G.R. No.

149548 December 4, 2009

ROXAS & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
DAMBA-NFSW and the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,* Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 167505 December 4, 2009
DAMAYAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID SA ASYENDA ROXAS-NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF SUGAR WORKERS (DAMBA-NFSW) Petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & Co., INC. AND/OR ATTY. MARIANO
AMPIL,Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 167540 December 4, 2009
KATIPUNAN NG MGA MAGBUBUKID SA HACIENDA ROXAS, INC. (KAMAHARI), rep. by its
President CARLITO CAISIP, and DAMAYAN NG MANGGAGAWANG BUKID SA ASYENDA ROXAS-
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (DAMBA-NFSW), represnted by LAURO
MARTIN, Petitioners,
vs.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & Co., INC., Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 167543 December 4, 2009
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORM, FORMERLY DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
(DAR), Petitioner,
vs.
ROXAS & CO, INC., Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 167845 December 4, 2009
ROXAS & CO., INC., Petitioner,
vs.
DAMBA-NFSW, Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 169163 December 4, 2009
DAMBA-NFSW REPRESENTED BY LAURO V. MARTIN, Petitioner,
vs.
ROXAS & CO., INC., Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 179650 December 4, 2009
DAMBA-NFSW, Petitioner,
vs.
ROXAS & CO., INC., Respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.
The main subject of the seven consolidated petitions is the application of petitioner Roxas &
Co., Inc. (Roxas & Co.) for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use of its three
haciendas located in Nasugbu, Batangas containing a total area of almost 3,000 hectares. The
facts are not new, the Court having earlier resolved intimately-related issues dealing with these
haciendas. Thus, in the 1999 case of Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,1 the Court presented
the facts as follows:
. . . Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas,
namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of Nasugbu,
Batangas. Hacienda Palico is 1,024 hectares in area and is registered under Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. 985. This land is covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 0465, 0466, 0468, 0470, 0234
and 0354. Hacienda Banilad is 1,050 hectares in area, registered under TCT No. 924 and covered
by Tax Declaration Nos. 0236, 0237 and 0390. Hacienda Caylaway is 867.4571 hectares in
area and is registered under TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665.
xxxx
On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over legislative
power from the President. This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by the President on June 10, 1988 and
took effect on June 15, 1988.
Before the law’s effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed with respondent DAR a voluntary
offer to sell [VOS] Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas
Palico and Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by … DAR in accordance with
the CARL.
xxxx
Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, [Roxas & Co.], through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a
letter to the Secretary of …DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang
Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway
from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it
was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other uses.
x x x x2 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543 nub on the interpretation of Presidential
Proclamation (PP) 1520 which was issued on November 28, 1975 by then President Ferdinand
Marcos. The PP reads:
DECLARING THE MUNICIPALITIES OF MARAGONDON AND TERNATE IN CAVITE PROVINCE AND
THE MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU IN BATANGAS AS A TOURIST ZONE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
WHEREAS, certain areas in the sector comprising the Municipalities of Maragondon and
Ternate in Cavite Province and Nasugbu in Batangas have potential tourism value after being
developed into resort complexes for the foreign and domestic market; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to conduct the necessary studies and to segregate specific geographic
areas for concentrated efforts of both the government and private sectors in developing their
tourism potential;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby declare the area comprising the
Municipalities of Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite Province and Nasugbu in Batangas Province
as a tourist zone under the administration and control of the Philippine Tourism
Authority (PTA) pursuant to Section 5 (D) of P.D. 564.
The PTA shall identify well-defined geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism
value, wherein optimum use of natural assets and attractions, as well as existing facilities and
concentration of efforts and limited resources of both government and private sector may be
affected and realized in order to generate foreign exchange as well as other tourist receipts.
Any duly established military reservation existing within the zone shall be excluded from this
proclamation.
All proclamation, decrees or executive orders inconsistent herewith are hereby revoked or
modified accordingly. (emphasis and underscoring supplied).
The incidents which spawned the filing of the petitions in G.R. Nos. 149548, 167505, 167845,
169163 and 179650 are stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, the
original draft of which was made the basis of the Court’s deliberations.
Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its application for conversion of its three haciendas from
argricultural to non-agricultural on the assumption that the issuance of PP 1520 which declared
Nasugbu, Batangas as a tourism zone, reclassified them to non-agricultural uses. Its pending
application notwithstanding, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of
Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to the farmer-beneficiaries in the three haciendas including
CLOA No. 6654 which was issued on October 15, 1993 covering 513.983 hectares, the subject of
G.R. No. 167505.
