You are on page 1of 3

25 NOVEMBER 2015

For : THE NCCA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Through : PROF. FELIPE M. DE LEON, JR.
Chairman

From : ATTY. G. AHMED G. PAGLINAWAN
NCCA Hearing Officer

Cc : ATTY. AGATHA ZAPANTA-DE JESUS
Prosecutor

Re : RECOMMENDATION TO (1) PERMANENTLY LIFT THE
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER DATED MARCH 2, 2015
ISSUED AGAINST HUANG HSIANG J. DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION FROM DEMOLISHING THE CARLOS
PALANCE, SR. RESIDENCE ALONG TAFT AVENUE,
PASAY CITY.; AND (2) ORDER THE RESPONDENT TO
IMPLEMENT FAITHFULLY THE PLAN OF ACTION AS
CONTAINED IN ITS “PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE CARLOS PALANCA SR. ANCESTRAL MANSION”.

I. RESOLUTION

Brought to our consideration and appropriate disposition on March 2, 2015 was the Petition for
the issuance of a cease and desist order by Isidra Reyes against Huang Hsiang J Development
Corporation in connection with Republic Act No. 10066, as amended.

II. PARTIES

The record of this case will show that respondent company is the developer of a certain realty
located at Taft Avenue Pasay City, specifically the former residence of Carlos Palanca, Sr.,
which allegedly was erected in 1940 in National Artist Pablo S. Antonio’s architectural fashion.
It is likewise claimed that the said property assumes further historical significance in view of
Palanca’s contributions to the distillery and motor industries, education, culture and arts, and
philanthropy in the country. These notwithstanding, the company has reportedly been tearing
down the Carlos Palanca, Sr. residence building, to say the very least, since February 25, 2015;
and unless immediately stopped, the physical integrity of the said property will be considerably
undermined.

On even date, the Commission issued a cease and desist order against the respondent company,
barring the same from further demolishing the subject property pending the resolution of the

Petitioner failed to appear. this Hearing Officer opines it best for petitioner’s statements therein to stay in the records only. residence along Taft Avenue as a memorial in the respondent company’s proposed building project on the said site. On March 5. the case was assigned to the undersigned as Hearing Officer. the respondent company filed its comment and opposition to the petition arguing that it is bereft of legal and factual basis. Ancestral Mansion – In Lieu of its near- total Demolition and lost Cultural & Heritage Value” plan. This Hearing Officer then endorsed the case for conference to explore the possibility of settling the controversy amicably. With . among other things. moved out of the said address without having duly notified this Tribunal. In the meantime. The petitioner had. III.Meanwhile. following a request for an extension of time to file its responsive pleading. We are likewise recommending the approval of the said proposal in view of it acceptability and viability. her last known address. The conference was then reset to August 25. the respondent company submitted a copy of its “Proposed Site Development of the Carlos Palanca Sr. Sr. this Tribunal issued a notice of hearing setting the case for initial hearing and ordering the parties to appear on March 16. Petitioner again failed to appear despite having been duly notified by this Tribunal. we are recommending the approval thereof. particularly the current physical condition of the subject property. the respondent company filed a motion for the permanent quashal /lifting if the cease and desist order issued by the Commission against it as well as for the dismissal of the Petition and the approval of the proposal it submitted to the Commission. In the pleading the Petitioner filed. as appearing in the records of the case. it caused the service a copy of the said proposed site development plan. Although the pleading petitioner filed was duly admitted into the records. and the lack of any substantial countervailing evidence. 2015. Thus. Soon thereafter. At the hearing on the said motion on September 10. with Atty. in the interim. Quezon City. As satisfactorily established by the respondent company. In relation thereto.case. On the other hand. the respondent company moved for a conference in an effort to amicably settle the controversy with an offer to. drawings and design to the Commission. 2015. this Hearing Officer opines that the Commission’s mandate would be fittingly served should the respondent Huang Hsiang J Development Corporation’s settlement proposal be approved. 2015. she clearly failed to address the respondent company’s proposal and instead focused on matters irrelevant to the case. 2015. RECOMMENDATION Having carefully considered Petitioner’s offer. the respondent company under took to furnish the petitioner with a copy thereof before the next setting. Agatha Zapanta-De Jesus. as prosecutor. the respondent company asked for the quashal or lifting of the cease and desist order as well as the removal of the presumption of important cultural property over the subject residence. Acropolis Greens. 2015. During the hearing on the petition. 2015. During the conference set on July 30. drawings and design on the petitioner at the new address that she provided to the Commission during the said hearing. On May. . 2015. put up a small replica of the Carlos Palanca. petitioner appeared. this Hearing Officer ordered the continuation of conference proceedings (for possible amicable settlement). drawings and design on the petitioner at 23 Atlas Street. Bagumbayan. 25. to obviate unnecessary incidents arising. petitioner was tasked to comment on the respondent company’s settlement offer. as well as the actualities of the case. Meanwhile. This Hearing Officer directed the respondent company to furnish a copy of the proposed site development plan. During the conference set on August 25.

Ancestral Mansion – In Lieu of its near-total Demolition and lost Cultural & Heritage Value.” Further. All issues collateral to the issue as discussed in this recommendation are deemed quashed and accordingly dismissed. in behalf of this Tribunal. Wherefore. expresses his utmost gratitude to Petitioner for her vigilance and dedication to the protection of this nation’s cultural heritage.the settlement of the said controversy. to implement faithfully the plan of action as contained in its “Proposed Site Development of the Carlos Palanca Sr. All matters not otherwise subsumed in this recommendation are excluded from the ambit of the Commission’s resolution of this case. Respondent is hereby RECOMMENDED discharged from any other obligation arising out of the present controversy other than what is hereby recommended. as it is hereby ordered. this Hearing Officer RECOMMENDS the permanent lifting of the CEASE AND DESIST ORDER dated March 2. For your positive consideration. Finally. 2015. this Hearing Officer. The Commission honors Petitioner Isidra Reyes for her invaluable participation in the present case. . we are recommending the termination of the case as well as the lifting of the cease and desist order. Respondent is ORDERED. in view of the foregoing.