FORTICH VS CORONAFacts:

1. The office of the president approved the conversion of a one hundred fourty-four ( 144 ) hectare land from agricultural to agro- industrial/ institutional area in land located at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon through issued OP Case No. 96-C-6424. The DAR, denied the order and invoke the RA 6657 (CARP) and the distribution thereof to all qualified farmer- beneficiaries. The latter went on hunger strike. On the other hand, The local government unit of Bukidnon prayed for the conversion/reclassification of the subject land as the same would be more beneficial to the people. 2. The office of the president through Deputy Executive Secretary Renato Corona provided the win-win resolution to settle both parties; 100h subject to CARP and 44 hectares for reclassification. However, Governor Fortitch opposed and appealed to such order. 3. In seeking the nullification of the "Win-Win" Resolution, the petitioners claim that the Office of the President was prompted to issue the said resolution "after a very well-managed hunger strike led by fake farmer-beneficiary Linda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically blackmailing the Office of the President to come up with this purely political decision to appease the 'farmers,' by reviving and modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996which has been declared final and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997.4. The respondents, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition and prayed that it be dismissed outright.ISSUE: WON the proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file a petition for review directly with the Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of CourtWON the proper remedy is rule 45 or Rule 65DECISION: No

In this particular case, the remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable considering that the present petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is "patently illegal"43and was issued with "grave abuse of discretion" and "beyond his (respondent Secretary Renato C. Corona's) jurisdiction"44when said resolution substantially modified the earlier OP Decision of March 29, 1996 which had long become final and executory. In other words, the crucial issue raised here involves an error of jurisdiction, not an error of judgment which is reviewable by an appeal under Rule 43. Thus, the appropriate remedy to annul and set aside the assailed resolution is an original special civil action forcertiorariunder Rule 65.Wherefore, petion is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Resolution dated November 7, 1997, issued by the Office of the President in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.