The application for conversion of Roxas & Co. was the subject of the above-stated Roxas & Co.,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals which the Court remanded to the DAR for the observance of proper
acquisition proceedings. As reflected in the above-quoted statement of facts in said case, during
the pendency before the DAR of its application for conversion following its remand to the DAR
or on May 16, 2000, Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR an application for exemption from the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of 1988 on the basis of PP
1520 and of DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1994 3 which states that all lands
already classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before the effectivity of CARP no
longer need conversion clearance from the DAR.
It bears mentioning at this juncture that on April 18, 1982, the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu
enacted Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4 (Nasugbu MZO No. 4) which was approved on May
4, 1983 by the Human Settlements Regulation Commission, now the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB).
The records show that Sangguniang Bayan and Association of Barangay Captains of Nasugbu
filed before this Court petitions for intervention which were, however, denied by Resolution of
June 5, 2006 for lack of standing. 4
After the seven present petitions were consolidated and referred to the Court en banc, 5 oral
arguments were conducted on July 7, 2009.
The core issues are:
1. Whether PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the Maragondon-Ternate-Nasugbu tourism
zone to non-agricultural use to exempt Roxas & Co.’s three haciendas in Nasugbu from CARP
coverage;
2. Whether Nasugbu MSO No. 4, Series of 1982 exempted certain lots in Hacienda Palico from
CARP coverage; and
3. Whether the partial and complete cancellations by the DAR of CLOA No. 6654 subject of G.R.
No. 167505 is valid.
The Court shall discuss the issues in seriatim.
I. PP 1520 DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONVERT THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE THREE
MUNICIPALITIES INCLUDING NASUGBU TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
Roxas & Co. contends that PP 1520 declared the three municipalities as each constituting a
tourism zone, reclassified all lands therein to tourism and, therefore, converted their use to
non-agricultural purposes.
To determine the chief intent of PP 1520, reference to the "whereas clauses" is in order. By and
large, a reference to the congressional deliberation records would provide guidance in
dissecting the intent of legislation. But since PP 1520 emanated from the legislative powers of
then President Marcos during martial rule, reference to the whereas clauses cannot be
dispensed with.6
The perambulatory clauses of PP 1520 identified only "certain areas in the sector comprising
the [three Municipalities that] have potential tourism value" and mandated the conduct of
"necessary studies" and the segregation of "specific geographic areas" to achieve its purpose.
Which is why the PP directed the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) to identify what those
potential tourism areas are. If all the lands in those tourism zones were to be wholly converted
to non-agricultural use, there would have been no need for the PP to direct the PTA to identify
what those "specific geographic areas" are.
The Court had in fact passed upon a similar matter before. Thus in DAR v. Franco,7 it
pronounced:
Thus, the DAR Regional Office VII, in coordination with the Philippine Tourism Authority, has to
determine precisely which areas are for tourism development and excluded from the
Operation Land Transfer and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. And suffice it to
state here that the Court has repeatedly ruled that lands already classified as non-agricultural
before the enactment of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988 do not need any conversion
clearance.8 (emphasis and underscoring supplied).
While the above pronouncement in Franco is an obiter, it should not be ignored in the
resolution of the present petitions since it reflects a more rational and just interpretation of PP
1520. There is no prohibition in embracing the rationale of an obiter dictum in settling
controversies, or in considering related proclamations establishing tourism zones.
In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA,9 the Court made it clear that the "power to
determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempt
from the coverage of the [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law] lies with the [Department of
Agrarian Reform], not with this Court."10 The DAR, an administrative body of special
competence, denied, by Order of October 22, 2001, the application for CARP exemption of
Roxas & Co., it finding that PP 1520 did not automatically reclassify all the lands in the affected
municipalities from their original uses. It appears that the PTA had not yet, at that time,
identified the "specific geographic areas" for tourism development and had no pending tourism
development projects in the areas. Further, report from the Center for Land Use Policy Planning
and Implementation (CLUPPI) indicated that the areas were planted with sugar cane and other
crops.11
Relatedly, the DAR, by Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 2004,12 came up with clarificatory
