You are on page 1of 2

CASE: ROXAS & CO. VS.

CA
FACTS:
Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas:
Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas.
The events of this case occurred during the incumbency of then President Corazon C. Aquino. In
February 1986, President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 promulgating a Provisional Constitution.
President Aquino signed on July 22, 1987, Proclamation No. 131 instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program and Executive Order No. 229 providing the mechanisms necessary to initially implement
the program.
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 laws effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell
Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later
placed under compulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL.
HACIENDA PALICO:
- Assessed by Municipal Agrarian Officer (MARO), subjected to acquisition and distribution
according to CARL.
- Petitioner applied with DAR for conversion of said hacienda from agricultural to non-agricultural
land.
- Application denied.
- Original TCT was replaced with CLOA (Certificate of Land Ownership Award, registered with
DAR) and compensated with appropriate value thru LBP Trust Accounts.
HACIENDA BANILAD:
- Same with Hacienda Palico.
HACIENDA CAYLAWAY
- Voluntarily offered to the government.
On August 24, 1993, petitioner instituted Case No. N-0017-96-46 (BA) with respondent DAR Adjudication
Board (DARAB) praying for the cancellation of the CLOAs issued by respondent DAR in the name of
several persons. Petitioner alleged that the Municipality of Nasugbu, where the haciendas are located,
had been declared a tourist zone, that the land is not suitable for agricultural production, and that the
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified the land to non-agricultural.
In a Resolution dated October 14, 1993, respondent DARAB held that the case involved the prejudicial
question of whether the property was subject to agrarian reform, hence, this question should be submitted
to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for determination.
Petitioners questioned the expropriation of its properties under the CARL and the denial of due process in
the acquisition of its landholdings.
MARO denied
CA denied; MR = denied
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid and in

accordance with law; and

2. W/N SC has the power to rule on whether the lots were reclassified from

agricultural to non-agricultural.
HELD:
1. YES. Acquisition proceedings was against petitioners right to due process.
First, there was an improper service of the Notice of Acquisition. Notices to corporations should
be served through their president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors or
partners. Jaime Pimintel, to whom the notice was served, was neither of those.
Second, there was no notice of coverage, meaning, the parcels of land were not properly
identified before they were taken by the DAR. Under the law, the land owner has the right to
choose 5 hectares of land he wishes to retain. Upon receiving the Notice of Acquisition, the
petitioner had no idea which portions of its estate were subject to compulsory acquisition.
Third, The CLOAs were issued to farmer beneficiaries without just compensation. The law
provides that the deposit must be made only in cash or LBP bonds. DARs opening of a trust
account in petitioners name does not constitute payment. Even if later, DAR substituted the trust
account with cash and LBP bonds, such does not cure the lack of notice, which still amounts to a
violation of the petitioners right to due process.
2. NO. Despite all this, the court has no jurisdiction to rule on the reclassification of land from
agricultural to non-agricultural.
DARs failure to observe due process does not give the court the power to adjudicate over
petitioners application for land conversion. DAR is charged with the mandate of approving
applications for land conversion. They have the tools and experience needed to evaluate such
applications; hence, they are the proper agency with which applications for land use conversion
are lodged. DAR should be given a chance to correct their defects with regard to petitioners right
to due process.
Petition dismissed.