasonable interpretation is that paragraph 9 refers to cases accepted by the banc pursuant to existing rules, foremost of which is that the referral requires the concurrence of at least three of the members of the division. If the provision "all other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention" was intended to give the court en banc a general residual power and prerogative to cause the elevation of any case assigned to a division, without a consulta from the division itself, this intent should be ineluctably expressed, having in mind the essential and traditional role of a division of the court sitting veritably as the court en banc itself.

The court en banc should be shielded from the importunings of litigants who perceive themselves aggrieved by a decision of a division of the court and resort to the convenience of an appeal to the court en banc on the plea that its case is "of sufficient importance to merit its attention." In the Sumilao case, the majority of the banc's members refused to take the case where there was a two-two tie vote in the division for the elevation of the motion for reconsideration to the court en banc. In an earlier precedent involving the conviction of Imelda Marcos' by the Sandiganbayan, the case was considered as deserving of a full court treatment, despite the fact that the motion for reconsideration did not garner a majority vote in the division. The Court should establish a consistent policy on these referrals for the stability of its policies and procedures.

The prerogative to take out a case from the division without the concurrence of a majority of its members, should, if at all, be used only for clearly compelling reasons; otherwise the decision of the Court en banc to take cognizance of the matter itself would be suspect of irregularity and the precedent would be difficult to justify before litigants who may be similarly situated.

I vote to deny the motions to refer the motions for reconsideration to the Court en banc.

---

^[1] 262 SCRA 464, 467.

^[2] Margolles vs. CA, 230 SCRA 97; Peltan Development Inc., et. al. vs. CA, 270 SCRA 83; Goldenrod, Inc. vs. CA and Peltan Development, Inc. G.R. No. 112038, August 10, 1994.

---

DISSENTING OPINION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

With due respect, I dissent from the majority's Resolution.

Very briefly, these are the relevant antecedents. On September 2, 1999, the Court through the Third Division unanimously promulgated its Decision denying the Petitions in these cases. Thereafter, both the government and private petitioners filed separate (1) Motions for Reconsideration and (2) Motions to Refer the Cases to the Court en Banc.

By vote of 4-1,^[1] the Third Division rejected the Motions to Refer the Cases to the full Court because the movants had utterly failed to adduce any legal reason for such referral. Subsequently, Justice Fidel P. Purisima, the lone dissenter, asked the Court en banc to yank the case out of and against the will of the said Division, and to empower the banc to resolve the pending Motions for Reconsideration. By the instant Resolution, the majority has agreed with Justice Purisima.

With due respect, I say that the majority has not given any cogent or compelling reason for this unprecedented action. Its Resolution, penned by Justice Purisima, simply pontificates that "these consolidated cases are of sufficient importance to merit the attention and disposition of the entire Court," without stating why. The majority simply used its sheer voting strength to bulldoze the earlier 4-1 action of the Third Division. If at all, the lame excuse given that the "subject Decision [promulgated by the Third Division] does not clearly indicate the classification of said land" is merely an argument why the pending Motions for Reconsideration should be granted, not why the banc should take over this case.

I fully agree with the well-reasoned Dissent of Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, the ponente of the Third Division's unanimous Decision. I write, however, to stress one point. In the celebrated Sumilao farmers' case,^[2] a similar motion to refer to the full Court was turned down by the Second Division by a vote of 3-1. Arguing that the Division's earlier vote of 2-2 on the Motion for Reconsideration was not decisive, Justice Jose A. R. Melo (who was then a member of the Second Division) subsequently asked the banc to take over the case. Justice Melo argued that under Article VIII, Section 4 (3) of the Constitution, "[c]ases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such members." Since the Motion for Reconsideration did not obtain the required three votes in the Division, he added that the banc should thus take over and resolve the impasse. In other words, Justice Melo presented a genuine "question of sufficient importance" --- which the Second Division was not in a position to resolve - to justify a take-over by the banc. Yet, the full Court turned down his proposal. Only Justice Vitug and I supported Justice Melo.

I therefore cannot understand why the banc is now taking over this case against the wishes of the Third Division. It turned down the poor farmers' plea and the Melo proposal. Why then should the banc grant the not-so-poor private petitioners' prayer here? Why then should it approve the groundless Purisima proposal? At the very least, if it should take over this case, then it should likewise assume jurisdiction over the farmer's suit. After all, the vote in the Motion for Reconsideration in that case was two in favor and two against, while in the present case, the Third Division has not even voted on the plea for reconsideration. In other words, there was sufficient reason for the banc to take over the Sumilao problem because of the 2-2 vote of the Division. Here, no cogent reason whatsoever -- other than the motherhood peroration that the case was "of sufficient importance" -- is given by the majority.

Parenthetically, I should add that the Third Division is not averse to hearing the petitioners' Motions for Reconsideration. As a matter of fact, if the banc did not take over this case, it would have scheduled the said Motions for oral argument. Simply stated, the Third Division is not incapable of rendering objective and fair justice in this case and to rule on the issue of "classification of said land."

Having taken over this case, the banc -- in the name of equal justice -- should also take over the Sumilao farmers' Petition. But having rejected their case, then it should also turn down this one. Sauce for the poor goose should be the same sauce for the rich gander. That is simple, equal justice for all.

---

^[1] JJ Jose A.R. Melo, Jose C. Vitug, Artemio V. Panganiban and Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes voted to deny said Motions, while J. Fidel P. Purisima voted to grant them.

^[2] Fortich v. Corona, GR No. 131457, April 24, 1998, November 17, 1998 and August 19, 1999.