guidelines and therein decreed that
A. x x x x.
B. Proclamations declaring general areas such as whole provinces, municipalities, barangays,
islands or peninsulas as tourist zones that merely:
(1) recognize certain still unidentified areas within the covered provinces, municipalities,
barangays, islands, or peninsulas to be with potential tourism value and charge the Philippine
Tourism Authority with the task to identify/delineate specific geographic areas within the zone
with potential tourism value and to coordinate said areas’ development; or
(2) recognize the potential value of identified spots located within the general area declared as
tourist zone (i.e. x x x x) and direct the Philippine Tourism Authority to coordinate said areas’
development;
could not be regarded as effecting an automatic reclassification of the entirety of the land area
declared as tourist zone. This is so because "reclassification of lands" denotes their allocation
into some specific use and "providing for the manner of their utilization and disposition (Sec. 20,
Local Government Code) or the "act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for
non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, or commercial, as embodied in the land use
plan." (Joint HLURB, DAR, DA, DILG Memo. Circular Prescribing Guidelines for MC 54, S. 1995,
Sec.2)
A proclamation that merely recognizes the potential tourism value of certain areas within the
general area declared as tourist zone clearly does not allocate, reserve, or intend the entirety of
the land area of the zone for non-agricultural purposes. Neither does said proclamation direct
that otherwise CARPable lands within the zone shall already be used for purposes other than
agricultural.
Moreover, to view these kinds of proclamation as a reclassification for non-agricultural purposes
of entire provinces, municipalities, barangays, islands, or peninsulas would be unreasonable as
it amounts to an automatic and sweeping exemption from CARP in the name of tourism
development. The same would also undermine the land use reclassification powers vested in
local government units in conjunction with pertinent agencies of government.
C. There being no reclassification, it is clear that said proclamations/issuances, assuming [these]
took effect before June 15, 1988, could not supply a basis for exemption of the entirety of the
lands embraced therein from CARP coverage x x x x.
D. x x x x. (underscoring in the original; emphasis and italics supplied)
The DAR’s reading into these general proclamations of tourism zones deserves utmost
consideration, more especially in the present petitions which involve vast tracts of agricultural
land. To reiterate, PP 1520 merely recognized the "potential tourism value" of certain areas
within the general area declared as tourism zones. It did not reclassify the areas to non-
agricultural use.
Apart from PP 1520, there are similarly worded proclamations declaring the whole of Ilocos
Norte and Bataan Provinces, Camiguin, Puerto Prinsesa, Siquijor, Panglao Island, parts of Cebu
City and Municipalities of Argao and Dalaguete in Cebu Province as tourism zones. 13
Indubitably, these proclamations, particularly those pertaining to the Provinces of Ilocos Norte
and Bataan, did not intend to reclassify all agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands in one
fell swoop. The Court takes notice of how the agrarian reform program was—and still is—
implemented in these provinces since there are lands that do not have any tourism potential
and are more appropriate for agricultural utilization.
Relatedly, a reference to the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995 14 provides a parallel orientation
on the issue. Under said Act, several towns and cities encompassing the whole Philippines were
readily identified as economic zones.15 To uphold Roxas & Co.’s reading of PP 1520 would see a
total reclassification of practically all the agricultural lands in the country to non-agricultural
use. Propitiously, the legislature had the foresight to include a bailout provision in Section 31 of
said Act for land conversion.16 The same cannot be said of PP 1520, despite the existence of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27 or the Tenant Emancipation Decree, 17 which is the precursor of
the CARP.
Interestingly, then President Marcos also issued on September 26, 1972 PD No. 2 which
declared the entire Philippines as land reform area. 18 Such declaration did not intend to
reclassify all lands in the entire country to agricultural lands. President Marcos, about a month
later or on October 21, 1972, issued PD 27 which decreed that all private agricultural lands
primarily devoted to rice and corn were deemed awarded to their tenant-farmers.
Given these martial law-era decrees and considering the socio-political backdrop at the time PP
1520 was issued in 1975, it is inconceivable that PP 1520, as well as other similarly worded
proclamations which are completely silent on the aspect of reclassification of the lands in those
tourism zones, would nullify the gains already then achieved by PD 27.
Even so, Roxas & Co. turns to Natalia Realty v. DAR and NHA v. Allarde to support its position.
These cases are not even closely similar to the petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543. The
only time that these cases may find application to said petitions is when the PTA actually
identifies "well-defined geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism value."
In remotely tying these two immediately-cited cases that involve specific and defined townsite
reservations for the housing program of the National Housing Authority to the present
petitions, Roxas & Co. cites Letter of Instructions No. 352 issued on December 22, 1975 which
states that the survey and technical description of the tourism zones shall be considered an
integral part of PP 1520. There were, however, at the time no surveys and technical delineations
yet of the intended tourism areas.
