EN BANC

[G.R. No. 149548. December 4, 2009.]

ROXAS & COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. DAMBA-NFSW and
the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, * respondents.
[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.
[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), represented by LAURO MARTIN,
petitioners, vs. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, ROXAS & CO., INC., respondents.
[G.R. No. 167543. December 4, 2009.]
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORM, FORMERLY DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR), petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO,
INC., respondent.
[G.R. No. 167845. December 4, 2009.]

ROXAS & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. DAMBA-NFSW, respondent.

[G.R. No. 169163. December 4, 2009.]
DAMBA-NFSW REPRESENTED BY LAURO V. MARTIN,
petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO., INC., respondent.
[G.R. No. 179650. December 4, 2009.]
DAMBA-NFSW, petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO., INC., respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J :
p

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.
xxx xxx xxx

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.
xxx xxx xxx
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.
xxx xxx xxx 2 (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;
HIaSDc

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 agricultural 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 haciendasincluding 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
exemptionfrom 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 nonagricultural use to exempt Roxas & Co.'s three haciendas in
Nasugbu from CARP coverage;
HSAcaE

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 NONAGRICULTURAL 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. . . .
B. Proclamations declaring general areas such as whole provinces,
municipalities, barangays, islands or peninsulas as tourist zones that
merely:
ASETHC

(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. . . .) 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 nonagricultural 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 . . . .
D. . . . . (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 nonagricultural 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.
HCITcA

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 tenantfarmers.
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 "welldefined 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. 647 19 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 2009 21 also impacts on the
present petitions since Section 32 thereof states that:
Sec. 32. . . . . 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. . . . . (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-9999142-97 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.
DcICEa

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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 Secretary 26 denied

of Roxas & Co., however, in this wise:

the

application

for

exemption

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, respectively. 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)
xxx xxx xxx
[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

ZonesBarangay Cogunan was not included. . . . . 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)
DICSaH

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 CAG.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 Secretary 30 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--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 DAMBANFSW 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. Garilao 33 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-9999-008-98 FOR 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;
TaISEH

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
xxx xxx xxx (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.
xxx xxx xxx

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. . . . . 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 CARPexempt, therefore, the previous issuance of the CLOA of oppositorsmovants is erroneous. Hence, similar to the situation of the abovequoted 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. A9999-008-98 SUBJECT OF G.R. No. 179650 TO THE FARMERBENEFICIARIES INVOLVING THE NINE PARCELS OF LAND IN
HACIENDA PALICO MUST BECANCELLED.
TAacIE

Turning now to the validity of the issuance of CLOAs in Hacienda Palico

vis--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. A9999-008-98 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-9999008-98 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. 401-2392001 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. . . . . 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:

. . . . 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. 401239-2001. 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. . . .
(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 CARPexempt.
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.
HDTCSI

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 inHacienda 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 Decision 46 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 AFFIRMS the 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-401003-2001 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.

CacTSI

(Roxas & Co., Inc. v. DAMBA-NFSW, G.R. No. 149548, 167505, 167540,
167543, 167845, 169163, 179650, [December 4, 2009], 622 PHIL 37-200)
|||