On hindsight, Natalia and Allarde find application in the petitions in G.R. Nos. 179650 & 167505,
which petitions are anchored on the extenuating effects of Nasugbu MZO No. 4, but not in the
petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 & 167543 bearing on PP 1520, as will later be discussed.
Of significance also in the present petitions is the issuance on August 3, 2007 of Executive Order
No. 64719 by President Arroyo which proclaimed the areas in the Nasugbu Tourism Development
Plan as Special Tourism Zone. Pursuant to said Executive Order, the PTA completed its validation
of 21 out of 42 barangays as tourism priority areas, hence, it is only after such completion that
these identified lands may be subjected to reclassification proceedings.
It bears emphasis that a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically
allow a landowner to change its use since there is still that process of conversion before one is
permitted to use it for other purposes.20
The recent passage of the Tourism Act of 200921 also impacts on the present petitions since
Section 32 thereof states that:
Sec. 32. x x x x. - Any other area specifically defined as a tourism area, zone or spot under any
special or general law, decree or presidential issuance shall, as far as practicable, be organized
into a TEZ under the provisions of this Act. x x x x. (italics and emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, it is only under this same Act that it is explicitly declared that lands identified as
part of a tourism zone shall qualify for exemption from CARP coverage. 22
The dissenting opinion ignores the supervening issuances mentioned above during the
pendency of the present petitions because they came after the effectivity of the CARP on June
15, 1988. It labors on the supposition that PP 1520 had already reclassified the lands
encompassing the tourism zones; and that those subsequent issuances, even if applied in the
present cases, cannot be applied retroactively.
Relevantly, while it may be argued that a remand to the DAR would be proper in light of the
recent formulation of a tourism development plan, which was validated by the PTA, that would
put the cases within the ambit of PP 1520, the Court sees otherwise. Roxas & Co. can only look
to the provisions of the Tourism Act, and not to PP 1520, for possible exemption.
II. ROXAS & CO.’S APPLICATION IN DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 FOR CARP
EXEMPTION IN HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT OF G.R. NO. 179650 CANNOT BE GRANTED IN
VIEW OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE LOCATION AND IDENTITY OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS OF LAND.
Since PP 1520 did not automatically convert Haciendas Caylaway, Banilad and Palico into non-
agricultural estates, can Roxas & Co. invoke in the alternative Nasugbu MZO No. 4, which
reclassified in 1982 the haciendas to non-agricultural use to exclude six parcels of land
in Hacienda Palico from CARP coverage?
By Roxas & Co.’s contention, the affected six parcels of land which are the subject of DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 and nine parcels of land which are the subject of DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 involved in G.R. No. 167505, all in Hacienda Palico, have
been reclassified to non-agricultural uses via Nasugbu MZO No. 4 which was approved by the
forerunner of HLURB.
Roxas & Co.’s contention fails.
To be sure, the Court had on several occasions decreed that a local government unit has the
power to classify and convert land from agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of
the CARL.23 In Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas,24 it reiterated that
. . . the facts obtaining in this case are similar to those in Natalia Realty. Both subject lands form
part of an area designated for non-agricultural purposes. Both were classified as non-
agricultural lands prior to June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of CARL.
xxxx
In the case under review, the subject parcels of lands were reclassified within an urban zone as
per approved Official Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Davao. The reclassification was
embodied in City Ordinance No. 363, Series of 1982. As such, the subject parcels of land are
considered "non-agricultural" and may be utilized for residential, commercial, and industrial
purposes. The reclassification was later approved by the HLURB.25 (emphasis, italics and
underscoring supplied)
The DAR Secretary26 denied the application for exemption of Roxas & Co., however, in this wise:
Initially, CLUPPI-2 based [its] evaluation on the lot nos. as appearing in CLOA No. 6654. However,
for purposes of clarity and to ensure that the area applied for exemption is indeed part of TCT
No. T-60034, CLUPPI-2 sought to clarify with [Roxas & Co.] the origin of TCT No. T-60034. In a
letter dated May 28, 1998, [Roxas & Co.] explains that portions of TCT No. T-985, the mother
title, …was subdivided into 125 lots pursuant to PD 27. A total of 947.8417 was retained by the
landowners and was subsequently registered under TCT No. 49946. [[Roxas & Co.] further
explains that TCT No. 49946 was further subdivided into several lots (Lot 125-A to Lot 125-P)
with Lot No. 125-N registered under TCT No. 60034. [A] review of the titles, however, shows
that the origin of T-49946 is T-783 and not T-985. On the other hand, the origin of T-60034 is
listed as 59946, and not T-49946. The discrepancies were attributed by [Roxas & Co.] to
typographical errors which were "acknowledged and initialled" [sic] by the ROD. Per
verification…, the discrepancies . . . cannot be ascertained.27 (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
In denying Roxas & Co.’s motion for reconsideration, the DAR Secretary held:
The landholdings covered by the aforesaid titles do not correspond to the Certification dated
February 11, 1998 of the [HLURB] , the Certification dated September 12, 1996 issued by the
Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, and the Certifications dated July 31, 1997
and May 27, 1997 issued by the National Irrigation Authority. The certifications were issued for
Lot Nos. 21, 24, 28, 31, 32 and 34. Thus, it was not even possible to issue exemption clearance
over the lots covered by TCT Nos. 60019 to 60023.
Furthermore, we also note the discrepancies between the certifications issued by the HLURB
and the Municipal Planning Development Coordinator as to the area of the specific
lots.28 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In affirming the DAR Secretary’s denial of Roxas & Co.’s application for exemption, the Court of
Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 63146 subject of G.R. No. 179650, observed:
In the instant case, a perusal of the documents before us shows that there is no indication that
the said TCTs refer to the same properties applied for exemption by [Roxas & Co.] It is true that
the certifications …refer, among others, to DAR Lot Nos. 21, 24, 28, 31, 32 and 34…But these
certifications contain nothing to show that these lots are the same as Lots 125-A, 125-B, 125-C,
125-D and 125-E covered by TCT Nos. 60019, 60020, 60021, 60022 and 60023, respetively.
While [Roxas & Co.] claims that DAR Lot Nos. 21, 24 and 31 correspond to the aforementioned
TCTs submitted to the DAR no evidence was presented to substantiate such allegation.
Moreover, [Roxas & Co.] failed to submit TCT 634 which it claims covers DAR Lot Nos. 28, 32 and
24.(TSN, April 24, 2001, pp. 43-44)
xxxx
[Roxas & Co.] also claims that subject properties are located at Barangay Cogunan and
Lumbangan and that these properties are part of the zone classified as Industrial under
Municipal Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982 of the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. ….a
scrutiny of the said Ordinance shows that only Barangays Talangan and Lumbangan of the said
municipality were classified as Industrial Zones…Barangay Cogunan was not included. x x x x.
In fact, the TCTs submitted by [Roxas & Co.] show that the properties covered by said titles are
all located at Barrio Lumbangan.29 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Its foregoing findings notwithstanding, the appellate court still allowed Roxas & Co. to adduce
additional evidence to support its application for exemption under Nasugbu MZO No. 4.
Meanwhile, Roxas & Co. appealed the appellate court’s decision in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 63146
affirming the DAR Secretary’s denial of its application for CARP exemption in Hacienda Palico
(now the subject of G.R. No. 149548).
When Roxas & Co. sought the re-opening of the proceedings in DAR Administrative Case No. A-
9999-142-97 (subject of G.R. No. 179650), and offered additional evidence in support of its
application for CARP exemption, the DAR Secretary, this time, granted its application for the six
lots including Lot No. 36 since the additional documents offered by Roxas & Co. mentioned the
said lot.
In granting the application, the DAR Secretary30 examined anew the evidence submitted by
Roxas & Co. which consisted mainly of certifications from various local and national government
agencies.31 Petitioner in G.R. Nos. 167505, 167540, 169163 and 179650, Damayan Ng Mga
Manggagawang Bukid Sa Asyenda Roxas-National Federation of Sugar Workers (DAMBA-
NFSW), the organization of the farmer-beneficiaries, moved to have the grant of the application
reconsidered but the same was denied by the DAR by Order of December 12, 2003, hence, it
filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82225, on
grounds of forum-shopping and grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court, by Decision of
October 31, 2006, ruled that DAMBA-NFSW availed of the wrong mode of appeal. At all events,
it dismissed its petition as it upheld the DAR Secretary’s ruling that Roxas & Co. did not commit
forum-shopping, hence, the petition of DAMBA-NGSW in G.R. No. 179650.
While ordinarily findings of facts of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded great weight
and even finality by the Court if supported by substantial evidence in recognition of their
expertise on the specific matters under their consideration, 32 this legal precept cannot be made
to apply in G.R. No. 179650.
Even as the existence and validity of Nasugbu MZO No. 4 had already been established, there
remains in dispute the issue of whether the parcels of land involved in DAR Administrative Case
No. A-9999-142-97 subject of G.R. No. 179650 are actually within the said zoning ordinance.
The Court finds that the DAR Secretary indeed committed grave abuse of discretion when he
ignored the glaring inconsistencies in the certifications submitted early on by Roxas & Co. in
support of its application vis-à-vis the certifications it later submitted when the DAR Secretary
reopened DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97.
Notably, then DAR Secretary Horacio Morales, on one hand, observed that the "landholdings
covered by the aforesaid titles do not correspond to the Certification dated February 11, 1998
of the [HLURB], the Certification dated September 12, 1996 issued by the Municipal Planning
and Development Coordinator, and the Certifications dated July 31, 1997 and May 27, 1997
issued by the National Irrigation Authority." On the other hand, then Secretary Hernani
Braganza relied on a different set of certifications which were issued later or on September 19,
1996.
In this regard, the Court finds in order the observation of DAMBA-NFSW that Roxas & Co. should
have submitted the comprehensive land use plan and pointed therein the exact locations of the
properties to prove that indeed they are within the area of coverage of Nasugbu MZO No. 4.
The petitions in G.R. Nos. 179650 & 149548 must be distinguished from Junio v.
Garilao33 wherein the certifications submitted in support of the application for exemption of the
therein subject lot were mainly considered on the presumption of regularity in their issuance,
there being no doubt on the location and identity of the subject lot.34 In G.R. No. 179650, there
exist uncertainties on the location and identities of the properties being applied for exemption.
G.R. No. 179650 & G.R. No. 149548 must accordingly be denied for lack of merit.
III. ROXAS & CO.’S APPLICATION FOR CARP EXEMPTION IN DAR Administrative Case No. A-
9999-008-98FOR THE NINE PARCELS OF LAND IN HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT OF G.R. NO.
167505 SHOULD BE GRANTED.
The Court, however, takes a different stance with respect to Roxas & Co.’s application for CARP
exemption in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 over nine parcels of land identified as
Lot Nos. 20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which are portions of TCT No. 985 covering
45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico, subject of G.R. No. 167505.
In its application, Roxas & Co. submitted the following documents:
1. Letter-application dated 29 September 1997 signed by Elino SJ. Napigkit, for and on behalf of
Roxas & Company, Inc., seeking exemption from CARP coverage of subject landholdings;
2. Secretary’s Certificate dated September 2002 executed by Mariano M. Ampil III, Corporate
Secretary of Roxas & Company, Inc., indicating a Board Resolution authorizing him to represent
the corporation in its application for exemption with the DAR. The same Board Resolution
revoked the authorization previously granted to the Sierra Management & Resources
Corporation;
3. Photocopy of TCT No. 985 and its corresponding Tax Declaration No. 0401;
4. Location and vicinity maps of subject landholdings;
5. Certification dated 10 July 1997 issued by Reynaldo Garcia, Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator (MPDC) and Zoning Administrator of Nasugbu, Batangas, stating
that the subject parcels of land are within the Urban Core Zone as specified in Zone A. VII of
Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved by the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission (HSRC), now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB),
under Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;
6. Two (2) Certifications both dated 31 August 1998, issued by Alfredo Tan II, Director, HLURB,
Region IV, stating that the subject parcels of land appear to be within the Residential cluster
Area as specified in Zone VII of Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved
under HSRC Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983; 35
x x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
By Order of November 6, 2002, the DAR Secretary granted the application for exemption but
issued the following conditions:
1. The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be maintained in their peaceful
possession and cultivation of their respective areas of tillage until a final determination has
been made on the amount of disturbance compensation due and entitlement of such farmer-
occupants thereto by the PARAD of Batangas;
2. No development shall be undertaken within the subject parcels of land until the appropriate
disturbance compensation has been paid to the farmer-occupants who are determined by the
PARAD to be entitled thereto. Proof of payment of disturbance compensation shall be
submitted to this Office within ten (10) days from such payment; and
3. The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer-beneficiaries shall be subject of a separate
proceeding before the PARAD of Batangas.36
DAMBA-NSFW moved for reconsideration but the DAR Secretary denied the same and explained
further why CLOA holders need not be informed of the pending application for exemption in
this wise:
As regards the first ground raised by [DAMBA-NSFW], it should be remembered that an
application for CARP-exemption pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, as
implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, is non-adversarial or non-
litigious in nature. Hence, applicant is correct in saying that nowhere in the rules is it required
that occupants of a landholding should be notified of an initiated or pending exemption
application.
xxxx
With regard [to] the allegation that oppositors-movants are already CLOA holders of subject
propert[ies] and deserve to be notified, as owners, of the initiated questioned exemption
application, is of no moment. The Supreme Court in the case of Roxas [&] Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 321 SCRA 106, held:
"We stress that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in
the acquisition proceedings does not give this Court the power to nullify the CLOA’s already
issued to the farmer beneficiaries. x x x x. Anyhow, the farmer[-]beneficiaries hold the property
in trust for the rightful owner of the land."
Since subject landholding has been validly determined to be CARP-exempt, therefore, the
previous issuance of the CLOA of oppositors-movants is erroneous. Hence, similar to the
situation of the above-quoted Supreme Court Decision, oppositors-movants only hold the
property in trust for the rightful owners of the land and are not the owners of subject
landholding who should be notified of the exemption application of applicant Roxas & Company,
Incorporated.
Finally, this Office finds no substantial basis to reverse the assailed Orders since there is
substantial compliance by the applicant with the requirements for the issuance of exemption
clearance under DAR AO 6 (1994).37
On DAMBA-NSFW’s petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals, noting that the petition was
belatedly filed, sustained, by Decision of December 20, 1994 and Resolution of May 7,
2007,38 the DAR Secretary’s finding that Roxas & Co. had substantially complied with the
prerequisites of DAR AO 6, Series of 1994. Hence, DAMBA-NFSW’s petition in G.R. No. 167505.
The Court finds no reversible error in the Court of Appeals’ assailed issuances, the orders of the
DAR Secretary which it sustained being amply supported by evidence.
IV. THE CLOAs ISSUED BY THE DAR in ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. A-9999-008-98 SUBJECT OF
G.R. No. 179650 TO THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES INVOLVING THE NINE PARCELS OF LAND IN
HACIENDA PALICO MUST BE CANCELLED.
Turning now to the validity of the issuance of CLOAs in Hacienda Palico vis-à-vis the present
dispositions: It bears recalling that in DAR Administrative Case Nos. A-9999-008-98 and A-9999-
142-97 (G.R. No. 179650), the Court ruled for Roxas & Co.’s grant of exemption in DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 but denied the grant of exemption in DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 for reasons already discussed. It follows that the CLOAs
issued to the farmer-beneficiaries in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 must be
cancelled.
But first, the Court digresses. The assertion of DAMBA-NSFW that the petitions for partial and
complete cancellations of the CLOAs subject of DARAB Case Nos. R-401-003-2001 to R-401-005-
2001 and No. 401-239-2001 violated the earlier order in Roxas v. Court of Appeals does not lie.
Nowhere did the Court therein pronounce that the CLOAs issued "cannot and should not be
cancelled," what was involved therein being the legality of the acquisition proceedings. The
Court merely reiterated that it is the DAR which has primary jurisdiction to rule on the validity
of CLOAs. Thus it held:
. . . [t]he failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in the
acquisition proceedings does not give this Court the power to nullify the [CLOAs] already issued
to the farmer-beneficiaries. To assume the power is to short-circuit the administrative process,
which has yet to run its regular course. Respondent DAR must be given the chance to correct its
procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. x x x x. Anyhow, the farmer beneficiaries hold
the property in trust for the rightful owner of the land.39
On the procedural question raised by Roxas & Co. on the appellate court’s relaxation of the rules
by giving due course to DAMBA-NFSW’s appeal in CA G.R. SP No. 72198, the subject of G.R. No.
167845:
Indeed, the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is jurisdictional and failure to do
so renders the assailed decision final and executory.40 A relaxation of the rules may, however, for
meritorious reasons, be allowed in the interest of justice.41 The Court finds that in giving due
course to DAMBA-NSFW’s appeal, the appellate court committed no reversible error. Consider
its ratiocination:
x x x x. To deny [DAMBA-NSFW]’s appeal with the PARAD will not only affect their right over the
parcel of land subject of this petition with an area of 103.1436 hectares, but also that of the
whole area covered by CLOA No. 6654 since the PARAD rendered a Joint Resolution of the
Motion for Reconsideration filed by the [DAMBA-NSFW] with regard to [Roxas & Co.]’s
application for partial and total cancellation of the CLOA in DARAB Cases No. R-401-003-2001 to
R-401-005-2001 and No. 401-239-2001. There is a pressing need for an extensive discussion of
the issues as raised by both parties as the matter of canceling CLOA No. 6654 is of utmost
importance, involving as it does the probable displacement of hundreds of farmer-beneficiaries
and their families. x x x x (underscoring supplied)
Unlike courts of justice, the DARAB, as a quasi-judicial body, is not bound to strictly observe
rules of procedure and evidence. To strictly enforce rules on appeals in this case would render
to naught the Court’s dispositions on the other issues in these consolidated petitions.
In the main, there is no logical recourse except to cancel the CLOAs issued for the nine parcels
of land identified as Lot Nos. 20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which are portions of
TCT No. 985 covering 45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico (or those covered by DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98). As for the rest of the CLOAs, they should be respected
since Roxas & Co., as shown in the discussion in G.R. Nos. 167540, 167543 and 167505, failed to
prove that the other lots in Hacienda Palico and the other two haciendas, aside from the above-
mentioned nine lots, are CARP-exempt.
Conformably, Republic Act No. 3844 (R.A. No. 3844), as amended, 42 mandates that disturbance
compensation be given to tenants of parcels of land upon finding that "(t)he landholding is
declared by the department head upon recommendation of the National Planning Commission
to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes." 43 In addition,
DAR AO No. 6, Series of 1994 directs the payment of disturbance compensation before the
application for exemption may be completely granted.
Roxas & Co. is thus mandated to first satisfy the disturbance compensation of affected farmer-
beneficiaries in the areas covered by the nine parcels of lands in DAR AO No. A-9999-008-98
before the CLOAs covering them can be cancelled. And it is enjoined to strictly follow the
instructions of R.A. No. 3844.
Finally then, and in view of the Court’s dispositions in G.R. Nos. 179650 and 167505, the May
27, 2001 Decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) 44 in DARAB Case No.
401-239-2001 ordering the total cancellation of CLOA No. 6654, subject of G.R. No. 169163, is
SET ASIDE except with respect to the CLOAs issued for Lot Nos. 20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1
and 48-2 which are portions of TCT No. 985 covering 45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico (or
those covered by DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98). It goes without saying that the
motion for reconsideration of DAMBA-NFSW is granted to thus vacate the Court’s October 19,
2005 Resolution dismissing DAMBA-NFSW’s petition for review of the appellate court’s Decision
in CA-G.R. SP No. 75952;45
WHEREFORE,
1) In G.R. No. 167540, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the November 24, 2003
Decision46 and March 18, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72131
which declared that Presidential Proclamation No. 1520 reclassified the lands in the
municipalities of Nasugbu in Batangas and Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite to non-
agricultural use;
2) The Court accordingly GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration of the Department of Agrarian
Reform in G.R. No. 167543 and REVERSES and SETS ASIDE its Resolution of June 20, 2005;
3) In G.R. No. 149548, the Court DENIES the petition for review of Roxas & Co. for lack of merit;
4) In G.R. No. 179650, the Court GRANTS the petition for review of DAMBA-NSFW
and REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the October 31, 2006 Decision and August 16, 2007 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82225;
5) In G.R. No. 167505, the Court DENIES the petition for review of DAMBA-NSFW
and AFFIRMS the December 20, 2004 Decision and March 7, 2005 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82226;
6) In G.R. No. 167845, the Court DENIES Roxas & Co.’s petition for review for lack of merit
and AFFIRMSthe September 10, 2004 Decision and April 14, 2005 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals;
7) In G.R. No. 169163, the Court SETS ASIDE the Decisions of the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator in DARAB Case No. 401-239-2001 ordering the cancellation of CLOA No. 6654 and
DARAB Cases Nos. R-401-003-2001 to No. R-401-005-2001 granting the partial cancellation of
CLOA No. 6654. The CLOAs issued for Lots No. 21 No. 24, No. 26, No. 31, No. 32 and No. 34 or
those covered by DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97) remain; and
8) Roxas & Co. is ORDERED to pay the disturbance compensation of affected farmer-
beneficiaries in the areas covered by the nine parcels of lands in DAR Administrative Case No. A-
9999-008-98 before the CLOAs therein can be cancelled, and is ENJOINED to strictly follow the
mandate of R.A. No. 3844.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.